Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
Posts
14942 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dannyboy-the-Dane
-
-
@Hamishmash, sexism has been a plague on both genders for millennia, and it's only recently that we've started opening our eyes to that fact. The continued dismissal of male sexism as a serious problem only perpetuates the myth that women are the only ones negatively affected by the gender roles of old.
-
To those who think male sexism isn't really a problem or is "trivial" at best, I highly recommend you actually read up on it. There's a YouTuber by the name of GirlWritesWhat who has some great videos on the topic, and I'd particularly recommend
as a good starting point. Male sexism is so ingrained in our culture that we tend to think "that's just the way it is", and that's utterly horrible. All sexism is. -
8. Is it Buzz?
-
I don't think it is. Cancer and, say, heart disease are two different kettles of fish would require completely different people with a lifetime's worth of knowledge to understand them. In fact, several lifetimes of knowledge. So I could completely understand different knowledge bases dedicated to them.
It makes no sense to me why that site couldn't also include sexism towards men. It also makes a statement in focusing only on women, one that many in this thread have picked up on.
I also agree with the double standards thing some people are saying. If you are openly sexist to women in most modern workplaces these days you will have your balls chopped off. Yet I often see sexist remarks towards men that are completely disregarded by everyone else.
You could also make the argument that sexism as a problem is genderless and an expression of old norms and roles that are restrictive to everyone. In light of that it makes less sense to focus exclusively and separately on men's issues or women's issues - in that case it's a universal, human problem.
-
The problem is that there's still much more focus on women's right than on men's in the grand scheme of things, and there's still far too much scepticism regarding men even having problems at all - unfortunately perpetuated by at least some feminists. To continue your medical analogy, when there are ten research groups for cancer and only one for Parkinson's (and let's assume for the sake of the accuracy of the analogy that those two diseases are equally dangerous) and people still advocate creation of more cancer research groups while doubting whether Parkinson's is even a real disease, it starts to become a problem.
-
Because that's the thing: We can't just focus on women's issues and call it equality. We're not trying to steal anyone's thunder. There's plenty of focus on women's issues, and we'd never be able to stop that even if we wanted to - which we don't. We simply want focus on gender equality for everyone - not just women, not just men, not just heterosexuals or homosexuals or transgender people etc. etc. The fact that attempts to make the debate general are so often taken as attempts to turn the focus solely towards men is to me proof enough in itself that there's a real and serious problem here.
-
Oh, I never intended to paint it as men vs women. Quite the opposite, in fact. Unfortunately it's often taken that way when men's rights are brought up.
-
No, I said the site perpetuated the myth that sexism is a female-only problem. The feminist-with-a-wooden-spoon joke was obviously just that, a joke.
I think it's great if you're able to shrug off people being dicks to you. I endeavour to live up to that creed myself. But the way jay said it echoed in my ears as the typical response men seem to get whenever they wish to draw attention to their problems. They're expected to "man up" and get over it.
-
I experience sexism daily. And you know what I do.
I GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
Tell that to a woman experiencing sexism and there'll be at least ten feminists at the ready to chop your balls off with a wooden spoon.
Why is it that men have to suck up sexism when women don't? Hell, I'm not even bothered by sexism in my everyday life, but I recognise blatant hypocrisy when I see it. Except we often don't, because the double standards are so entrenched in our culture that they've become the norm to us.
-
The problem is that sites like that perpetuate the myth. It's a fine concept, so why restrict it to females? Look how easy it is to remedy:
"The Everyday Sexism Project exists to catalogue instances of sexism experienced by people on a day to day basis. They might be serious or minor, outrageously offensive or so niggling and normalised that you don’t even feel able to protest. Say as much or as little as you like, use your real name or a pseudonym – it’s up to you. By sharing your story you’re showing the world that sexism does exist, it is faced by people everyday and it is a valid problem to discuss."
-
"I just stumbled upon a website that assumes sexism is only a female problem."
I am so tempted to submit that.
-
I'm sort of in the middle. I'm still shy and can find it awkward to talk to people I don't know, but it was a lot worse in the past, and ... well, honestly it was just a matter of doing it anyway. It was awkward, it was scary, it was uncomfortable, but I did it anyway, and the more I did it, the more I got used to it and realised it didn't have nearly as disastrous results as I'd thought.
So ... on the one hand I can nod approvingly to Charlie's advice, but on the other hand I still remember how difficult it was then. And some people indubitably have it worse than I did, so I can sympathise with people saying that it isn't nearly as easy as it sounds.
-
Well, no, I don't think so. If I'm interested in her, I'll want to keep in contact. If she's not interested in more than friendship, then we'll be friends. If she's not interested in anything, then we'll probably slip away from each other, but I probably won't purposefully ignore her. I don't think I ever would purposefully ignore someone for any reason, really.
Then again I'm hardly any sort of model to judge male behaviour by.
Could it be that he's afraid of the answer and keeping a distance for that reason? Perhaps he's afraid to seem too eager or in doubt about how the relationship is currently standing? Maybe he's simply not sure how to act at this point and thus prefers to avoid the risk of messing anything up?
-
That was bloody hilarious!
