RIP You Love You Lose thread

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

Only read parts of this thread and the other but I think I got a pretty good idea of what is going on.

Some sensible posts mixed in with loud noises, rabble rabble, and oh won't somebody please think of the children.

Kind of, except it was "won't someone please think of the guys and their loss of the titty thread, despite the fact that Calgarypuck is on the internet, which I believe may or may not contain a couple of titty pics".

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

You continuously peddle the notion that life is just really really hard for women. It's hard for everyone.

If that's what you think she's saying you aren't listening.

Life is hard for everyone. But it is on average harder for some than others, and there are systemic issues in our society that make equality for women a goal, not a place we've arrived at. Just because life is hard for everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to pursue equality. White male is the lowest difficulty setting.

No one is saying bad things don't happen to men or that that isn't important.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

I'd love to see who made the studies, who funded the studies and who made them just about women...

The same journal where the Harvard study you mentioned has tons of papers on it.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Feminism is a BIG business in North America.

This sounds like people who say scientists hide evidence of a young earth or make up data to support climate change. A grand conspiracy of millions of women making their experiences up to.. make money I guess? When do you get your cheque wittynickname?

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

A Harvard Study that disappeared from the Harvard web in 2010.
70 percent of non-reciprocal domestic violence is committed by women against men

Really? It's very difficult to take you seriously when you link a site like that.

First, you are wrong that it disappeared from the web, I found it right away.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsle...2007/September

And the study is also available online. Did you read it to see if it actually says what you think it says?

Second, this newscastmedia.com site is interesting, it's got a great article on the difference between fallen angels and demons and how they operate in the physical world.

Also learned that in 2000 a move to homosexualize Africa because the African male has always been viewed as threatening and one way to neutralize him is to feminize him and that African males are also viewed as super-potent, that is countered by preventing them from reproducing more offspring, and the easiest way to achieve that is through homosexuality, since same-gender people cannot reproduce.

This site is way better than the 5 minute video "University" from last night, well done.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Here is a video on DV

Wow, that guy's YouTube channel.. I'm gonna start with "Feminist Lies and Hatred for Beginners".

[photon]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Kind of, except it was "won't someone please think of the guys and their loss of the titty thread, despite the fact that Calgarypuck is on the internet, which I believe may or may not contain a couple of titty pics".

I think you can leave it be, no one's said that if they ever thought it, and I really do think anyone that dislikes the decision does have deeper concerns than simply losing a thread with boobs in it.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by photon

I think you can leave it be, no one's said that if they ever thought it, and I really do think anyone that dislikes the decision does have deeper concerns than simply losing a thread with boobs in it.

Alright, fair enough. One day I'll be a good poster, photon. You'll see!


edit: I do slightly disagree on the last part. I can't say for sure, but I'd be willing to bet there's a few in here that actually did just like looking at the pictures, and actually are frustrated with only that, and are letting off steam.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by photon

If that's what you think she's saying you aren't listening.

Life is hard for everyone. But it is on average harder for some than others, and there are systemic issues in our society that make equality for women a goal, not a place we've arrived at. Just because life is hard for everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to pursue equality. White male is the lowest difficulty setting.

No one is saying bad things don't happen to men or that that isn't important.



The same journal where the Harvard study you mentioned has tons of papers on it.



This sounds like people who say scientists hide evidence of a young earth or make up data to support climate change. A grand conspiracy of millions of women making their experiences up to.. make money I guess? When do you get your cheque wittynickname?



Really? It's very difficult to take you seriously when you link a site like that.

First, you are wrong that it disappeared from the web, I found it right away.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsle...2007/September

And the study is also available online. Did you read it to see if it actually says what you think it says?

Second, this newscastmedia.com site is interesting, it's got a great article on the difference between fallen angels and demons and how they operate in the physical world.

Also learned that in 2000 a move to homosexualize Africa because the African male has always been viewed as threatening and one way to neutralize him is to feminize him and that African males are also viewed as super-potent, that is countered by preventing them from reproducing more offspring, and the easiest way to achieve that is through homosexuality, since same-gender people cannot reproduce.

