|
TheRedCrumpet posted:Isn't it common sense that evolution breeds gender based likes and dislikes to some degree? Exposure has something to do with it sure, but I don't think it's purely gender roles that make men enjoy aggressive sports more than women do on average. ummmmmmmmmm no not really
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:ummmmmmmmmm Are you really denying that men's and women's glands begin producing different hormones during puberty that cause different brain structures to be more or less pronounced on average between the genders? Because that is the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Are you really denying that men's and women's glands begin producing different hormones during puberty that cause different brain structures to be more or less pronounced on average between the genders? Because that is the case. Yeah sure, there are intrinsic physiological differences between men and women but they are not the only things that affects your behaviour. Testosterone drives aggression and libido in both genders, but the testerone level of a passive male with low sex drive will still be higher than an aggressive woman with high sex drive. In this case, the woman would be seen to be more "manly" than the male despite you know, her being physiologically female. I think it's fairly obvious that this can be a problem considering how many men and women in the world grapple with how society deems that they are not acting appropriately to their gender. I mean this falls under what the whole feminism and equality movement is about. Why is aggression seen to be a male trait, why can't it just be a human trait that both sexes exhibit? Why is a dude mocked because he wants to stay at home and raise kids? Why can't we just remove value judgements about what is appropriate behaviour for one's gender and just let people be what they want to be? What good do gender roles do for us when they are just used to bludgeon people who don't fall under them back in line? Society isn't going to collapse if men are allowed to be interior designers and women aren't relentlessly reminded that they aren't being feminine enough because they are studying engineering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
TheRedCrumpet posted:Social Justice Warriors are people who have lost touch with reality. Instead of seeing that life screws everyone and we should be working together to improve life for all, they become aggressive towards people for things they can't help. They see your white skin and instantly put your hardships below that of someone with dark skin, just because they were born that way. So I as a white male, am lower on the scale than a black female, even if said black female was Hillary Banks from the Fresh Prince. It's not about making you lower though, just opening you up to the realization that even poor white guys as a group have a leg up on other poor people as a group, even if they (due to being poor) are also severely disadvantaged and struggling. It's not that they don't struggle, it's that other people struggle as well, while also having to live with the threat of cops just killing/arresting them for the lightest of provocation to a much greater degree. That's the ideal though, and it shifts immediately into Social Justice Warrior territory the moment you try to make a moral judgment based on this, especially on the individual level. The whole thing functions much much better when talking about groups and society as a whole, but that obviously defeats the purpose for transnigger snowflakes who want to yell at people based on stuff they were born with. (Many of whom are probably not "checking their privilege" when it comes to economic status.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Yeah, but no one has really convincingly demonstrated that those brain structures have definite effects on predisposition that can be isolated from other determining factors. Do they matter? Probably, to some extent. How much? Well, that's yet to be figured out, if it ever will be, but certainly not enough to hold together the usual  arguments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
Eej posted:Yeah sure, there are intrinsic physiological differences between men and women but they are not the only things that affects your behaviour. Testosterone drives aggression and libido in both genders, but the testerone level of a passive male with low sex drive will still be higher than an aggressive woman with high sex drive. In this case, the woman would be seen to be more "manly" than the male despite you know, her being physiologically female. I think it's fairly obvious that this can be a problem considering how many men and women in the world grapple with how society deems that they are not acting appropriately to their gender. It's the same criticism with anarchism. Do away with government and a new one will rise to take its place. Might as well try to form an effective government from the start.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Yeah, Biotruths have a significant amount of assumptions behind their ideas, and it always comes off as a pseudoscience. After reading this thread, though, it feels like it always comes from men, who while they don't hold any personal prejudices against women, are aware of the inequalities that exist between men and women around them. However, since they assume people are like them, and don't think of women as incapable or weak, they look for another explanation for the difference and figure it has to come from those weird periods womenfolk get.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:40
