Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33

um? i like corona but not that much. i cant believe this ad. i mean its sheer genius bc it will work with men however, i find it pretty offensive i wont lie. i mean, theres so many things here that are wrong that i dont even know where to begin.

apparently its in Japan only. and actually, i work for a company that is owned by the same company that owns this particular agency. the japanese never fail to to come up with some of the most bizarre sexual things i have ever seen or heard of.
my boyfriend is telling me that the killer of the amish girls was a milkman in the area- the funeral went right by his house, so it sounds like really small town, where everyone knows everyone, so i wonder if he knew these girls prior, or had at least seen them around....maybe it wans't so random who his victims were.

and, a mile away there was another amish 1 room schoolhouse, so what made himpick that one?

i guess we're all still trying to understand the un-understandable
We are trying to understand something impossible to understand. The killer is dead, there's no way we can know what his motives or motivations were--and it's possible he would not have known, himself. It's senseless and random and violent and impossible to grasp on an intellectual level, which is what we're trying to do here.

On the other hand, I don't think the amish are preaching "not to think evil". I think they do not want to judge the man (because what purpose would that serve other than to prolong everyone's suffering?) and I certainly think they know that the key to picking up the peaces and restoring some kind of healing in the community can't start until there is forgiveness for what has happened. It's that cannot be reversed. It's simply like a collective way of saying they won't waste time fueling an anger for a thing that can't be changed, when there are survivors to be looked after. The family of the murderer included--after all, the family members who survived the milkman aren't guilty of anything except being related to him. But they may just spend the rest of their lives wishing they had known, or somehow intervened--and that's a devastating torment in itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I learned at some point that Amish communities don't want you to be with them unless you're committed to living the way they do--so to this end, everyone who reaches a certain age is given an opportunity to go out in to the world and experience what life there is like (Isn't that what "rumspringa" is supposed to be?). Only if they want to come back to the Amish community are they welcomed back, so that they make up their minds knowing full well what life will be like when they return to their communities. They're similar to the Mennonite communities that are all over the place in my area, except the Mennonites don't always separate themselves from media, or supporting the utility grid around them, or using cars and gasoline. Many of them live the same way any of us do, but their ideas about community and faith are very similar to the Amish; modern in one sense, and very much still embracing the outward traditions of the path.

someone please explain to my WHY a first offender (childporn) in canada wouldn't face jail time? wtf is that load of absolute garbage?!? you can go to jail for a joint in your car but you can have hundreds of pictures of children being fucked in the ass on your computer and they let you back on the street? aaahhh gggrrrrr *furious*.

great. now what?

from the article "Prof Rushton, who four years ago triggered a scientific row by claiming intelligence and behaviour are influenced by race, with blacks being more likely to be involved in crime and Asians having a greater chance of high IQs, however, stands by his results."

ummmm, ok-who the HELLLLL is funding his "research?"

ok i just wrote an irate response on there, because those people responding are all "oh yeah, men are smarter, we've always known that."

It really makes me want to cry and punch several walls when i realize that yes, people really DO believe this shit!!!!!!!!!!!!! GAHJHHHH!! :ljs;roig h304952!
unfortanately maddy, its not the first study that has proved this. really, would i be surprised if men had a higher IQ. definitly not. Why you are? because IQ is influenced by enumerable factors and the difference in upbringing is just one of them. women and men are raised differently, men are raised better if you think about it. i wouldnt be surprised in the least if bc we encourage boys to go out and play and women to play with kitchen sets led to discrepancys in IQ were a result!
Oh no. Not the Daily bloody Mail. They write utter bollocks all the time.
I couldn't be bothered to read the whole article.
The thing is, a high IQ test result proves that one is good at taking IQ tests.
Pretty scary that there are some fuckwits who believe men are cleverer. I successfully avoid people like that.

As an aside, I am constantly challenging gender stereotyping when it occurs in my (2 yr old) daughter's play.
She LOVES playing with mini-kitchens though!
I can really go off on one, when someone says to her "Ooh, you won't like that toy hammer, it's for boys" And people do! Grr!
I've been told my numerous profs as well that IQ tests are no longer seen as a reliable test of intelligence because they are often biased to white, male, middle-class majorities, so it's no surprise that men would test higher.

