Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan 590
ideonexus writes: After Emma Watson gave a speech on the need for feminism (video) to the United Nations, 4chan users threatened to release nude photos of the Harry Potter star in retaliation, setting up the emmayouarenext.com website with a countdown clock. Now it has been revealed that the site was an elaborate hoax intended publicize a movement to shut down 4chan.
Not going to happen (Score:5, Informative)
"Join us as we shutdown 4chan and prevent more pictures from being leaked."
Yeah, that is definitely going to prevent anyone from posting any more photos.
Re:Not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially since 4chan now seems to have more censorship than ever and new clones have been appearing with less censorship. Seems to me that 4chan is already dying.
Either you have censorship on a site or you will have sites with questionable content that nobody really believes in. The trolls will find new forums and channels. Lately there's an app for mobile phones called Secret [wikipedia.org] that has been used for questionable activities.
purge this filth from the internet (Score:2, Funny)
I agree- we should shut down 4-Chan. And all of the other sites posting naked pictures of women without their consent. And all of the sites demeaning women or ethnic minorities. And the forums providing a conduit for homophobia and racist slurs and.......guys......anyone still there?
Nope, the attack on 4chan is itself a hoax (Score:5, Interesting)
The company that wants 4chan shut down also doesn't seem to exist; it looks like this was a publicity stunt by a social media agency.
http://www.theguardian.com/fil... [theguardian.com]
It's trolls all the way down! (Score:4, Funny)
Couldn't happen to a nicer site.
Re:It's trolls all the way down! (Score:5, Funny)
It's approaching troll event horizon, with trolls trolling trolls who troll trolls trolling other trolls. Ridiculous.
On one hand, I'd welcome empirical evidence that black holes actually exist [slashdot.org], even if it requires every troll on Earth to do it. OTOH, 4chan has spewed forth many notable elements of on-line culture, so its loss would be lamentable. Sorta.
I'm conflicted.
Almost no comments on this? (Score:3)
Hundreds of comments questioning whether women are still second class citizens* and nobody comments on the apparent fact that SocialVEVO trolled the entire internet, terrorising both Emma Watson and threatening hundreds of thousands of other women involved in activism are still trolling us, having duped everyone from the BBC to /. a second time.
*They are, it's bloody obvious and you're an ignorant douche if you say otherwise.
Attacking 4chan is poor strategy (Score:5, Funny)
They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
It's like destroying a prison to stop crime.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that attacking 4chan is a bad idea, but the 4chan problem users aren't the ones who keep their behavior on 4chan. They are the ones who think that, since they think X, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be attacking them and thus must be dealt with using the harshest of threats (including bodily injury and/or death) and hacking attempts. If anyone supports their target or opposes them, they become a target as well.
When you need to resort to death threats and intimidation to "win" your disagre
Re:Attacking 4chan is poor strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds like a most of activists groups to me.
My view is common sense. If you disagree with me you must be influenced by some sort dark forces.
It should be obvious that my view is right, so there must be some force preventing you from understanding that.
Those democrats are being paid off by George Soros and fed misinformation from GE who owns MSNBC, those Republicans must be paid off by the Koch brothers and fed misinformation from News Corp who owns FoxNews.
Re: (Score:3)
Most activist groups stop short of wishing death or bodily harm on their opponents. There is a fringe, though, that do this. Hopefully, the numbers of these groups will get smaller and smaller. (Yes, I'm an eternal optimist.)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that attacking 4chan is a bad idea, but the 4chan problem users aren't the ones who keep their behavior on 4chan. They are the ones who think that, since they think X, anyone who doesn't agree with them must be attacking them and thus must be dealt with using the harshest of threats (including bodily injury and/or death) and hacking attempts. If anyone supports their target or opposes them, they become a target as well.
When you need to resort to death threats and intimidation to "win" your disagreement, then you've not only lost the argument but have moved into the areas of harassment or worse.
Think you need to add citations these buddy. Or is this the type of argument that doesn't need proof?
Not saying 4chan is a heaven of angels, but the wide brushing + ad hominem argument without proof is rarely the right way to go.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps a more elaborate hoax than we think (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
Or an elaborate attack on Emma Watson by kicking the hornet's nest and pointing to her?
False Flag against 4chan???? (Score:5, Funny)
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
Re: (Score:3)
Really, a false flag attack on 4chan?