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Yeah, Biotruths have a significant amount of assumptions behind their ideas, and it always comes off as a pseudoscience. After reading this thread, though, it feels like it always comes from men, who while they don't hold any personal prejudices against women, are aware of the inequalities that exist between men and women around them. However, since they assume people are like them, and don't think of women as incapable or weak, they look for another explanation for the difference and figure it has to come from those weird periods womenfolk get.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:Yeah, Biotruths have a significant amount of assumptions behind their ideas, and it always comes off as a pseudoscience. After reading this thread, though, it feels like it always comes from men, who while they don't hold any personal prejudices against women, are aware of the inequalities that exist between men and women around them. However, since they assume people are like them, and don't think of women as incapable or weak, they look for another explanation for the difference and figure it has to come from those weird periods womenfolk get. But to his original point that there aren't many woman who matriculate into engineering or the hard sciences: Why is this inherently bad? I know full well there are assumed gender roles and people in positions of authority dissuade and assume young girls simply aren't suited for being an engineer. I get that. But why is it bad that engineering departments don't have more women? I'm willing to give most college women the benefit of the doubt and assume they are making their own decisions, if they don't want to join the engineering program why is that a problem? If they don't want to be an engineer they don't want to be an engineer. Universities jump all over themselves to give women engineering and science scholarships to boost their numbers, the applicants simply aren't there. Hell if we want to get right down to it the hard sciences are the only departments left where men outnumber women in universities. To bring it back to the board topic what I'm getting at is this: Honest campaigners for equality recognize social and cultural pressures that influence women from an early age to move away from the hard sciences and work to address those. SJW's on the other hand will bitch, moan, demonstrate, and generally try to destroy an engineering department for not having more women when the engineering department would love nothing more than to have more girls apply, the interest just simply isn't there. Basically: SJW's are slacktivists who reduce any problem to the easiest target and attack that without addressing the actual causes. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
ThePriceJustWentUp posted:Because without any outside influences telling people how to act, that zero point will just be the starting point from which new outside influences onto an individul are organically created by society and you've effectively escaped nothing. Gender roles exist for this reason. Might as well hope to modify conceptions of gender roles rather than unrealistically hope to do away with them altogether. There's plenty of ways of telling people how to act that don't revolve around how men and women should behave. What societal purpose do "men are the strong protectors" and "women are the weak nurturers" serve that we actually want to preserve? Especially when these gender roles tend to be drilled into children when they're young. Boys don't cry because men aren't supposed to show emotional weakness, boys will be boys because men are allowed to do lovely things because it's in their nature, girls shouldn't climb up trees and play rough with boys etc. because it makes them unfeminine and therefore undesirable to boys (because society wants women to behave a certain way to be attractive etc.). I really don't see what valuable thing would be lost if we transitioned to a society where we just told everyone to treat everyone else with the same amount of respect regardless of what genitalia they have. e: Pook Good Mook posted:But to his original point that there aren't many woman who matriculate into engineering or the hard sciences: It's not inherently "bad" if you base your view on the matter with the assumption that social equality has been reached and there is some kind of biological premise for an overwhelming minority of females caring about tinkering with poo poo. Eej fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
I'm just saying that Biotruths seem come from people who have a relatively positive view of women, but aren't necessarily sympathetic to them. I don't know how spurious they are, there might be some explanations that are correct. But when I hear something obviously wrong like "Women aren't Engineers because they aren't programmed to be as much as men," I think it usually comes from that type of dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
TheRedCrumpet posted:Isn't it common sense that evolution breeds gender based likes and dislikes to some degree? Exposure has something to do with it sure, but I don't think it's purely gender roles that make men enjoy aggressive sports more than women do on average. No, you're pretty stupid with regards to men biologically being better engineers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