This site is way better than the 5 minute video "University" from last night, well done.



Wow, that guy's YouTube channel.. I'm gonna start with "Feminist Lies and Hatred for Beginners".

I'm out of thanks and just wanted to give this whole thing a thumbs up.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

If that's what you think she's saying you aren't listening.

Life is hard for everyone. But it is on average harder for some than others, and there are systemic issues in our society that make equality for women a goal, not a place we've arrived at. Just because life is hard for everyone doesn't mean we shouldn't make an effort to pursue equality. White male is the lowest difficulty setting.

... Talk about you not listening either. But that's just it. You ignored lots of what I posted and went on to attack mode.

Originally Posted by photon

No one is saying bad things don't happen to men or that that isn't important.

Come on. Most of the reactions here in this post you gave tells a different story. You really don't care or you come off this way. Lets belittle the guy.

Originally Posted by photon

The same journal where the Harvard study you mentioned has tons of papers on it.

This sounds like people who say scientists hide evidence of a young earth or make up data to support climate change. A grand conspiracy of millions of women making their experiences up to.. make money I guess? When do you get your cheque wittynickname?

Stop being difficult. This site has talked about charity and unequal distribution before. The CEO's that get paid in the charity game. The church doesn't give it's money to the people that believe it God do they?

It's naive to think that Feminism hasn't been exploited for the purpose of profit. Especially in the Capatalist Society of the USA.

Originally Posted by photon

Really? It's very difficult to take you seriously when you link a site like that.

First, you are wrong that it disappeared from the web, I found it right away.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsle...2007/September

And the study is also available online. Did you read it to see if it actually says what you think it says?

Second, this newscastmedia.com site is interesting, it's got a great article on the difference between fallen angels and demons and how they operate in the physical world.

Also learned that in 2000 a move to homosexualize Africa because the African male has always been viewed as threatening and one way to neutralize him is to feminize him and that African males are also viewed as super-potent, that is countered by preventing them from reproducing
more offspring, and the easiest way to achieve that is through homosexuality, since same-gender people cannot reproduce.
This site is way better than the 5 minute video "University" from last night, well done.

It's the only place where I found a digital copy of the actual study. Thanks for that though. Your link doesn't show the study. It shows a brief. So you didn't find the study.

Originally Posted by photon

Wow, that guy's YouTube channel.. I'm gonna start with "Feminist Lies and Hatred for Beginners".

Way to pick out single things I post in the thread. Talk about the whole post for once. You're a real fan boy of ignoring the message of a video and finding other ways to support your views. Here is the actual group that made the video.http://www.ourwatch.org.au/
Ourwatch is trying to educate on gender bias and behaviors. Nobody deserves to be hurt.

This guy just uploaded the video to his site. He didn't make it. Another sent it out and I found it on facebook...

[To Be Quite Honest]

Here is a document that talks about both sexes. Yes they are horrible people for exposing the pain for both sexes!

http://www.ourwatch.org.au/02-rates-...red-to-men.pdf

Anyway, like witty, this topic is emotionally exhausting and I can't be in it... I'd like to sleep sometime tonight.

[The Familia]

Disappointed the thread was closed. While I enjoyed the thread, I'm not disappointed about missing the content, rather, about how it closed and that political correctness has won again. Just tired of the vocal minority always seemingly getting their way.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I can't seem to find the study about it, but I read a paper that mentioned that at least with regards to job applications--in general, if a man fulfills something like 50% of the requirements of the job description, he will apply for it. Women in general will only apply if they fulfill something like 80-90% of the requirements. Which probably speaks to the idea of men being naturally more aggressive, and having that aggression rewarded--rather than women, who in general are taught to not be aggressive. And I don't mean aggression in a violent way, just an assertive one.

Women who are assertive and confident and aggressive are often spoken of as bossy, bitchy, or pushy. Men who are assertive and confident are 'go getters' and 'natural leaders.'