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
that has your addresses
Guess it will become a Pyrrhic victory (Score:4, Insightful)
The 4chan crowd ain't known for its ability to take stuff like that lightly. If I was that marketing company, I'd make sure my servers are hardened against any kind of onslaught.
Dear Sir or Madam, (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at the very least a /sarcasm tag....
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think there might be some factors that might contribute to that number not being zero other than lack of opportunity? How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career? To be clear, I'm glad this trend is changing.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".
(Improved childcare opportunities are one of the great equality demands in the sciences right now. You're on a different side than you realise.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't get it. The biggest problem is that women pressure other women to settle for less careerwise in order to put a priority on getting married and having a family. Mothers are the worst at this as they want grand babies.
Look, the fact is that the lost opportunities are self inflicted. You and other women need to change the culture among women.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm not female. I do, however, work in an environment where I'm having to think carefully about how childcare needs can be balanced with future career prospects. People drop out all the time and it's not because they choose to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The phenomenon obviously exists, but why do you attach such negativity to it? Without babies the humanity will cease to exist pretty soon no matter how successful "freed" women are at their other pursuits.
And pregnancy — and subsequent child-rearing — do cost women professionally. Not becau
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, as I see it, is women who do NOT leave for childrearing or other pursuits still being paid less on the basis that males are the breadwinners in their families.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is this all too often extends into not giving women promising assignments because she just got married and might start making babies soon, or because she is about the age that society expects her to want to do that. That is why even in superfic
Re: (Score:3)
I'm confused - what exactly was the point of Emma's speech?
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful of that broad brush you're painting with. My girlfriend is a feminist. She has exactly the same issues with what she considers a vocal minority within the feminist movement (much like the "all penis-in-vagina-sex-is-rape" crowd) that Emma has. What's the point of giving women empowerment over their own bodies if you're going to turn right around and shame back into a niqab? It's lunacy. Mainstream feminism, as opposed to the Fox News sensationalist headlines feminism, isn't about what *you* think it is. It's a tired trope, but the loudest 2-3% gets all the press for just about any group you can think of, and that 2-3% is generally batshit crazy.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Informative)
While that's true, it's still not a simple issue. If you look at the whole it looks like a big, pervasive problem, but having worked in several jobs in financial positions I can tell you that none of them used gender as criteria for salary. If you were in position X, you made $Y regardless of your gender. So it's largely not the case that men make more than women who are equally qualified and employed.
So what's going on?
First, many women stop work to have children. This interrupts their career progress, resets their salary, and prevents them from ascending as high as men. This is the reason that women who stop work to raise children and later divorce still get alimony. There is also a perception that women will do this, of course, and that is a problem.
Second, the careers that men choose tend to pay more. A carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, an engineer, a doctor, a tool and die machinist, a computer programmer or administrator, etc. The careers that women choose tend to pay less. A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care. Now the reason for this is actually pretty complicated. Professions that men worked were paid a salary to support an entire family wife and kids. That amount of money was simply what a man cost, since any job he took necessarily had to support his family due to cultural standards of the day. If he wasn't getting paid that amount, then he could neither support his existing family, nor could he marry a woman and start a family. Professions that women worked were paid a salary to support a single person or possibly a single person with one child. Today, those salaries remain affected by those historic amounts due to market forces. That's why professional jobs designed to attract men have reasonably good salaries even if they largely didn't exist when the workplace was divided on gender lines (i.e., computer programmers).
The key to take away here is: women and men are voluntarily choosing their own professions and we still see a salary discrepancy. The professions they choose have salaries determined by market forces, which includes how people were paid in the past. Programs exist which encourage women to take college paths that lead to better paying careers, but in spite of the fact that women now consistently and significantly outnumber men in annual college enrollment numbers [forbes.com], men still outnumber women in technical and professional degrees and women are still not choosing degrees which result in better paying careers [collegeatlas.org].
So who is to blame? On the one hand you have people saying that women don't make as much and that's a problem for society as a whole. Women are also not taken as authoritatively as men are, so men tend to get hired into positions of higher authority which, of course, pay more. On the other, you have people saying that women made voluntary choices that resulted in them earning less so they should bear the responsibility for the consequences of their own choices rather than expecting society to fix it for them.