WINNERSH TRIANGLE posted:Not really - 'arche/αρχη' is lordship as in rulership, , while 'kyrios/κυριος' is lord as in 'sir', a term of respect to someone more immediate to you. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
SJWs are what happened when people moved from LiveJournal to Tumblr, heard smart people say things, and then glommed onto it and started treating actual social issues with the same general approach and feverishness as they do their Captain America/Iron Man slash fics. Actually it's funny because a lot of the time their "SJW" beliefs stop at whatever their own personal tastes are. There's a very well known Tumblr SJW/fanartist who goes on about ableism and other things but then turns around and draws incest art of the sisters from Frozen because she's obsessed with lesbian pairings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Eej posted:
That's you putting words in my mouth. Why do we as a society want more woman engineers if not for some misguided attempt to make every educational and professional achievement a 50-50 split between men and women? You want to attack the social and cultural constructs that tell women "You aren't supposed to build stuff, men do that"? Fine. But don't frame it that the fact that there are more women doing something than men an inherently "bad" thing. More men than women want to be engineers. That's all you can definitively prove from current enrollment and graduation numbers. You can't prove that every woman who isn't in the program was told she couldn't. That more would want to if they were given better encouragement. That the men in the department ran them out. You can't. No matter how much you want to you can't. You explain to me how schools should somehow conjure this demand from women who want to be engineers right this very second. You can't because every woman who wants to be an engineer is already doing it. The reason those departments are under-representative of the population of women in this country is because every woman who wants to be a scientist or engineer is already working to be one. You want to talk in the abstract? Things that will aid our society by making sure that no one is turned away from an opportunity because of social norms and expectations fine. But don't try to tell me that there are less women engineers than men and then tell me it's "bad" if your only argument amounts to the idea that there should be more women doing something for no other reason than currently a lot of men do it. Are you going to say the same thing about men in English departments? In Art departments? In Communications or Psych departments? Or any other Liberal Arts program where women outnumber men? I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:That's you putting words in my mouth. Why do we as a society want more woman engineers if not for some misguided attempt to make every educational and professional achievement a 50-50 split between men and women? Because environments which are homogenous in culture tend to breed types that are hostile to outside groups, even just groups in general rather than people trying to join their environment. In other words, having engineers be primarily white men makes a lot of people that are hostile to people who aren't white men, even if it's just [random black lady] instead of a minority trying to be an engineer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Because environments which are homogenous in culture tend to breed types that are hostile to outside groups, even just groups in general rather than people trying to join their environment. And I completely agree. I would love us to live in a world where little girls who like to play with tinker toys are allowed to foster and grow their natural curiousity and go on to build skyscrapers. My point is don't blame engineering or science departments who are already throwing full-ride scholarships at every woman applicant they can find for not having more female students. They have enrolled every interested women in the entire country, there simply aren't as many women interested in becoming engineers and scientists as there are men. What SJW's don't understand is that it isn't the fault of a university science department. The problem has much, much deeper roots than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:And I completely agree. I would love us to live in a world where little girls who like to play with tinker toys are allowed to foster and grow their natural curiousity and go on to build skyscrapers. And the problems are literally what you dismissed a post ago: quote:You can't prove that every woman who isn't in the program was told she couldn't. That more would want to if they were given better encouragement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
It's a well known fact MLK hated "allies" and ran hell of tumblrs shaming their so-called support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