-
Well it doesn't have to be a letter per se, it could just be an email or fb message. Just different from saying it face to face. Although a fb message is a little bit convenient, so if you did right a letter, would she take it to be cheesy and too much, or would she be impressed that you went to the effort, and realise how sincere you were?
Yeah, I guess. Believe me, doing it in writing would be so much easier, but it also feels a bit cowardly. I might end up doing that, though, since ... well, I am a coward.
One word... drink! It's the best fail safe in that situation. If you're both getting drunk, increase the flirting as the night goes on, drop in a few compliments as well, the old 'i never noticed how ... you are' line for example and then try your luck with a kiss near the end of the night. At the end of the day, if it goes badly, you can say you were drunk, then again if it goes well, you've broken that ice and can discuss it the next day.If you dont drink, then i think you just have to come out with it. It's a matter of timing though. You'd have to do it at a time when you're both relaxed and having a laugh. It cant be too intense either - if you sit her down and be all like "ive liked you for ages now, how do you fee?" she's gonna freak. Something half-joking would be better to test the water, while you're both laughing just say like 'we'd be a good couple you know!" and watch her reaction like a hawk.
I'm just tired of such games and charades. I'm no good at them. That's why I've decided I'm just going to be upfront. It's just a matter of figuring out how best to do that.
Anyway, thanks for the advice, guys. It's given me a little more confidence.
-
Oh, I'm not worried we won't stay friends if she's not interested. I'm cool with that.
Do people actually write love letters anymore? It seems a bit cliché and perhaps ... too much?
-
I think you're underestimating how well we actually know each other. We're already good friends and have done stuff together just the two of us, so if the relationship is to move any further, it doesn't do to keep beating around the bush. The point is that I somehow need to make my interest known, otherwise I believe we're just staying friends.
-
At the moment I'm trying to figure out how to best approach a friend about how I like her and whether she would be interested in seeing if we could turn into more than friends. Do I ask her on a date, or would that be redundant seeing as we already know each other? Do I just spit it out, or would that be too direct? Argh! I'm thinking too hard about this!
-
3. Starwing
5. Amnesia: The Dark Descent
-
I was a little surprised they dropped Barney and Quinn this quickly after the series 7 finale. Of course we knew it wouldn't last, but I expected it to go on for longer than two episodes.
Still, overall it was a really good episode, and Barney did learn something from the relationship, so it didn't feel pointless.
-
see now this here illustrates my problem! by doctor who logic once something is read it has to happen (aka breaking wrists etc) so the book MUST be written and published by River AFTER all of the events, which means she physically must have visited Amy and Rory to complete the book and have it published in the past, ala this all is a very weak plot point to write two people out!
It was specifically said manhatten 1930's was too dangerous to travel to, so obviously either traveling elsewhere or to a year later is allowed.
So they could have been saved and there were ways around it, the only thing stopping it is the Doctor's own rules, which do not apply to all time travellers, its a moral code or a precautionary code to prevent further problems.
Besides all that, i find it very surprising one angel could survive a paradox, other than it was purely for a plot point
She doesn't need to have visited Rory and Amy, she specifically says she'll send it to Amy, suggesting she can't visit her. The timeline is fixed and temporally fragile, ruling out any visits from time travellers (this obviously doesn't just apply to New York in the 1930s, otherwise the Doctor would know he could visit them and wouldn't be so heartbroken), but the book is already part of the timeline and thus poses no problem.
Yes, it's a bit flimsy, but the wibbly-wobbly-ness of it is part of the Doctor Who charm. Other works of fiction dealing with time travel try too hard to establish rigid rules about it and end up writing themselves into plotholes; in Doctor Who there can be no plotholes because the nature of time doesn't adhere to strict rules. We're not meant to think too hard about it, we're just meant to accept the facts as we're told them, and the fact in this case is that the Doctor is cut off from Rory and Amy's timeline. In fact I think Moffat is one of the best at writing timey-wimey stuff and making it believable.
Actually if River could never see them again, maybe they'd have shown her more distraught?Nah, she rarely shows too much emotion.
-
Wow, that's awesome!
-
Why does April look like a grade schooler?
-
It's not impossible go get back to them later (or elsewhere) - it's just that from the gravestone that they know they die in the past. As we saw from The Power of Three, The Doctor can't simply pay them a visit, and he can't risk taking them on an adventure. So he takes that as a sign that he'll never see them again and he knows they don't return from the past.
River, on the other hand, can pay them a visit without needing an adventure. So she has no problem visiting them.
We still disagree on this. I don't buy the "the Doctor can't visit them because he'd simply take them on another adventure" theory. It's too thin. In my opinion it's heavily implied that Rory and Amy's fixed timeline is closed off from time travellers, meaning they literally won't be able to see the Doctor ever again - nor River, I believe; she mentions she'll send the book to Amy for publication, and the way the Doctor apologises to her heavily suggests she won't be able to see them again, either.
The book, however, has already been written and published, so it's already part of the timeline.
Paedophiles, dirty old men and the age of consent
in General Chit Chat
Posted
As Moogle points out, technically padeophilia is only attraction to actual children, i.e. before puberty. Hebephilia is attraction to kids in puberty (early teens), and ephebophilia is attraction to young people in their adolescence (late teens).