Fundamentally, none these problems can be easily solved through government policy or regulation. Are we expecting the government to step in an force salaries for jobs to be increased or decreased? That you have to pay a teacher and an engineer the same? That's not equality. That's parity. Are we going to say that the woman who worked 5 years, quit 10 to raise kids, and then returns deserves the same salary and opportunities as a man who has worked for 15 years? How is that fair to devalue 10 years of relevant experience? What about the increasingly common situation where the man quits his job to raise the kids? Does he deserve the same considerations?
Re: (Score:3)
"A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care."
How many of those are 'chosen' by women, as opposed to being effectively closed to men?
Teacher, nurse, child care... any man who wants to pursue those careers is likely to be automatically suspected of being a pedophile.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean an hours-worked discrepancy. Men put in the majority of overtime hours, and the vast majority of 60+ hour work weeks. The "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on ignoring overtime and focusing on "skills" and "positions". If you're a woman, and you worked 10 hours more per week than a male colleague in the same position, you'd damn well expec
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Interesting)
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong [forbes.com]. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers [pewresearch.org] (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house [whitehouse.gov] (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sorry but you clearly don't have even the first bit of experience in the field if that's what you believe.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense? Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men. This is a real problem. Why does this scare you?.
This is just not true. Once you factor in time & effort on the job, the gap nearly closes. Women choose to place domestic priorities higher than men. Why does this scare you?
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.
You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?
Re: (Score:3)
I think you missed the GP's point. Big corporations exhibit almost insatiable greed, and will do just about anything to save money, from H1Bs to outsourcing. Yet they don't hire women more than men. There are two possible explanations:
In theory, they are both equally plausible.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Informative)
The timing of this BusinessWeek story [businessweek.com] is quite amusing. It tells about a startup founder who is hiring mostly women because they're cheaper.
So there you go.
Your nonsense. (Score:4, Informative)
Not if she's working the same hours and has the same experience, she's not. Men get paid more because they work more. [wsj.com]
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry - but unsurprised - to hear that the only women who will tolerate your company for more than a few minutes at a time require some form of payment for their service.
You should try being a better person, I bet you'd find that you meet much nicer girls as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
I highly suspect many women would trade those advantages to resolve equal pay and other difficulties, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that many women don't make use of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Funny)
Solution is to legalize prostitution. The prohibition of prostitution creates an artificial scarcity that allows women to demand free drinks and meals in exchange for the possibility of sex.
Legalize prostitution and those women will be lowering their standards significantly in face of cheaper, market-regulated, and guaranteed sex.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA officially calls it "Human Space Program", it is in their writing styleguide and has been for awhile.
http://history.nasa.gov/styleg... [nasa.gov]
Manned Space Program vs. Human Space Program:
All references referring to the space program should be non-gender specific (e.g. human, piloted, un-piloted, robotic). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spacecraft Center, the predecessor to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, or any other official program name or title that included "manned" (e.g. Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So, did you read just one paragraph and miss out the rest of the article? A 33% gap does not appear to be "equal" in my dictionary.
While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
Re: (Score:3)
Before getting to articles, did you read the first and second sentences in a three sentence post?
The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more at a full-time job than a man working part-time? Of course you would.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more than a man if you work overtime while he works 9 to 5? Of course you would.
Of course,
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
because bachelors degrees are definitely definitely equal. What's the gender difference in STEM fields (which pay more at the bachelor's level) compared to social sciences/education etc?
Do female EE's make more or less than men with the same degree, same level of experience? That's a valid comparison.
Females with a BA in sociology or anthropology making less than a man with a bachelors in computer science? Less so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, nobody has ever thought to adjust for hours worked and wonder if the issue was underemployment of women. It's not like that's one of the major issues that employment equality is concerned with right now.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that the latest recession has been called the Mancession for a reason. More women than men are working, and making more money.
More women are earning degrees at all levels. Women are CHOOSING to work fewer hours. They choose quality of life because they CAN. Men do not have this option. Women simply have more choice of what they do.
Today's feminist propaganda/dogma has noting to do with reality. Victim mentality. Total absolution from personal responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
The latest recession was never called the mancession.
How is this rated informative? It is plain wrong.
You could find the same few examples (among many others) with a simple Google search, but since that is obviously too much work ...