It's all in the little subtle things like that where sexism shows. It's rarely outright or purposeful. Usually it's just these little things that flow under the surface for all of us, it's just the way we've been conditioned to think. It's not that each little thing that shows up is all that hurtful in and of itself, but when each of those little things builds up on top of all the other little things--as well as the occasional really ugly big thing--that's when it causes problems.

It's not just wittynickname that thinks this or even just women for that matter. A phrase I commonly hear used, and have ashamedly used myself in the past to describe an assertive female is 'ballbuster'. I would like to think that I haven't used it in a mean spirited way but I know it's not a 'nice' term.

Following this thread and and the YLYL thread, I will definitely be more conscious how I post and the terms I use in general. I am actually somewhat uncomfortable and embarrassed that I probably have contributed to making people uncomfortable. I apologize for that and also want to say that I find it really sad that some of the women an here are being jumped on for nothing more than having a discussion about the topic. it was illuminating for me.

[To Be Quite Honest]

By the way Whittynickname, I am sorry if you felt attacked by me. It is a very emotional topic and I never ever want you to think that you or anyone else would be unwelcome... I believe that you and I want the same thing. Just that we want it delivered differently. Anyway, I love you for the human being you are and I wish you the best.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Zevo

A phrase I commonly hear used, and have ashamedly used myself in the past to describe an assertive female is 'ballbuster'. I would like to think that I haven't used it in a mean spirited way but I know it's not a 'nice'.

We need to find some derogatory names we can call men AND women that are difficult to deal with at work. Like some sort of unisex, all encompassing slur. Something that gets across the hate but in a non-sexist way.

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

... Talk about you not listening either. But that's just it. You ignored lots of what I posted and went on to attack mode.

You said she is "peddle the notion that life is just really really hard for women", I'm responding to that. If you changed your claim or modified it I didn't intentionally ignore I apologize I missed it, could you reiterate it or put it a different way?

Disagreement isn't attack mode. Attack mode would be me attacking you, I'm talking about what you are saying.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Come on. Most of the reactions here in this post you gave tells a different story. You really don't care or you come off this way. Lets belittle the guy.

Where did I belittle men? Where did I say I didn't care? What relevance does my post have anyway, your claim was about what she was peddling, that she advocates that life is only hard for women.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

It's naive to think that Feminism hasn't been exploited for the purpose of profit. Especially in the Capatalist Society of the USA.

So? No doubt someone does. Your claim wasn't just that some people may be profiting from feminism, you were implying that scientific studies were paid for and skewed in order to generate money for those that were paying for the studies (if they weren't skewed and were truthful then it doesn't matter who paid for them they're accurate representations of reality).

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

It's the only place where I found a digital copy of the actual study. Thanks for that though. Your link doesn't show the study. It shows a brief.

Your link doesn't have the digital copy of the study. Your link is to a digital copy of a from a Harvard Mental Health Letter brief. My link shows a digital copy of the brief as well, which you have to pay to get.

Sorry I should have been more clear, you called your link "A Harvard Study that disappeared from the Harvard web in 2010." when it's not a Harvard study, it's a brief which is claimed to have disappeared (which it didn't).

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

So you didn't find the study.

I said "And the study is also available online." meaning the study being online is separate from the link I'd provided.

The study isn't from Harvard, it's from the American Journal of Public Health, and Googling the first five words of the study title brings up the full study text as the first hit. My point is neither the study nor the brief disappeared anywhere. Any insinuations based on the disappearance are therefore false (like the disappearance would mean anything to begin with).

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Way to pick out single things I post in the thread. Talk about the whole post for once. You're a real fan boy of ignoring the message of a video and finding other ways to support your views.

A post is comprised of single things that presumably you post to support your position. How else am I supposed to discuss them reasonably except individually? If I say "I disagree" and state my view, that doesn't accomplish anything.

How seriously I take the message of a video depends on the seriousness of the video. A video that is supported by links to sources or has other indications of being well thought out is worth seeing. A video from a channel where the other videos also show similar properties makes it more worth seeing. A video who's title and description invokes conspiracy in a channel with lots of similar probably isn't worth watching, in my opinion anyway.