I don't think at any point I said that schools are to blame for women not being interested in hard sciences and engineering. Anyway.Pook Good Mook posted:Why do we as a society want more woman engineers if not for some misguided attempt to make every educational and professional achievement a 50-50 split between men and women? I'll put it this way. If we have a population that is roughly split 50:50 between male and female, then you would expect a roughly 50:50 split, give or take a few points, for any non-gender specific things. However, in certain areas like engineering we have significant differences in this ratio. So there has to be a reason for this. If the reason is men are biologically more suited for engineering than women, then following this premise our current situation is acceptable and we would acknowledge that most women are mentally incapable of studying and practicing engineering at the same level as the average man. If you don't think this is the case, then the other option is a societal issue. So if our social standards are what is preventing us from having anywhere close to a 50:50 ratio, then that's a bad thing. I'm not saying "Oh, we should have universities mandate an even split between male and female students". No, that'd be ridiculous. Also, yes, I would say the same for men in women dominated fields. Nursing is a perfectly acceptable profession for a man and yet something like 10% of all nurse are male (up from 3% 40 years ago, that's progress!) and I think we all know why this is the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Sorry I'm late guys, but I found the answer the OP was looking for, we should probably lock the thread now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And the problems are literally what you dismissed a post ago: quote:You can't prove that every woman who isn't in the program was told she couldn't. That more would want to if they were given better encouragement. You can't! You start out with a premise that there are less women then there should be in certain fields. OK sure. Where are they? What's the percentage who missed out? This is the problem with poo poo like this. You want social change but then you can't give any god drat numbers. You start out with a tautology that we all pretty much agree with and then you can't point out the next steps you would think must exist. Instead we do some circular argument bullshit and everyone has yet to hear any hard numbers or examples. Let's assume that every woman on a college campus has the ability to decide for herself what they want to do. And then let's just take the fact that college's have done everything they possibly can to get more women into their science programs. The fact that there is still a disproportionate number of men isn't because of the college and certainly isn't because of the women on the campus who simply don't want to be engineers. The problem is our societal pressures that tell girls there are just somethings you don't do. If you want to rail on the end result, namely that there aren't as many women as man in science programs then you are either saying that college science departments are intentionally turning away qualified women applicants or saying that girls are wrong for doing what they want to do. Because those are the only two things that have a direct agency with the two players we're talking about : women, and science departments. What I'm getting at is the insistence on blaming the end result for problems that are much deeper and have almost nothing to do with the most noticeable outcome of the system is the reason why people get so tired of online activist horseshit. We all agree on the problem but it seems to be just a circle jerk on continually identifying the most obvious culprit you can find which in most cases have next to nothing to do with the actual problem. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
Yeah, you focus on reshaping society so it stops telling people that men must behave this way and women must behave this way and maybe then we'll have less gender disparity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
Eej posted:Yeah, you focus on reshaping society so it stops telling people that men must behave this way and women must behave this way and maybe then we'll have less gender disparity. Eej: I get what you're saying and again I'm not disputing there is a problem. I'm just so tired of social justice activism relying on things that are said as if they are self-evident but never digging any deeper as to why they are self-evident or what the real solutions are. I apologize for coming off as so abrasive but the constant "This is bad because this is also bad" logic that permeates social justice is just endless circle jerking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 08:15
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Eej: I get what you're saying and again I'm not disputing there is a problem. I'm just so tired of social justice activism relying on things that are said as if they are self-evident but never digging any deeper as to why they are self-evident or what the real solutions are. I apologize for coming off as so abrasive but the constant "This is bad because this is also bad" logic that permeates social justice is just endless circle jerking.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:You want to talk in the abstract? Things that will aid our society by making sure that no one is turned away from an opportunity because of social norms and expectations fine. But don't try to tell me that there are less women engineers than men and then tell me it's "bad" if your only argument amounts to the idea that there should be more women doing something for no other reason than currently a lot of men do it. 1. Men and women are nowhere near as different as society tells them they are. 2. People's decision making is not free of societal influence, even assuming no hard barriers. 