Mancession Definition [investopedia.com]
The Mancession [nytimes.com]
Thanks to the “mancession,” metrosexuals have become “manfluencers” [qz.com]
One Mancession Later, Are Women Really Victors in the New Economy? [thenation.com]
Economy: The Man-cession and the He-covery [usatoday.com]
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession! [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes. That's what you tend to see in societies where one group or another is underpaid - in economic crises, they're more heavily employed because they're cheaper. In the US it's illegal immigrants due to a reluctance to establish wage laws for migrant workers; in the UK it's young workers because our minimum wage adjusts with age; I guess in Romania there's enough of a wage discrepancy that businesses could cash in.
In crystallography circles, there's a slightly higher percentage of women than in other
Re: Emma Watson is full of it (Score:2)
1. Women are underpaid compared to men absolutely (no other reasons given other than sexism)
2. Women are underemployed compared to men in the face of criticism of 1 (no other reason given than sexism)
3. Hand-waved criticism of 1 and 2 by claiming that when economies are in crisis (all of ours are arguable capitalist economies always are, nature of capitalism), the lowest paid are over employed relative to other groups.
This seems like a pretty clear contradiction.
Mak
Re: (Score:2)
This was discussed on a local talk show in Austin and several HR folks from major tech companies here called in.
They claimed that for graduate level positions, they receive hardly any applications from women and very few from American born men. Mostly foreign born applications here on work visas or in the naturalization process.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
pretty much the whole western world where the vast majority of women nearly always get equal or preferential treatment.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh it's so unfair, that women don't have to register for the draft, in spite of the fact that volunteer female soldiers have been fighting for decades to even have the chance at front-line combat duties"
Come on man. Selective service is pretty outdated as a concept and should probably be binned for men, but this is an argument that just ignores the pragmatic reality that it's sexism against women not "for" them that creates the situation you're whining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are two different issues: you're conflating the issue of females who want to fight being allowed to do so with the issue of females who don't want to fight being allowed to refrain from doing so -- a right they have that males do not. What reason, other than hypocrisy, could feminists have for consistently leaving that latter particular aspect of equal rights out?
"We want to be equal except where being unequal suits us" is not an argument that would advance the cause.
(Note: I'm in favor of women havin
Re: (Score:2)
You have got to be kidding me.
Of course I'm fucking conflating them. They're caused by the same phenomenon. People perceiving women as being incapable of taking care of themselves in war.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
So you admit that it's all about tinkering round the edges, not achieving some paradigm shift or anything major, then. Frankly, not really UN material.
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
In practice, that's pretty much all anyone gets.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:4, Insightful)
So you want women to always "get equal or preferential treatment"? Since women do get preferential treatment in many areas, that isn't a campaign for equalitiy, it's a campaign for treating men worse than women.
Most of the feminist agenda these days isn't about government discrimination, it is about private conduct. So, the positions you mock are actually pretty much the positions feminists take: right to self-determination in most cases (except when it interferes with feminist notions of equality), right to liberty usually (except when we need to restrict it in order to achieve feminist goals), right to due process (except when rape, harassment, or other crimes feminists care about are involved), freedom of though except if it is inconvenient (because people don't believe what feminists believe).
Re: (Score:2)
It will never be "all" because we will never live in a perfect world. There will always be cases of SOME men, women, blacks, whites, Indians, etc. who are legitimately oppressed or discriminated against for many various reasons, even in the best countries. So if you can say "the vast majority of X are treated fairly" then you're doing about as good as is humanly possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and? 98% and 99% are both vast majorities, but that's the difference between 200 million people getting the short end of the stick and 100 million people getting the short end of the stick.
You might as well say "the vast majority of people live past reproductive age" and say that we can pack in modern medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I give mine the finest cashmere tea towels to wear.
...wait, what were we talking about again?
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever considered that many women often choose being a mother instead of focusing on a demanding career?
Also, in other categories where men get the short end of the stick statistically, do you automatically assume its because of some big conspiracy?
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't really believe that every single man who believes in "Men's Rights" is "dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs."?
That's like believing that all women who are feminists believe 90% of men should be phased out.
Get some perspective.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Inequality that disfavours men is because of a set of social norms and conventions around gender that need to be challenged by men and women alike. That's what the modern feminist movement is about, no?