Not because I think they're wrong, but because I don't see signs that they've come to their conclusions properly. Like I said before, it's a heuristic, given that I can't watch infinite # of videos.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Here is the actual group that made the video.http://www.ourwatch.org.au/
Ourwatch is trying to educate on gender bias and behaviors. Nobody deserves to be hurt.

This guy just uploaded the video to his site. He didn't make it. Another sent it out and I found it on facebook...

I'm sorry but he didn't just upload the video to his channel, he made it. He says so himself. This is exactly what he says "I took relevant parts out of the video found at http://www.ourwatch.org.au/ which is yet another initiative to end violence against everyone but men."

He took pieces out that supports his view that feminism doesn't want to end violence against men. How do I know the context of what he took out? I'd have to watch the full video he cut and pasted from and compare it to what he's using it to say to see if he's misrepresenting what the original said or if it's even relevant. On a video that has 349 views. He doesn't even properly attribute the video.

This is the facebook page the video mentions:

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism

From that Facebook page:

Spoiler!

I'm supposed to take any of this seriously?!

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by photon

You said she is "peddle the notion that life is just really really hard for women", I'm responding to that. If you changed your claim or modified it I didn't intentionally ignore I apologize I missed it, could you reiterate it or put it a different way?

Disagreement isn't attack mode. Attack mode would be me attacking you, I'm talking about what you are saying.



Where did I belittle men? Where did I say I didn't care? What relevance does my post have anyway, your claim was about what she was peddling, that she advocates that life is only hard for women.



So? No doubt someone does. Your claim wasn't just that some people may be profiting from feminism, you were implying that scientific studies were paid for and skewed in order to generate money for those that were paying for the studies (if they weren't skewed and were truthful then it doesn't matter who paid for them they're accurate representations of reality).



Your link doesn't have the digital copy of the study. Your link is to a digital copy of a from a Harvard Mental Health Letter brief. My link shows a digital copy of the brief as well, which you have to pay to get.

Sorry I should have been more clear, you called your link "A Harvard Study that disappeared from the Harvard web in 2010." when it's not a Harvard study, it's a brief which is claimed to have disappeared (which it didn't).



I said "And the study is also available online." meaning the study being online is separate from the link I'd provided.

The study isn't from Harvard, it's from the American Journal of Public Health, and Googling the first five words of the study title brings up the full study text as the first hit. My point is neither the study nor the brief disappeared anywhere. Any insinuations based on the disappearance are therefore false (like the disappearance would mean anything to begin with).



A post is comprised of single things that presumably you post to support your position. How else am I supposed to discuss them reasonably except individually? If I say "I disagree" and state my view, that doesn't accomplish anything.

How seriously I take the message of a video depends on the seriousness of the video. A video that is supported by links to sources or has other indications of being well thought out is worth seeing. A video from a channel where the other videos also show similar properties makes it more worth seeing. A video who's title and description invokes conspiracy in a channel with lots of similar probably isn't worth watching, in my opinion anyway.

Not because I think they're wrong, but because I don't see signs that they've come to their conclusions properly. Like I said before, it's a heuristic, given that I can't watch infinite # of videos.



I'm sorry but he didn't just upload the video to his channel, he made it. He says so himself. This is exactly what he says "I took relevant parts out of the video found at http://www.ourwatch.org.au/ which is yet another initiative to end violence against everyone but men."

He took pieces out that supports his view that feminism doesn't want to end violence against men. How do I know the context of what he took out? I'd have to watch the full video he cut and pasted from and compare it to what he's using it to say to see if he's misrepresenting what the original said or if it's even relevant. On a video that has 349 views. He doesn't even properly attribute the video.

This is the facebook page the video mentions:

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism

From that Facebook page:

Spoiler!

I'm supposed to take any of this seriously?!

You know, I've shared my story to many people. I've also been discriminated against in the most heinous way. What I've learned is that only my mother cares and people that have had the same to them.

