Support the Ban Bossy campaign

[Orogun01]

 

 

These folks should have better things to do.

Wals the point is not to do better things; sure there's starvation, rape and war in Africa, India and the rest of the Third World but doing something about those would require going to those places and suffering for the cause. I want a cause that I can champion from the comfort of my home, preferably over the Web or strictly on the first World.

 

 

But you can fight for those causes from the comfort of your chair, too. All it takes is a modicum of awareness as a consumer and, most importantly, that you stop voting for the same douchebags that continue to support the status quo, election after election. No need to become a volunteer surgeon in Mali or anything.

 

But how are we going to support those campaigns if there's no one to make my Ipad? I need my Ipad, I'm willing to put up with the fact that is made by exploited Chinese (although the women have it worse surely) I would be happy if there was another way to make them but I want it.

[213374U]

Damn, foiled again!

[Oerwinde]

They could make your iPad in the US, but then it would cost $15-20 more to buy it. Exploiting people in another country allows me to buy an iPad AND a DVD.

[Orogun01]

They could make your iPad in the US, but then it would cost $15-20 more to buy it. Exploiting people in another country allows me to buy an iPad AND a DVD.

On an unrelated note, outsourcing for cheap labor is a detriment since you're also outsourcing capital from potential costumers. The exception being luxury items.

[Mor]

http://banbossy.com/

 

Take a look guys, I think this is another important step in achieving equality for women and for ensuring that young girls can reach there full potential through being confidant about becoming leaders

 

 

I hope many of you support this initiative

Why would I call some who boss me around a leader just because he has a ****?! is this is a region/culture slang or wtf ?!?!?

 

Also on a personal note, I don't like such campaigns, to me it seem like it tries to define what women can do i.e. look you can become a everything you want leader! what if she want to become "grease monkey" or any other of the "manly" jobs which are taboo in many places.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Mor

[Volourn]

It's simple, camapigns like this are started by those who think girls are fragile, weak, and need protection. It's an insult to women. It says a lot that those supporting it are successful women who claim they were 'bullied' when they were kids by being called 'bossy'. So, yeah, it really damaged their spyches. LMAO If being called 'bossy' weakens your resolve that you no longer want to be a 'leader' you weren't much of a 'leader' in the first place.

 

I really wish people would stop trashing women by calling them weak and pathetic. It's disgusting.

[HoonDing]

Romance is dead.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Governments should be required to maintain equality under the law, as in no double standards in legal systems. Wanting the government to force individuals to treat others equally on private matters is something else entirely, that something being authoritarian rule.

 

Where would this "private matters " apply  in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe?

 

Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters....

 

If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act.

 

 

I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes  to a website and starts being homophobic?

 

Websites have their forum rules, unfortunately that means that depending on the place honest dissent that is voiced politely can be perceived as a harmful speech and blocked. You can customize your web experience so that you're never exposed to other perspectives (and Google helps that a lot with search algorithms) Internet forums are often like gated communities, if there is a dominant view it will be the one that's enforced.

Short answer is that moderators will take care of it based on the community rules/biases/ideology.

 

For example, we don't tolerate bots.

 

 

Sorry for the belated response, I was away for the weekend and only returned late last night. I'll just summarize my point. People keep saying " you can't say you live in country that allows free speech if you also say that certain words are not allowed to be used. This is a contradiction"

 

But in the UK for example they prosecute people for using certain words and offensive descriptions on Twitter, yet they live in a Democracy that does practice free speech. I'm sure that in all other Western countries there are similar cases of people being charged for using certain words through social media  in a way that is considered socially unacceptable This does not mean the country doesn't allow free speech. Thats my point.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes to a website and starts being homophobic?

 

I don't think he meant it in that way, I think he meant acting homophobic on the website.

 

 

Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people

[BruceVC]

So, do you guys think that Bruce is an alt? Certainly feels like a caricature to me.

 

As I mentioned before this is probably the most annoying question someone could ask. I am exactly who I say I am, I am a real person who believes what he posts and is happy to debate the discussion points. Lets move beyond this absurd suggestion and try to focus on constructive comments

[Valsuelm]

 

 

 

I don't think he meant it in that way, I think he meant acting homophobic on the website.

 

 

Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people

 

 

I didn't misunderstand it at all. My satire on the ridiculousness of what you stated and the ideas that generated your statement as well as the points I made on the subject in general are apparently lost on both you and Oerwinde.