Men face a much higher arrest and conviction rate for sexual assaults. They also face stiffer penalties when convicted. So what you're saying is that modern feminists are working to correct this imbalance?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I will say that men have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to being convicted of sexual assault, so what is there to complain about? The law's perfectly even-handed, and it'd be churlish to ask for special treatment because of one's gender. :)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry you clearly can't tell I'm taking the piss out of a position that you advanced earlier.
Yes, the "women first" bias in the UK court system's awards of custody certainly needs to be addressed. If people who claimed to stand up for men's rights spent their time addressing these issues and not nit-picking feminists we'd probably have that licked by now.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were, what else would explain (at least a closer) 50/50 split of male and female people in high powered jobs?
Higher desire to drop out of a job and raise a family. More ambition to do stuff that doesn't require dedicating your whole life to it to be successful. More desire to do "social" jobs like teaching or nursing and not "unsociable" jobs like CEO or garbage collection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whose fault is it when you have 50% of the voters and can't fill 50% of the seats?
With voting age limited to 18 and over and with a highly unbalanced incarceration rate, there are far more eligible female voters than male. For example, in the United States, there are 8 million more women eligible to vote than men.
Re:Emma Watson is full of it (Score:5, Funny)
Did you know that men are roughly 50% of the population, but only 13% of elementary education teachers in the United States are men?
Help, help, we're being oppressed!!
Re: (Score:2)
It tells me that women are more risk averse than men on average. Something that is pretty well established in most studies of male and female psychology.
Remember that for every high profile politician or CEO there are thousands of failures. Just because someone has an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it. Nor does it mean they have to take it.
Re: (Score:2)
My numbers are probably a bit off, but the ratio of women who show interest in CS based on random population surveys, matches the actual women who have a CS related job nearly perfectly. Men express more interested in CS than women, go figure. We don't need more women in CS, we need a more favorable environments, but I think the who "IT" industry
Re: (Score:2)
I think the elephant in the room is that most women have babies. They love those babies and they want to stay home with them.
Where I work - medium-sized development shop - I can recall one or two females who went on maternity leave and never came back, and several who dropped to part-time after they had kids. Not one single male changed working patterns after fatherhood.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet women tend to want to stay home with the babies instead of focusing on a career. This pressure also comes from other women.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and that's one of the ideas that keeps coming up: it's not a men-vs-women issue, anyone can hold these problematic preconceptions about women's roles in society.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not entirely true. There are lots of "fraternal organizations" that are men-only. These could be booster clubs for things like sports spring training, where the members are all male "civic leaders", could be golf country-clubs that do not permit women to hold memberships and bar women guests of members from certain areas, and mens' clubs (not to be confused with gentlemens'
Re: (Score:2)
So those CEOs of HP and Yahoo must be some sort of hallucination then?
Let us not forget multiple heads of state, secretaries of state, and multiple chief justices.
Re: (Score:2)
The logical answer is that gender-biased hiring patterns are overriding the market's inherent rational balancing mechanisms. I mean, clearly it's not the free hand of the market making the call if you have an inequality that disadvantages both one group and market efficiency, while acting to the advantage of another group.
Re: (Score:2)
How about 'Photoshopped pictures' because it never happened?
Really, the Internet needs a drain. Support 4Chan...
That she didn't call their bluff... (Score:3, Funny)
I bet she even showers naked...
Re:That she didn't call their bluff... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the logical inference from that be that men in technologically advanced, socially developed Western societies deserve at least some proportion of feminist women?
Re: (Score:3)
Not [wsj.com] if they're working the same positions with the same hours, they aren't.
Re: (Score:3)
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct, her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. But it also raises a question: Why are we listening to her over any other random person pulled off the street? She's famous for being an actress, that doesn't make her an expert on gender roles or sociology. Oh, right now she's an actress using her fame to advance a good cause - but have already forgotten that elevating another actress to a position of self-proclaimed expert lead to the ris
Re: (Score:3)
You assume an awful lot there, which I think is more telling of your attitude than anything. Maybe it's time you dropped the victim angle and tried to address the actual issue being discussed here.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting how the narrative has become "an attack on gamers" simply by people like you repeating it so often. The assault on Ms. Quinn is quite unprecedented I think, and Anita Satkeesian actually goes out of her way to point out that most gamers don't hate women and even the developers are mostly just lazy rather than malicious.
Of course none of that matters. The professional victims like Thubdetf00t have too much to gain, and it's easy when your audience has too short an attention span to view the