by Hayteria » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:49 pm
by UCUMAY » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:11 pm
by Neo Art » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:13 pm
by Quailtopia » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:01 pm
by Cannot think of a name » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:08 pm
Neo Art wrote:I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"
That's.....nice? Get a blog?
by Hayteria » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:12 pm
Neo Art wrote:I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"
by Zilam » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:15 pm
Hayteria wrote:how is it that women are classified as "weaker" than men when and only whenever it's so fucking convenient for them to get away with shit? If a Non Action Guy was verbally abusing an un-hot strong Amazon by calling her a dork, ugly, horrible, and gay, would that mean she's not allowed to hit him? Calling a girl ugly alone would get him beaten up, and witnesses would cheer the girl for it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/T ... eUnfairSex
This is basically one of the responses to the 2nd anecdote (namely, the one about a guy hitting one girl among a group of girls berating him) relating to the TV tropes concept "the unfair sex." While I'm not quite sure about the extent there, I do agree that were the genders of that anecdote reversed, the girl would probably be viewed a lot more sympathetically than the guy in this case was.
First off, I know we can't rely on its truthfulness since this is the Internet and all, but that it is even plausible carries implications all its own... whatever reasons there are for this kind of double standard consist of either the idea that women are physically weaker or that they're held to lower standards of rationality... popular opinion seems to regard either line of reasoning as unacceptable in the context of workplace discrimination, and yet seems fond of it in contexts like these. Somewhere along the line, someone abandoned consistency.
by The Evil Reich » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:19 pm
by Hayteria » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:41 pm
The Evil Reich wrote:Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.
If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.
by Nobel Hobos » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:49 pm
by Nobel Hobos » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:52 pm
Hayteria wrote:The Evil Reich wrote:Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.
If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.
I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.
by The Evil Reich » Wed Jan 05, 2011 7:54 pm
Hayteria wrote:The Evil Reich wrote:Hayteria, I am confused what you are trying to say or ask.
If this is about who is allowed to hit who, the answer is you shouldn't hit people regardless of gender. If you are getting at something else, then you need to explain it more clearly.
I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.
by Turmoilandia » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:25 pm
by Gagatron » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:25 pm
Zilam wrote:It always strikes me funny when people always complain "If God is good, why does he allow evil to exist"....Yet when God destroys every evil person in a flood, its a bad thing.
All sin is deserving of death.
by Hayteria » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:38 pm
Nobel Hobos wrote:Hayteria wrote:I thought I made myself clear enough. Yes, he shouldn't have resorted to violence. However, that the person resorting to violence would probably be regarded more sympathetically had this been a case of a girl hitting a guy reflects on the inconsistency in the logic with which society views double standards.
Society? They're a bunch of idiots in school.
by Blouman Empire » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:44 pm
Neo Art wrote:I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"
That's.....nice? Get a blog?
by The Evil Reich » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:26 pm
Gagatron wrote:Why do you make a new topic every time you find a flaw in an argument?
by The Evil Reich » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:08 pm
by Ryadn » Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:58 pm
Neo Art wrote:I'm utterly at a loss as to what topic of conversation this thread is supposed to promote other than "hai guys! this is what I think about this tvtropes page!"
That's.....nice? Get a blog?
by Ryadn » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:06 am
by Qazox » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:08 am
by Ryadn » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:16 am
Qazox wrote:regarding the OP:
As a guy, you're screwed either way. If she hits you and you hit her back, 101 times out of 100, the guy's going to jail.
If she hits you and you don't hit back, odds are next time, she'll hit you w/ something harder.
My only exception is, if the girl/woman is holding a lethal weapon (a gun, knife, baseball/cricket bat, etc) and she takes a swing/stab/shot at you, then all bets are off. Self-preservation secedes proper behavior at that point.
by New Manvir » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 am
Ryadn wrote:Qazox wrote:regarding the OP:
As a guy, you're screwed either way. If she hits you and you hit her back, 101 times out of 100, the guy's going to jail.
If she hits you and you don't hit back, odds are next time, she'll hit you w/ something harder.
My only exception is, if the girl/woman is holding a lethal weapon (a gun, knife, baseball/cricket bat, etc) and she takes a swing/stab/shot at you, then all bets are off. Self-preservation secedes proper behavior at that point.
I'm trying to decide whether you hate women, or you've just never been in close proximity to one.
Also whether you meant to use 'supersedes' there.
by Ryadn » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:43 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Atrito, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cheblonsk, Duvniask, Elejamie, Europa Undivided, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Neu California, Post War America, Spirit of Hope, Stormandia, Tarsonis, Unmet Player, Yanitza
Advertisement