 

Edited March 17, 2014 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

@Bruce,Kaine,Malcador: Sorry if my post gave you guys grievances, it certainly wasn't my intent. It was more of a facetious attempt at illustrating and revealing the underlying tone of Third Wave feminism, which it seems to be only embraced openly by fringe elements. I don't think I can adopt a political view just because I agree with some of their points, and specially not if the rest of it is deranged ( I couldn't think of a softer word ). Whatever the intent the focus of feminism on what they perceive to be female issues caused by society and trying to change that society, rather than having women change their perspectives and empowering will probably have negative connotations. If you remove all societal restrictions and gender roles from women they are likely to grow in a vacuum where they have no norm to base themselves against. So far feminism hasn't come up with a positive role model as to what women should become, and more focus on the negative isn't going to help.

 

@Ametep: Good read, I'm liking you more with each post

 

I meant to comment on this earlier. I was very impressed and want to really recognize the fact that you made a post that you didn't have to make as people, me specifically, had misunderstood your original point. There was certain unnecessary contention around the semantics of what you were saying but you took the time to explain what you are actually getting at.

 

This really shows a maturity and tthoughtfulness that at times we often all seem to lack in defusing certain debates, so well done

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I don't think he meant it in that way, I think he meant acting homophobic on the website.

 

 

Yes that is exactly what I meant, I surprised that such a simple point could be so misunderstood by some people

 

 

I didn't misunderstand it at all. My satire on the ridiculousness of what you stated and the ideas that generated your statement as well as the points I made on the subject in general are apparently lost on both you and Oerwinde.

 

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia

 

No, you are the one who still misunderstands. Homophobia in the context of social justice and bigotry is the dislike of someone because of there sexual orientation. There is no other way to see this form of discrimination. You can try to debate its meaning in any other way but you would be wrong. And I think almost everyone on these forums knows what the word homophobia represents and means. There is nothing ridiculous about saying "homophobia is considered unacceptable to many people"

[JFSOCC]

I'm not reading 10 pages. I've been called all these things as a child, it didn't stop me. I fully support encouraging girls and boys to ignore traditional gender roles, and to teach and empower either sex. I'm not sure if this campaign is the way to go, but I suppose it does call to attention the discrepancies still alive today. I do think the time is right for gender equality.

 

I also think that the initiative is right in asking for more strong role-models for girls in roles that were traditionally associated with men.

Edited March 17, 2014 by JFSOCC

[Walsingham]

If the purpose of feminism is to empower women, and to change the perception of their existing power, then I think official campaigns like this are a problem.

 

They may add a little official power, but they do far more harm to the perception of power.

[TrashMan]

 

I honestly cannot say that I have ever seen someone so thoroughly fail to grasp what comes across as such a straight forward and simple assertion. You're right that bossy and leader aren't the same... so tick one on failure at critical thinking. The thesis provided is that boys will do a particular act (whatever that act is) and be called a leader for it, while a girl doing that exact same act will more likely be called bossy.

 

 

I will demand two things:

 

1) Proof that boys and girls were doing the exact same things

and if so:

 

2) proof that girls are actually more likely to be called bossy in that case (or that boys are more likely to be called leaders)

 

 

before I even consider this poorly concieved campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for the belated response, I was away for the weekend and only returned late last night. I'll just summarize my point. People keep saying " you can't say you live in country that allows free speech if you also say that certain words are not allowed to be used. This is a contradiction"

 

But in the UK for example they prosecute people for using certain words and offensive descriptions on Twitter, yet they live in a Democracy that does practice free speech. I'm sure that in all other Western countries there are similar cases of people being charged for using certain words through social media  in a way that is considered socially unacceptable This does not mean the country doesn't allow free speech. Thats my point.

 

That just means that the Freedom of Speech is on paper only.

Edited March 17, 2014 by TrashMan

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

 

Governments should be required to maintain equality under the law, as in no double standards in legal systems. Wanting the government to force individuals to treat others equally on private matters is something else entirely, that something being authoritarian rule.

 

Where would this "private matters " apply  in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe?

 

Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters....

 

If someone is prejudiced against LGTB, he should be allowed as long as they don't break the law. Legislation shouldn't be used to deny rights to either side of the fence and that means the right to freedom of speech. This is what some feminists and rights activists seem unable to comprehend, they assume their position to be the correct one and therefore enforcing it is a righteous act.

 

 

I agree about the LGTB part but what if that person goes  to a website and starts being homophobic?

 

Websites have their forum rules, unfortunately that means that depending on the place honest dissent that is voiced politely can be perceived as a harmful speech and blocked. You can customize your web experience so that you're never exposed to other perspectives (and Google helps that a lot with search algorithms) Internet forums are often like gated communities, if there is a dominant view it will be the one that's enforced.

Short answer is that moderators will take care of it based on the community rules/biases/ideology.

