Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

97% of the male population got zero votes.  What percentage of the women got zero votes?

Somewhere within a 3% difference from the males, I'd suspect. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's exactly why it's misleading to compare the percentages in such a way.  You could make the exact same argument that ancient Rome wasn't sexist.  Let's guesstimate the population of Rome as a million, during a time when there were maybe 500 senators (based on some lazy searching).  That means only .5% of Roman males were in the senate.

How many Roman females were in the senate?  You could say "within a .5% difference from the males".
A few cases of women getting the vote, in England, during a specific time (originally unspecified until Reelya literally quintupled the size of his post with edits) don't invalidate my point.  There were entire tribes lead by women in some places, at some times. 

My claim was that women won the right to vote about a hundred years ago:

Why is it like life-and-death to these groups, anyway?

I mean, it is.  Women only won the right to vote about 100 years ago (not quite that in the US), and it was a fight.

I stand by that.  The fact that some people managed to vote earlier than that does not mean that "women had the right".

And Reelya is correct that only the elites had the vote... historically.  Though that wasn't his original point:

You do know that universal male suffrage was only a couple of decades earlier than female suffrage don't you? It's kind of misleading to state that.

I'm not sure what you even mean?  Suffrage independent of race (the 15th Amendment) was 1870, women got the right to vote at all in 1920 (the 19th Amendment).

Keep in mind that this was his *entire reply* at the time.  He started with that vague sarcastic quip, and later built an eloquent and technically accurate explanation which doesn't actually counter what I was saying.

His posts age well, but it's impossible to have a productive argument with someone who keeps editing literally for hours, adding substantial paragraphs.  If I argue with a snapshot, it looks like I'm the asshole for ignoring all his strongest arguments.  I know this is a sore subject, and I don't believe it's done maliciously, but I have to agree that it's a frustrating and unfair tactic.
In conclusion, women won the right to vote in the Western world about 100 years ago.  Also, elites have historically ruled the world - nearly always male elites.
Being LGBT is no longer a crime in itself, but it's still a fireable offense in many states.  About 15 US states have left their "sodomy laws" on the books despite the federal government ruling them unenforceable.

These are threats to people's ability to exist as citizens.  Voting, pursuing happiness, in some cases even living.  That's why some people get very defensive about it.  Some people go way too far.  It's hard to remain rational when the stakes are so high.  It's easy to become exasperated when people don't see the big deal.

[Kagus]

I lost my virginity to a misandrist. AMA?

[methylatedspirit]

I'm confused. How'd that happen, anyway?

[Dunamisdeos]

I am becoming increasingly convinced that hollywood does not know how to create a strong female hero character.  They seem to have this "Formula" that involves "But vulnerable on the inside!" as part of the "If female == true" computation.

eg, "Sure, she can fly, throw buildings around like tinker toys, literally laser-beam-eyeball fries jackassess that catcall, and has precisely zero tolerance for bullshit --- But she's really vulnerable on the inside, and will melt like softened butter if you mention 'X'"

No. A strong person is just that. Strong willed, and determined. They do not need some gender stereotyped kryptonite.  Flush that with the rest of the bullshit.

I think it's important to note that their portrayal of a strong male character could do with some of that "vulnerable on the inside" stuff instead of "every man is a terminator or he loses his man card" stuff they've been pushing for 100 years.

I think they're bad at promoting any kind of healthy character, period.

[Kagus]

I'm confused. How'd that happen, anyway?

She was a lesbian. Which is to say, she was "mentally attracted to women, physically attracted to men". ==lesbian.

I got massively sloshed at my best friend's wedding reception, and after the party was over I wound up passing out with my arms around a toilet. Someone woke me up (only bathroom for 5 people in that apartment), and as I was getting ready to bed down on the couch (I'd originally been promised the guest bedroom by the owner of the apartment, but once Ms. Andrist arrived she just helped herself) she appeared out of nowhere and said that she'd "never be able to forgive herself" if I slept out on the cold hard couch while she was sleeping comfortably in the guest bed. So she dragged me to bed with her.

One thing led to another, and in the morning she chided me for being a hound dog and jumping on her.


Weeks later, I learned that she'd been talking to the bride before the wedding reception and had mentioned me by name, saying that by day's end she was going to fuck the shit out of me. When I brought this up to her (we were talking, and she brought up how I "initiated things out of nowhere"), her response was "Whoops. You weren't supposed to know about that :P".


Only person I've personally met that proudly referred to herself as "a man-hater". Not quite what I envisioned my first time being.