I think I've heard of this guy before. His claims are ridiculous.
i agree with what you said erinjane. as a soon to be psychologist...those tests do discriminate towards people of other cultures. not a reliable test to measure IQ.
Oh mah god, that's not Phillipe Rushton and his stale, recycled, boring and hate filled ideas again, is it? I thought I'd seen the last of him 20 years ago or so, when his whole racism fueled "blacks aren't as bright as whites, orientals are brighter than either of them..." garbage got him a lot of media attention and a post at a kinda-prestigious university. Of course, he was laughed off the air in Canada (though I'm sure the university where he worked kept him on for the publicity).

So this is his new groundbreaking research? Wow. He should have dinner with that president from Harvard who says women make lousy scientists, just cause he says so.

I can't believe research that old (and so clearly shoddy) is still keeping this guy employed.
chacha~it is the same old boring, repetitive research that keeps some of these academics in their jobs. it's called self-importance. nothing groundbreaking. and his argument can be easily torn apart.
what's amazing to me, as someone who works in research, is how the hell he gets funding! i mean, who pays for this? This is clearly not good, credible research. My group does research on adherence to HIV medication, and also recovering after major mental illness like schizophrenia (yes, people DO get better and live normal lives), and it's SO HARD to get grant money. So how the heck does this guy get money? very weird.

more OT- i was in this study of sexual abuse survivors and now they are churning out all this "data" and their "conclusions" and it's pissing me the fuck off, because it's really clear that they are putting in their own biases-saying that sexual abuse itself may not be traumatic, but that remebering it IS traumatic. um, what? then they say things like "the people who found it traumatic at the time had ALL talked to therapists about their memories." uh, yeah, that's what therapists are for-but they're putting in there this whole "Therapists create memories" or some such shit. I ihave to write them a letter because it's pissing me off. They keep mentioning mein the articles as "only one woman" said such and such, so i konw they are using me, and they are saying that i'm the minority, etc. Well ya know what? you only interviewed 25 people, k?

sorry for the rant, i think i need to get on that letter. it's clancy and mcnally, from harvard, if anyone is interested.......pisses me off that they're taking my experience and using it to say that being raped by grampa at age 7 IS NOT Traumatic. GRRR!
Um, the hell? Isn't it kind of common sense that someone is going to feel crappy after talking about a bad memory as opposed to a good memory? So yeah, remembering something can be traumatic, but only if the thing a person is remembering is awful, ie: rape, assault, death of a loved one, etc. So then... how is the memory of something being traumatic not make the occurence itself traumatic? I'm confused. My head may explode if I think about that for much longer.
Did you ladies see this series about trafficking Korean sex workers in the Bay Area? It's a doozy. Provides a nice link to, which is a site johns use to compare things like anal tightness among sex providers and which "crackwhore" strolls where. Empowering!
this is not really feminist necessarily, but the tribe that is detailed here is the same one that cecelia fire thunder was the president of. honestly, how can we live with ourselves when stuff like this is happening to the people whose country this REALLY is?

Christ, this is scary.
the problem with saying no after sex has started means it makes it very very hard to prove rape through DNA evidence. while theoretically, you should be able to say no whenever (i mean hello what happens if he starts doing weird shit!) but many many people could be put in jail bc of women who pull shit like this bc someone didnt return their phone calls or something. i know most feminists dont want to think that ever happens, but i know more then 3 women who did that.

that being said, given that rape is the most underreported crime, its probably not as big an issue as a woman who sincerely wants it to stop and the men say f-off. scary. very very scary.
But it also depends on what counts as consent. Some people would say I consented because I took my pants off. But I would say I never consented. I consented to 'fooling around' but as soon as he began trying to have sex with me I vocally said no. The lines are very blurry.
From what I know, the amount of false reports for rape is about the same as the amount of false reports for any other crime--1-2%. Just throwing that out there.
i think they are talking about once penetration occurs, then you cant go back on it. which i dont think is cool, but it would make proving it impossible almost.