 

For example, we don't tolerate bots.

 

 

Sorry for the belated response, I was away for the weekend and only returned late last night. I'll just summarize my point. People keep saying " you can't say you live in country that allows free speech if you also say that certain words are not allowed to be used. This is a contradiction"

 

But in the UK for example they prosecute people for using certain words and offensive descriptions on Twitter, yet they live in a Democracy that does practice free speech. I'm sure that in all other Western countries there are similar cases of people being charged for using certain words through social media  in a way that is considered socially unacceptable This does not mean the country doesn't allow free speech. Thats my point.

 

The problem in my perspective isn't the banning of words but the subversion through meaning to push a political agenda of a world that I'm not quite sure that I like or would want to live in. With rude speech it is pretty explicit in its usage and meaning because its purpose is to insult, but with appropriate words like bossy it has a different effect. What happens when a boy calls a girl bossy because she is being bossy? They are redefining a negative attitude as a positive which isn't going to make the world better but is better for them since it suits their ideal society.

The more I hear about feminism the more I realize that it isn't about equality or equity is about taking the so called Patriarchy and turning into a Matriarchy. Which they would say is better since men suffer under a Patriarchy, men are the reason for all wars, while women are gentle and nurturing. I find it sadly ironic that they are using the same stereotypes established by the system they dislike to push theirs. An ideology of convenience for just one group is what it is and at this moment I really wish there was something other than Nazism that I could compare it to, but my knowledge is limited.

 

[Meshugger]

If all men are rapist pigs, why do women want to become equal to them?

 

Also, the UK, like most of Europe do not have free speech. Frankly, no country really has it as far as i know, only leaving the US as the closest candidate. It also shows how little we have progressed as a species when we still to this very day try to control information, and to certain extent; the minds of men. 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Ideally, the only limits on speech would be on those that would cause physical harm, such as yelling "Fire!" in a theater. Anything else should be fair game, even if some find it offensive.

 

If you think it is fine to censor an opposing viewpoint, you have strong authoritarian leanings and little value for free speech.

 

As to this Ban Bossy thing, I see no evidence of the phenomenon existing other than ancedotal remarks. Therefore, it is nothing more than the usual suspects making noise while far more pressing concerns exist. Of course, addresing those concerns would mean paying $20 for an Ipad.

Edited March 17, 2014 by KaineParker

[Cultist]

BruceVC, you and people who start such campaigns are the reasons we can't have nice things

Edited March 17, 2014 by Cultist

[Valsuelm]

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia

 

No, you are the one who still misunderstands. Homophobia in the context of social justice and bigotry is the dislike of someone because of there sexual orientation. There is no other way to see this form of discrimination. You can try to debate its meaning in any other way but you would be wrong. And I think almost everyone on these forums knows what the word homophobia represents and means. There is nothing ridiculous about saying "homophobia is considered unacceptable to many people"

 

Online dictionaries tend to often give an incorrect/incomplete definition of a great many words, most really. It is a shame and possibly a testament to something sinister that better dictionaries are not readily available on the web. I suggest you get yourself a hard copy of an unabridged dictionary, and if you're really serious about learning about words, one from today and one from three or more decades ago. I've found Webster's to be the superior of the modern dictionaries as it tends to be less susceptible to bias or politics, but any other option should still do oodles better than the relative tripe we find online. Regardless, I'm more than well aware of what you and most of those who would use this word think it means.

 

I'm not here to debate the meaning of 'homophobia', but to point out it has almost no place in a legitimate debate on most anything, no more than the 'n' word does. It's a word primarily meant to divide, conquer, stupefy, insult, and marginalize. Philosophically the word is discussable (as the 'n' word is), but you're not using it in such a manner. I've submitted to you that you are thinking in very shallow terms when you use such a word as you do, but your reaction is to just repeat yourself while emphasizing the false enlightenment using such a word bestows upon yourself and the insult it bestows on others who may disagree with you. "There is no other way to see this form of discrimination." possibly best belies your shallowness of thinking, as yes there is, multiple and most alternatives with much greater depth than you've put forth. I redirect you to my original post that sparked your reply...

 

I have little hope I will pry you out of the box you've let yourself be placed in via these forums, but I do hope you'll find yourself out of it someday. I think you will find that if you do you won't have people thinking you're someone's alt or a caricature. While I do not think you are such a thing, you are indeed one of the most cookie cutter thinkers I've come across, and certainly are the most of the prolific posters on this board in my estimation.