3. Greater diversity within a profession allows for a greater breadth of perspectives, resulting in more nuanced views among the members of the profession. This is a good thing, for a variety of reasons. If you can accept these assumptions, strong gender imbalances in various professions are decent enough indicators that society is still telling men and women that certain professions/roles belong to the others. (The argument becomes much stronger obviously when combined with studies of the population of course, instead of relying solely on a single number which might have more than one cause.) I don't think you really have to push for a perfect 50:50 distribution, just getting it to 40:60 and letting things play out naturally from there would probably see it approach pretty close to whatever equilibrium differences between the sexes would create in a "natural" state. I also feel like pointing out that engineering does not have to be as male-dominated as it is in the Anglosphere, with actual real life numbers. In the UK, 9.5% of engineering undergraduates were women in 2005-2006, the same number for Australia, Canada and the US being 14.1%, 18.5%, and 19.3% respectively. In Denmark, in 2012, 35% of the enrolled engineering students were women, and within certain departments they were a majority. There no quotas or affirmative action in play here in Denmark, so either we can assume Danish women are biologically superior engineers compared to their British counterparts, or British society just pushes the idea that engineering isn't for women much harder. Which sounds more likely? Pook Good Mook posted:Are you going to say the same thing about men in English departments? In Art departments? In Communications or Psych departments? Or any other Liberal Arts program where women outnumber men? I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you had ever taken the time to look into this, you would be well aware that feminists also care a great deal about men being underrepresented in certain fields, just like they do for women in others. Not all of them obviously, but opening up those fields to men and making men feel comfortable doing "feminine" jobs helps break down the assumptions about gender that hold women back too, even in an entirely woman-centric view of the problem. A very good post, thanks. Regarding the last part, I actually did know that. Despite the persona that my views probably allude to I actually stayed pretty up on these things in college and do my best to stay abreast of issues even now. My commentary was regarding internet activism that generally follows this flowchart: 1: Point out a self-evident truth 2: Automatically allude to another bad thing that isn't really proved by the first but it's at least close enough that you can get there 3: Because 1 + 2 therefore X 4: Feign indigence (at best) and deride bonafides when someone points out the problem with the logical chain. For what it's worth I already agreed with the premise and your complete post, you said it better than I could. I just can't stand lazy activism. The simple act of indicating and categorizing inequality is not a solution to it. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
This is one of those things where the correct answer is probably the South Park/"somewhere in the middle" one. People rightly complain about biotruths when it's regarding something obviously cultural, like girls wearing pink, or aversion to homosexuality, but at the same time, there's a big, big problem with feminists who do work from the assumed position that all gender is a fraud and therefore any observed differences between men and women are inherently bad and should be eliminated. This really isn't based on anything other than ideology. You can go and observe clear and distinct gender roles in nature, the idea that they're somehow a human construct is completely absurd, but that isn't to say that there aren't a huge number of cultural values built on top of that. This also leads, though, to the hilariously narcissistic version, where whoever's making the argument effectively declares themselves Subject Zero, and that anybody who wants different things to them must be fundamentally broken. These are the people who constantly discuss why men do "X" without ever actually asking any men. I had a discussion once with somebody who believed that the biggest issue men had was "not crying enough". She cried at a whole bunch of stuff, therefore men must inherently feel the same and be pretending not to cry. Men's lived experience telling her that this was complete nonsense and that they had no interest, as well as the fact that men crying more has zero social benefit, was all swept away in the tide of "gender is a social construct".
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
You see how everybody is talking above? That's what a SJW doesn't do. They called each other idiots but gave arguments and evidence to support their point. It got hot but it's still fairly civil. The SJW would announce to the thread 'Pook Good Mook, you're disgusting' and then make ad hominem attacks until everybody abandoned the thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:A very good post, thanks. In short, people should call out others who argue badly, or with spurious "facts", not just cheer them on because they ostensibly agree/are on the same "side".