i dont think yourr lines were blurry erinjane. you consented to fooling around, not sex. you should never feel as though you led him on bc you clearly said NO. thats all you need.

thingsarenice-yeah i cant imagine its very high. i think the problem with saying no after penetration might be vindictive girls who maybe got dumped, or cheated on, or something else after they had sex bc of this law that says you can say no after penetration. i mean, i think you should be able to say stop at any point in intercourse if you arent comfortable, but from a legal perspective maybe thats the idea. i dont know. those lines are very blurry.

check this article out. this is what i live to see
I truly think our definition of "rape" has to be expanded far beyond just a sexual act without "consent", a legality which leaves a lot of women at a huge disadvantage, as Erinjane illustrates. There was actually a case here in Canada a few years ago where a man who raped a hugely drunk woman was declared innocent because the woman was drunk, so, technically I guess, she was seen as "consenting" in some way.

As it stands, there is no room to consider the crime of rape as something that takes place by coersion (the way it does with children, where molesters try to seduce them and earn their trust before raping them). There is also no room to see things such as sexual harassment as rape, a situation where a person is under a great deal of pressure not to say no (though there are many other countries where sexual harassment actually is defined as rape).

We really are not given much recourse, legally, when this crime is committed.
AIR the definition vis a vis whether drunk or unconscious women can give consent varies from state to state in the US?

I'm not sure if it varies from state to state or province to province, but a lot of laws surrounding rape in general vary across states and provinces. That drunken "consent" case raised a lot of ire in Canada, but the judge was never taken to task for it, and the perpetrator was still "not guilty". Of course it set a precedent.

I remember when I was a kid that one state in the US had actually passed a law making it illegal for a man to rape his wife. At the time, no such law existed in Canada; I'm not certain such a law has been passed since then, but it is so controversial as a concept (holy sexism) that I think it would have been big news if it had. To me, it would be so wrong if a law like this weren't on every lawbook in any nation, but a lot of people think the idea of such a law is ridiculous, and see "rape" as something that can never happen to a wife by her husband.
Also, I'm not sure if prostitutes are protected from rape either. When I was in highschool, they weren't.

Another couple of examples of the legal "grey" around the idea of consent: the law is pretty specific, though, in whose consent matters, and whose does not.
According to this website Canada outlawed spousal rape in 1983 (I just had to google it, it was too freaky - turns out Canada got that law at around the same time as NZ). It seems bizarre that it was ever legal. Rape laws seem way too much like property laws sometimes.

Gah, which reminds me - why is it that with rape people are so quick to point out that there are some false reports of rape, yet if I tell someone my friend's car got broken into on the weekend they're not all "ooh are you sure, sometimes people make false reports to claim insurance!"
O'Reilly abortion report riles Kansas MD
I've come to the same conclusion about rape laws too. After all, they do stem from a society that, until very recently, only saw women as chattel (that's why it took until the 1980's before a law protecting married women from rape got on the books--technically husbands "own" their wives). Good to know there's a law stating it's a crime, but you still have to actually look at the law books to see how that law's been interpreted when women have actually pressed charges against husbands or boyfriends who've raped them.

I looked and looked for a similar law protecting prostitutes, and one does not seem to exist in Canada. Hence, if you buy a prostitute, you buy someone to rape, legally--I think the law still sees this the transaction as a proof of consent. There's no consideration for any realities such as the fact that a lot of women are forced into prostitution, which would of course make the whole concept of "consent" questionable in that kind of transaction.
(There are a lot of countries who are already so long past this outdated and unfair idea about prostitutes and rape--Swedish law, for example, very clearly sees being forced into prostitution as a kind of rape in itself).
As long as we're all working on this "property" idea as a foundation for whatever rape laws exist, I don't think the legal definition of "consent" can ever be clear; so the laws are really unsufficient.