These people showing their hate anger and frustration, they weren't born this way. Something happened to them that caused this. I almost became one of these individuals 3 years ago but once I saw how horrible they were in their delivery and how black they let their souls become I got the #### out of there. However, I understand why they've become this way. Nobody cares and they're just told that they're hateful human beings with nothing to give... They aren't told, "I'm sorry this happened to you." Now when you read this did you think I was talking about men or women? I'm talking about both extremes. The Woman hater you linked in the FB site and the Man hater. They had to get there somehow. The difference is there are places for these men haters to go. There are MILLIONS of dollars available for them and they get a voice or a place to vent and get their message filtered. These men that you see don't have this privilege. It just gets to stew...

I have worked so hard to get rid of the anger and butt hurt (not literal) and I'm so close to being okay again... Then I read how horrible of a sex men are and it sucks me back in...

Good night!

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

We need to find some derogatory names we can call men AND women that are difficult to deal with at work. Like some sort of unisex, all encompassing slur. Something that gets across the hate but in a non-sexist way.

Jerkass/@$$hole.

[calgarybornnraised]

I think there are a lot of hurt men on CP. They think this is a Male based site and vent.

Girly Sports and MissTeeks make this community an everyday read for me.

Girly Sports and her Tennis updates or Soccer updates, whatever updates your lookin for.

MissTeeks for every Flames twitter update because I don't have Twitter.

As a female sports junky, I Thank You. You don't have to do it, but you do. Thank You.

[GreenLantern]

Ok so not trying to stir the pot here, I just want some clarification so I don't offend anyone or get myself suspended:

2. Thou shalt keep thy posts rated PG. That means no posts or links to pr0n, explicit nudity, disturbing medical photos, gore, death, or any such thing. If you think it would be a problem viewing it at work or school, don't post it.

• This also includes excessive use of profanity or implied profanity. We mean it, if you feel the need to swear, just yell it out loud a dozen times while not typing it, it'll make you feel better.
• Exceptions may be made for tasteful pictures of men / women in threads along those topics, but the line should still be drawn before full nudity.

Who has the discretion of tasteful? If I ever post a picture of a woman should I make sure it is under a spoiler tag with a warning? Are pictures of good looking girls allowed in the Funny cool picture thread? I am so confused. Before I knew exactly where to put that stuff and what the line was.. I apologize in advance if this has already been established in this thread I started scrolling through but don't have time to read 7 pages..

[JiriHrdina]

^Again we are revising the rules. Sit tight. In the meantime use common sense and if you stray over the line we will let you know.

[GreenLantern]

Makes sense. Just thought I'd ask because I logged in this morning with a few specific gifs for that thread, lol. I will hold on to them for now..

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by The Familia

Disappointed the thread was closed. While I enjoyed the thread, I'm not disappointed about missing the content, rather, about how it closed and that political correctness has won again. Just tired of the vocal minority always seemingly getting their way.

This x 100. I may have been a little bit over reactionary early in the thread, but this pretty much sums it up from my end, and I bet a majority of other peoples end as well.

Its not the fact that the thread was closed, it's how it all came about that I think rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by RyZ

This x 100. I may have been a little bit over reactionary early in the thread, but this pretty much sums it up from my end, and I bet a majority of other peoples end as well.

Its not the fact that the thread was closed, it's how it all came about that I think rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

But it was discussed for weeks!
Even the thread with the poll, it was mentioned many (many, many) times that the poll was to get an idea of the thinking of the forum. It was not meant to decide a "winner", it was to elicit the feelings of the board.

And there were a lot of good points debated.

So I'm not sure why the result is a surprise.

If you are out with your wife/daughter/girlfriend/significant other, would you ever say, "I want to hit that" or "She's a 2/10"? You might when with a group of your male friends, but I'd bet the vast majority would not if there was a woman around.

Yet those sort of comments are all over the forum. The YLYL thread was like the calendar of busty women on the wall of a garage or workshop. It isn't very welcoming to the women on the forum and it seemed to trigger a boy's club mentality that made things even more uncomfortable.

There is nothing wrong with pictures of beautiful people. The problem is the behaviour it seems to trigger.