[methylatedspirit]

It's certainly unusual to turn something as polarizing as "man-hater" into something that anyone proudly shows off.
At that point, are you sure that she's not just trying to get a reaction out of others by calling herself that?

[Kagus]

She felt her position and title were deserved, as she'd had several disappointing experiences with men. Such as her ex-husband coming out as gay after they'd had a daughter together. Kinda held the opinion that women had been discriminated against for so long, it was time for payback.

Also why she wouldn't give men the satisfaction of being mentioned in her sexual orientation, despite... Well, despite being sexually attracted to men.

[methylatedspirit]

I guess I haven't fully understood the point of love and relationships and the unbounded ups and downs associated with them, but at that point... why? Why would anyone subject themselves to more relationships, if relationships in the past have only lead to pain?

Is it related to the idea that I have, that I must keep searching for something, in the vain hope that I will eventually find something worth latching onto? The "One" that will eliminate all my worries in life?

[Il Palazzo]

Why would anyone subject themselves to more relationships, if relationships in the past have only lead to pain?

Same reason people keep binge drinking despite the inevitable pains of hangover. It's fun while it lasts and the hurt is temporary.

[Dunamisdeos]

Nothing eliminates all your worries in life. Relationships with that as a goal are the kind of naive generally found in old-school Disney movies.

Additionally, I've kept my cool about relationships by internalizing the idea that it wasn't women that have hurt me, it's [name]. That's the facts. It's hard to look at it that way sometimes, because well, sometimes it applies to us and not them. Easier said than done, I am aware.

At the end of a shit day, I come home to my wife. My day still sucked. My day probably still sucks. Her day probably sucked worse, she's an overnight nurse. But it was a shit day together now, and my wife will always face whatever I'm feeling with me, and that changes things from unbearable to very bearable, and realistically different improved degrees of bearable is the best thing you can expect from life, period. It might not make sense now that just having that single other person there, unconditionally, changes things to that degree, but the result is more than the sum of it's parts.

[heydude6]

Also why she wouldn't give men the satisfaction of being mentioned in her sexual orientation, despite... Well, despite being sexually attracted to men.

I've heard of those people, but I never thought that I would ever encounter one, even if indirectly.

How is this affecting things with your girlfriend then? Considering all the shit she's put you through (and the alcohol), I'm not hear to judge.

[TD1]

So I've not looked at Latin for a while. Thought I'd remind myself of it all.

Went through the National Archive Latin course and figured I was doing well. Recalled (with effort) the first and second noun declensions, and first and second verb conjugations and the irregular "to be" verbs. Also adjectives, though they're easy because they conform to the noun endings (unless the noun is irregular, in which case grrrrrr). Then I get to this.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/latin/stage-1-latin/lessons/lesson-6-hic-hec-hoc-third-and-fourth-conjugation-verbs/

I don't remember this at all.

Dwarfy.exe has stopped working.

[Kagus]

Also why she wouldn't give men the satisfaction of being mentioned in her sexual orientation, despite... Well, despite being sexually attracted to men.

I've heard of those people, but I never thought that I would ever encounter one, even if indirectly.

How is this affecting things with your girlfriend then? Considering all the shit she's put you through (and the alcohol), I'm not hear to judge.

Oh god no, this was back in 2011, long before I met my GF. Back when that best friend who got married was still my best friend, and not someone who never wanted to hear from me again for as long as he lives. I was single at the time, and in the military, so beyond being a 21-year-old virgin I was also running a sex drive almost as advanced as my liver.

I mean, sure, it's been a long enough time now that I'm getting close to finding my virginity again, but I didn't have it when I got together with my GF.


"Fortunately", I've got some long-term hangups regarding infidelity, so I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to cheat on someone even under the most lopsided of circumstances.

[TD1]

My Latin misgivings are allayed somewhat by simply rearranging the stuff in a way which I find makes it easier to remember. Behold!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Feminine
Hec         Sg.         Pl.
Nominative      Hec         He
Accusative      Hanc         Has
Dative         Huic         Hi/Hiis
Ablative      Hac         His/Hiis
Genitive      Huius         Harum

Masculine
Hic                                       Sg.         Pl.
Nominative      Hic         Hi      
Accusative      Hunc         Hos
Dative         Huic         His/Hiis
Ablative      Hoc         His/Hiis
Genitive      Huius         Horum

Neuter
Hoc         Sg.         Pl.
Nominative      Hoc         Hec
Accusative      Hoc         Hec
Dative         Huic         His/Hiis
Ablative      Hoc         His/Hiis
Genitive      Huius         Horum

Copy/paste got rid of the nice straight columns and underlining/bolding, but oh well.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'm feeling exahusted today. I fell asleep thrice already