 

'None but ourselves can free our mind' - Marley

 

'Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.' - Geothe

translation:

 

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - Goethe

 

 

If you ever get over your aversion to videos and are willing to have much of what you think truly challenged and are wiling to listen to someone discuss some alternatives to your thinking with a little depth, here's a decent place to start:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL981B1FFB9C7A8A67

Edited March 17, 2014 by Valsuelm

[AGX-17]

I drank a lot of gin because I was out of whiskey, to my shame, so I decided to see how this cluster**** was going.

 

I think it's still a valid descriptor.

 

 

BruceVC, you and people who start such campaigns are the reasons we can't have nice things

Requesting the logic behind this image. Being a dominatrix (don't play dumb, that image can only be construed one way by people with working brains, a way which has nothing to do with the actual issue, as misguided as they may be.) has nothing to do with being assertive in the workplace/daily life. S&M is a fetish subculture, not a mass social movement.

 

Anyway, I need to go driving to the liquor store to buy some quality booze to celebrate America's greatest non-holiday (I didn't get the day off, so it's not a holiday.)

Edited March 18, 2014 by AGX-17

[Valsuelm]

I drank a lot of gin because I was out of whiskey, to my shame,

 

...

...

...

 

Anyway, I need to go driving to the liquor store to buy some quality booze to celebrate America's greatest non-holiday (I didn't get the day off, so it's not a holiday.)

 

 

Do everyone a favor and don't get behind the wheel after drinking a lot of gin please. Hope you changed your mind on this.

[BruceVC]

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobia

 

No, you are the one who still misunderstands. Homophobia in the context of social justice and bigotry is the dislike of someone because of there sexual orientation. There is no other way to see this form of discrimination. You can try to debate its meaning in any other way but you would be wrong. And I think almost everyone on these forums knows what the word homophobia represents and means. There is nothing ridiculous about saying "homophobia is considered unacceptable to many people"

 

Online dictionaries tend to often give an incorrect/incomplete definition of a great many words, most really. It is a shame and possibly a testament to something sinister that better dictionaries are not readily available on the web. I suggest you get yourself a hard copy of an unabridged dictionary, and if you're really serious about learning about words, one from today and one from three or more decades ago. I've found Webster's to be the superior of the modern dictionaries as it tends to be less susceptible to bias or politics, but any other option should still do oodles better than the relative tripe we find online. Regardless, I'm more than well aware of what you and most of those who would use this word think it means.

 

I'm not here to debate the meaning of 'homophobia', but to point out it has almost no place in a legitimate debate on most anything, no more than the 'n' word does. It's a word primarily meant to divide, conquer, stupefy, insult, and marginalize. Philosophically the word is discussable (as the 'n' word is), but you're not using it in such a manner. I've submitted to you that you are thinking in very shallow terms when you use such a word as you do, but your reaction is to just repeat yourself while emphasizing the false enlightenment using such a word bestows upon yourself and the insult it bestows on others who may disagree with you. "There is no other way to see this form of discrimination." possibly best belies your shallowness of thinking, as yes there is, multiple and most alternatives with much greater depth than you've put forth. I redirect you to my original post that sparked your reply...

 

I have little hope I will pry you out of the box you've let yourself be placed in via these forums, but I do hope you'll find yourself out of it someday. I think you will find that if you do you won't have people thinking you're someone's alt or a caricature. While I do not think you are such a thing, you are indeed one of the most cookie cutter thinkers I've come across, and certainly are the most of the prolific posters on this board in my estimation.

 

'None but ourselves can free our mind' - Marley

 

'Niemand ist mehr Sklave, als der sich für frei hält, ohne es zu sein.' - Geothe

translation:

 

'None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.' - Goethe

 

 

If you ever get over your aversion to videos and are willing to have much of what you think truly challenged and are wiling to listen to someone discuss some alternatives to your thinking with a little depth, here's a decent place to start:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL981B1FFB9C7A8A67

 

 

Lets keep this simple, what is your definition where groups of people are discriminated against because of there sexual orientation?

 

If the word homophobia isn't appropriate in your lexicon I would like to know what word is?

 

What word can we use so that we can have a legitimate discussion around this type of bigotry

Edited March 18, 2014 by BruceVC

[ravenshrike]

http://banbossy.com/

 

Take a look guys, I think this is another important step in achieving equality for women and for ensuring that young girls can reach there full potential through being confidant about becoming leaders

 

 

I hope many of you support this initiative

There is a rather large difference between being a boss and being bossy. That the #BanBossy campaign attempts to equate the two is rather amusing if completely wrong. Not to mention this is primarily geared towards Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign because one of the primary complaints about her is that she is bossy and if they can get the social feel-good movement surrounding the word high enough they can use it to deflect criticism away from her during the Dem primaries.