On another topic--last Friday night I caught a few minutes of 20/20 (a really bad show--unbelievable what they call journalism) because they were making a huge deal about how they had a "special" show devoted to "Privilege": who has it, and how they're keeping YOU out! They made a big deal about exploring privilege to wealth, to beauty, to celebrity, to colour (but that was grudgingly done--the idea that white men are privileged was so discomfiting to John Stossel that he went out of his way to find a black scholar who would pipe up that white privilege was not the real problem--the real problem was that black people don't want to take responsibility for lifting up their own lives!). Anyway, the show was supposed to examine all kinds of privilege and bias in our society--but towards the last twenty minutes of the 2 hour long epic show, no one was talking about the privilege granted to gender. How men have more privilege than women.
I stopped watching it...and I wonder if anyone had seen it.

How fucked up would it have been if it spent 2 whole hours exploring this idea as if they were serious, but they carefully left out the one form (the form in which more study and writing about privilege and bias has taken place than in any other area they supposedly covered)? It's like shrieking that discrimination exists on every level, but at least sexism's been eliminated.
Venetia, it's because no one wants those poor, poor men to be victimized by us big, bad women.

To me, rape has always been partially men's way of badly dealing with the tremendous power women have over them. Because only those who feel small and powerless inside will go to such ridiculous lengths to cover it.

On the surface, there are lots of other reasons, but I've always thought that was something close to the core.
Wow, so much going on here, I don't know where to start.

Maddy, good god, who funded that study? The False Memory Syndrome Foundation? It really, truly sounds like them. I wish the researchers could see the backwards logic in what they are proposing. First of all, yes, when I was raped as a child, I was not as visibly traumatized then as I was when I was in therapy as a young adult. But I did not have the emotional sophistication to process the trauma so I just pushed it down. The visible signs came out when someone was willing to listen to me and see what I was hiding. That was when I learned the launguage and was able to start a long-delayed freak out! Does that mean that I wasn't traumatized when I was 7? No it just means I was not free to express it. We are called survivors for a reason; sometimes survive is all we can do!

veitia & thingsarenice - yes, the false reports of rape number about 1-2% according to the FBI. Just because cases are not respected by the local law enforcers does not declare them false. I read somewhere that the FBI states that more people falsely report themselves as dead than as having been raped.

As for prostitutes and their legal protection from rape, under the law, they have the right to say no. However, thoes who enforce the law have a fucked up way of doing their jobs when it comes to sex workers. Most of society considers prostitutes "unrapeable." There have been times that sex workers have reported crimes against them and then they themselves have been arrested for solicitaion. In the hospital rooms they often get less quality care then other rape victims. If they can get any care at all.

With regards to spousal rape (wives are often included in the so-called "unrapeble" list) only in 1993 was it a law across America that spousal rape is a crime. However, in 33 states it is still considered a lesser crime. (I got all my stats here from Wikipedia.) I know that in Illinois, the reporting time and statute of limitations was much shorter and stricter than for other cases of rape until this year.

Oh, just so I am not missunderstood, when I say "unrapeable," I mean people whom society tend to belive do not have the right to say no to sex. We talk about it in my job all the time.
Re: 20/20 chacha, that's ridiculous! I had actually meant to watch that because I wanted to see how badly they were going to screw up, but then I ended up having a Big Love season 1 marathon instead. rolleyes.gif

Ah, the link I posted doesn't work. Here's the article:
TOPEKA, Kan. - An abortion doctor plans to ask for an investigation of the state attorney general and Bill O'Reilly over comments by the Fox television host that he got information from Kansas abortion records, the doctor's attorneys said Saturday.

Dr. George Tiller said he will ask the Kansas Supreme Court on Monday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate and take possession of the records of 90 patients from two clinics.

Attorney General Phill Kline obtained the records recently after a two-year battle that prompted privacy concerns. He has said he sought the records to review them for evidence of possible crimes including rape and illegal abortions.

During a Friday night broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," the conservative host said a "source inside" told the show that Tiller performs late-term abortions when a patient is depressed, which O'Reilly deemed "executing babies."

O'Reilly also said his show has evidence that Tiller's clinic and another unnamed clinic have broken Kansas law by failing to report potential rapes with victims ages 10 to 15.