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Ask SJWs about the following topics to figure out how hypocritical they are: Salafists/hard core Islamists Jews Japanese war crimes Condoleeza Rice Basically, your typical American SJW has no conception of oppression other than "white man oppresses minorities who have dark skin." Oppression based on religion or class is pretty much a total non-issue for them and they just ignore it. They also pretty much ignore anything bad that their favorite brown people do. God forbid someone suggest that Taliban throwing acid on little girls going to school is worse than a man in a bar in America calling a fat girl fat. They are also pretty worthless to argue with because they assume you know all the jargon that they do and if you start to win, they just gather their friends/sock puppets and claim that you daring to disagree with them is proof that you hate whatever minority group they claim to be a part of. The only way to really win is claim to be a part of a group that gets more oppression points than them (although if you are a minority and have dissenting/conservative views, you are basically a race traitor). My favorite SJW incident has to be when Riley (an extremely abrasive black Tumblr personality) got into a disagreement with a female Pakistani Tumblr user, Mehreen. For reasons known only to herself, Riley decided to attempt to discredit Mehreen by claiming that one of Riley's Pakistani friends had seen Mehreen in a bar in Lahore. Mehreen is an observant Muslim, so I guess this was supposed to make her look bad. Unfortunately, Mehreen only responded by making fun of Riley's obvious lack of knowledge about Lahore, and not the more obvious point that attempting to shame a Muslim woman by claiming she goes to bars is really weird and regressive. Another great incident is when SJWs ganged up on a deaf, transgendered user for daring to ask for a transcript of a video. OMG BYZANTIUM fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Apr 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Testikles posted:You see how everybody is talking above? That's what a SJW doesn't do. They called each other idiots but gave arguments and evidence to support their point. It got hot but it's still fairly civil. If the goal is to keep discussion going though, the dismissive term SJW should be retired. It's kind of like how people accuse others of being politically correct, when they're actually being regular correct. Why argue about something that could possibly reach an uncomfortable universal truth? Just say they're "politically" correct, and dismiss the argument entirely. SJW serves the same purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
SJWs ruined this website. Thanks and god bless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
caring about things, especially things that don't affect you personally, is for faggots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 20:30
|
|
im a girl btw posted:caring about things, especially things that don't affect you personally, is for faggots. Acting indignant and irrational and screaming really loud is for faggots
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
What I learned from this thread is that pretending to be a SJW is a good way to troll a bunch of easily upset people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Trigger Warning: wolves, manes, dire wolves, thetans?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:What I learned from this thread is that pretending to be a SJW is a good way to troll a bunch of easily upset people. I'd argue that someone isn't pretending to be a SJW, and in fact is a SJW, when they spend half a year obsessively "pretending" to be one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
OMG BYZANTIUM posted:My favorite SJW incident has to be when Riley (an extremely abrasive black Tumblr personality) got into a disagreement with a female Pakistani Tumblr user, Mehreen. For reasons known only to herself, Riley decided to attempt to discredit Mehreen by claiming that one of Riley's Pakistani friends had seen Mehreen in a bar in Lahore. Mehreen is an observant Muslim, so I guess this was supposed to make her look bad. Unfortunately, Mehreen only responded by making fun of Riley's obvious lack of knowledge about Lahore, and not the more obvious point that attempting to shame a Muslim woman by claiming she goes to bars is really weird and regressive. Mehreen got on Riley's bad side because she made a post talking about how people on Tumblr talk a lot but never actually do anything. They don't protest or demonstrate or anything like that and that if they want to change things they need to do that. She's Pakistani-American but her family is from Pakistan and she's been living there for a long time and is working as a teacher there. Anyway that post pissed off someone (sotrieu I think) who's part of Riley's little Tumblr circle who immediately started crying about how she's ableist because some times people aren't able to protest and how she's also racist becaue if you're black you don't want to go to jail. Since this person was part of Riley's circle Riley and her crew proceeded to harass and stalk her online for a while. Then they'd stop for a few months, then randomly start up again. The "bar in Lahore" incident was like the third or fourth time they started. All because someone told them "stop complaining and actually DO something".
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
Eej posted:So if our social standards are what is preventing us from having anywhere close to a 50:50 ratio, then that's a bad thing. I'm not saying "Oh, we should have universities mandate an even split between male and female students". No, that'd be ridiculous. So why aren't you in engineering then? Be the change you want to see in the world and all that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 02:08
|
|