A spokeswoman for Kline, who received redacted copies of the records Oct. 24, said Saturday he doesn't know how O'Reilly obtained the information.

"We don't know anything about Mr. O'Reilly's inside source," spokeswoman Sherriene Jones said. "I assumed he was talking about somebody on the inside of the abortion clinics."

Kline, an abortion opponent and Republican in a tight race with Democrat Paul Morrison, was interviewed by O'Reilly during the segment.

"Our information says that on almost every medical sheet — and obviously we have a source inside here — it says, 'depression,'" O'Reilly told Kline during the broadcast. "I don't know whether you have that information or not — I don't know — but that's what it says."

Pedro Irigonegaray, who represents Tiller and the clinics, said it was "preposterous" that the information would come from an insider at one of the clinics.

"This has been our concern from the beginning, that if he ended up with these records, that just this type of event would occur. Our worst nightmare has happened," Irigonegaray said. "Women in America deserve better than this."

It wasn't clear Saturday whether O'Reilly's source had broken state or federal laws by divulging patient information or whether O'Reilly or his staff had viewed any records themselves. A request to Fox in Washington to interview O'Reilly or someone associated with his show wasn't answered Saturday.

Kline, one of the nation's foremost abortion opponents, has said the targets of his investigation are rapists, sex offenders with child victims, and doctors involved in illegal abortions. Those could include doctors performing illegal late-term abortions or those failing to report abuse of a child.

The clinics had argued that giving the attorney general access to the records would invade patients' privacy.

Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson subpoenaed the records at Kline's request in September 2004, concluding there was probable cause to believe they contained evidence of crimes. The documents Kline received were edited so that individual patients could not be identified.

I hate O'Reilly.
It just makes me so fucking crazed when people like O'Reilly do things like this and then mask it in "But I am just trying to protect the womenfolk." It bullshit!
If Reilly and his partner in crime were so concerned about rape victims, they'd work their asses off making sure laws "got" the concept of rape all together, and then they'd fight even harder to make sure those laws were enforced.

But they aren't. And I'm appalled that he is "quoting" statistics he claims come from files from actual abortion clinics. That is a serious breech of confidentiality, and it ought to be punished with a prison sentence for Bill and a forced resignation from the government official who let this happen.

But by now we ought to know that some neo-cons will stop at nothing to make sure that women never have clear dominion over their own bodies.

Faerie tales, I wish I had access to Big Love Season one, and believe me: if I did, I'd never have peeked at 20/20. Stossel is a serious sub-intellect. That is time out of my life I will never get back!
re: stossel

I've always hated that motherfucker.

that is all.
Well, that's certainly the word for him: "motherfucker".

kittenb, i'm going to write to the authors and request a meeting, but i need to read all of the material first. maybe i can email them and request all of the articles that they wrote from that study, as well as who their funder was. it's on my to-do list, so it might take awhile.

but yeah exactly, what 7 y.o. is like "wow, i am severely traumatized right now." ? none! they are basically trying to blame therapy for traumatizing abuse survivors. duhhhhhh. i mean seriously this is such shit research i can't even believe it!

i too, find our rape laws insane. we need to decide on what is rape and what isn't. andhave it be across the board on a national level-i don't think individual states should get to decide what rape is, just like they shouldn't be able to decide what is a hate crime...since really, rape kinda is a hate crime against women.

re: prostitutes, as far as I know that's still a problem here where prostitution isn't illegal. I've heard that one of the problems is that it is seen as "theft of a service" or in other words a payment issue. Which is, again, stupid. If someone forced any other professional to provide a service to them through force it would be assault and maybe kidnapping at least, not treated as an unpaid bill.
south dakota voters defeated the abortion ban!
And Nancy Pelosi is poised to become the first female Speaker of the House.

I was reading the reactions to her in Yahoo coverage, and of course, in addition to the usual anti-democrat "you mindless people are brainwashed by the liberal media bullshit," NOW we also have: Pelosi is in a constant state of PMS, she's a cunt, she's a bitch, she's weak, she'll be the fall of our nation, etc. *sigh*
dont even GET ME STARTED on how many times, both in peoples comments and in the media, a woman candidates appearance was brought up. i seriously am so pissed about that, that if i was in grad school i would to a quantitative look at it and write a research paper.
Hey guys-new here...

I just can't not let you guys in on this whole hearted stab at women by the govt (both fed and state)....

My aunt has worked for the county govt here in my state in the US for approx 25+ yrs. She did some research and found out that CONSISTENTLY since she has worked for them (she is a manager and has been for 10 or so yrs) she (and her other female managers) make approx 5-10K less then her male manager counterparts. The raises are bigger for the male managers (in the SAME EXACT position as her) as well as salary. OH and they get promoted faster than her and her FEMALE manager counterparts too!!
UNFUCKIN BELIEVABLE!! oh and she has started a class action law suit against the govt...wish her luck!
I wish her the best of luck! if shes in nyc or even the tri-state area, i actually know of a tremendous lawyer who specializes in these things. she has her own law firm and employs mostly or almost all women.

these things MUST STOP!
As happy as I am about Nancy Pelosi,..did anyone hear Bush's sexist slur today in his speech?
Something about refering interior decorators to her so she can change the drapes in her new office?
What a turd.

As happy as I am about Nancy Pelosi,..did anyone hear Bush's sexist slur today in his speech?
Something about refering interior decorators to her so she can change the drapes in her new office?
What a turd.


Confirming ('cause you know, we didn't know this already) what a complete COCKSUCKER he is.
beetlgrl - Good Luck to your aunt! Keep us posted.
YAY for the House and Senate and abortion rights and Pelosi and no more Rumsfeld! Nothing to be outraged about today. Ahhhh.... it's a nice change. smile.gif

YAY for the House and Senate and abortion rights and Pelosi and no more Rumsfeld! Nothing to be outraged about today. Ahhhh.... it's a nice change. smile.gif
NOT that I would ever defend the pres. or suggest he is not a total buttmunch, BUT...

The "interior decorator" comment actually started during the campaign, when Bush said that some Dems were getting ahead of themselves in assuming they'd win their elections, that they were consulting interior decorators about the drapes for their new offices. Now, he may have been pointing *that* comment at Pelosi, too, although it didn't come off that way - but I think the comment about giving her names of decorators was just a "callback" to that previous one.

Yeah, here's a quote from an AP story: "In his opening statement, the president also played off his frequent stump speech charge that overconfident Democrats were already measuring their new congressional offices and planning how to decorate them.

Referring to all-but-anointed Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Bush quipped: 'In my first act of bipartisan outreach since the election, I shared with her the names of some Republican interior decorators who can help her pick out the new drapes in her new offices.'"
Thanks vesica,..i was wondering if maybe he was refering to a past joke, because nobody in the news seemed to be fazed by the comment. He's still a turd, but at least he wasnt being sexist (or at least knows he cant get away with it!)

So in that case YEAH!!! No outrage today!!
Oh, I don't know--it may have been a comment untouched by sexism, but the idea of extending friendship by recommending "republican" designers sounds like something someone who hates you would do. Whenever I think of the concept of "republican" with aesthetics of any kind, I shudder.

Just a bias I can't shake. They don't seem to be well known for their creative beautification abilities.
QUOTE(chachaheels @ Nov 10 2006, 06:25 AM) *

Whenever I think of the concept of "republican" with aesthetics of any kind, I shudder.

I think Pelosi should maybe get curtains with patterns of quail and shotguns. laugh.gif
"Don't confuse fame with success. Madonna is one; Helen Keller is the other." -Erma Bombeck

ARG! i dont know if this is in the right thread.. but i'm pissed, so why not.

double ARG! why cant some women appreciate different levels of success in other women?? yes, helen keller overcame some tremendous odds.. and there is no denying she is a phenomenal woman. but that does not or should not negate madonna's accomplishments! madonna was a rebellious little catholic girl from michigan. now she is the most well known female pop star in history. just because we may not agree with her approach or her lifestyle, does not make her any less of a strong successful woman!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.