Slut shaming?
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() “Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand?” Warren tweeted Tuesday. “Do you know who you’re picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted.” I guess I just don't keep up with pop culture....it sure sounds to me that Warren is calling Gillibrand a slut. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Full context: She can certainly defend her buddy, but I'm not quite sure where she's reading that from his tweet? |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() You know damn well where she got it from. In this day, if you say "anything" then it surely must be something sexual. I mean, that's the only explanation it could be, right. What else could it possibly be, right? You know he meant sexual favors when he wrote that, right? I mean, surely he's trying to "slut-shame" in this climate, right? (I must be old, what the hell does that even mean?) That's how these people must think......I feel like a complete idiot just typing it. I'd have to jump off a bridge or something if my mind actually worked that way. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I guess shaming sluts is unacceptable? I was talking with my wife the other night about the FBI guy on Muellers team that was demoted for texting his “mistress”. Mistress sure sounds better than “slut who was having an affair with a married man” but I guess they didn’t want to shame her? Guess I’m old school but I have zero tolerance for people who cheat on their spouse. The need to investigate him. Having an affair is a reportable offense in one has a security clearance. He can and should lose his security clearance for having an affair. Maybe that is why they assigned him to HR where he doesn’t need a security clearance? |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() This really all translates into: "we thought we could get Trump with the Russia narrative and it failed miserably so now we're going to make up more accusations and try and take down Trump on the #metoo movement" It's truly comical how desperate people are to take down Trump. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by tuwood This really all translates into: "we thought we could get Trump with the Russia narrative and it failed miserably so now we're going to make up more accusations and try and take down Trump on the #metoo movement" It's truly comical how desperate people are to take down Trump. Yup, the wheel seem to be coming off the house of cards.....mixaphorically speaking. Seems like every day new facts come to light that undermine the impartiality of the special prosecution. As it becomes increasingly obvious the left/MSM are moving on to a new ‘scandal’ that was there when Trump was elected. Doesn’t matter. Trump continues to do exactly what he said he was gonna do. He might yet get impeached but as each month goes by he contiues to remake the judiciary and undo Obamaism. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Oysterboy Watch Fox News much guys? I watch and read CNN almost exclusively, always have.......it's amazing what Trump has done to them. Truly, amazing. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Oysterboy Watch Fox News much guys? I watch and read CNN almost exclusively, always have.......it's amazing what Trump has done to them. Truly, amazing. lol, Not sure what Fox News has to do with Pocahontas being triggered. I saw a meme the other day that was something to the effect of "Trump's twitter is a laser pointer and the media are all cats, it's kind of mean but hilarious to watch" |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() So, crazy Elizabeth Warren calls someone a slut and is not admonished for it. After all, one has to be a slut to be slut-shamed, no? |
![]() ![]() |
Regular ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Oysterboy Watch Fox News much guys? Oyster - It has nothing to do with Fox. i watch equal parts MSNBC, Fox and CNN and all have extreme views. Tell me, which news channels or media sources do you suggest for down the middle coverage? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by hessma Originally posted by Oysterboy Watch Fox News much guys? Oyster - It has nothing to do with Fox. i watch equal parts MSNBC, Fox and CNN and all have extreme views. Tell me, which news channels or media sources do you suggest for down the middle coverage? I do watch Fox much.....but strangely enough, I also watch MSNBC and CNN about the same amount. I like to get both sides. So which cannel is the most unbiased? That is a really good question. I love Fox but I also realize they are playing to the conservative base. I think Sean Hannity is a GOP hack....as is Rachel Maddow...and pretty much everyone on CNN is out to get Trump. I think Tucker Carlson is the most logical of the pundits and even though he is biased right he tends to make rational/logical debates not emotional ones. I get amused watching Anderson Cooper who obviously is out to get Trump and is playing to his core audience. I think Mika and Joe are all in to try to save their dwindling audience and bend over double to try to trash Trump. I actually used to like Joe as he was a conservative amongst a slew of liberals but ever since Trump btch slapped him...or maybe he sold out to Mika....she is kinda of hot, in a snooty sort of way...Joe has gone off the liberal deep end. Joe was rambling the other night about 'sharing the wealth' and sounded more socialist than Bernie. Hard to believe he used to be a republican. In truth, I think it is up to the viewer to watch and read all news sources and sift thru the chaff and try to find the truth. As far as on-line sources, I think Real Clear Politics tries to balance left and right. Very often you will read an article espousing the far left or right and the article immediately following is an article on the exact opposite side. This to me shows the radical divide in the country and how people can look at the same information and draw different conclusions. I often spar with Dmiller here but I appreciate his having he nads to hang in there with his progressive points of view....same with Oysterboy. No fun discussing if we all have the same opinions. Also, those that I usually agree with like Lbrain, tuwood and mdg2003 I occasionally disagree totally with. And I enjoy reading the guys that try to stay in the middle mostly like boblala and spudone...as well as the occasional passers-by like crowny. The bottom line is, it is neither all good nor all bad. On a personal note, my father was mostly as good, honest and decent man....but he had an ugly mean steak and wicked temper....especially when drinking. I learned a great deal from the man....both good and bad. I learned what to do and what not to do. Someone once said, "every man is my superior in that I may learn from him". The guy was an idiot :-)....but there is a smidgen of truth to that. So I will be like try to be like an old mossy horned cow.....and eat the good hay and spit out the sticks. :-) ~Mike |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Always good to look things up before putting down whole groups of people - in this case I'm assuming that by "those people" you mean feminists. Actually, I'm not crazy about the term myself. It is a response to people blaming women for being sexually assaulted - what was she wearing, why was she in his room etc. The idea was that women should not have to be virginal to be "real" victims. A woman could be sexually active and get raped. She could dress in attractive or sexy ways and still not want to have sex with a particular man and get raped. It's a thing that comes from younger feminists. Reclaiming the right to be sexual and not have that used as a justification for rape. Now maybe because I'm old I don't like much of the be sexually free stuff in general. Like being a cool, hippie chick of the 60's, it meant doing what guys wanted but pretending it was your idea. Think of it as reclaiming a word that has been used against you and making it positive. Don't think it works as slut is still a negative term. Of course trump meant to demean Sen. Gillibrand as a woman. Two men had previously called for him to step down due to charges but he only responded to her in a tweet. "Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!" Of course he meant it in a sexually suggestive way. It is also poorly written, disrespectful of a Senator and a total embarrassment that someone like that can be in the Oval Office. I can't say he is the leader of the free world as that is probably now Angela Merkel. Probably the final nail in that coffin was pulling out of the TPP, that sought to unite all the countries of the Pacific rim, while isolating China. Deal still exists only China has stepped in as leader and we are one excluded. And trump has not negotiated any trade deal with China or any country. Edited by MuscleMomma 2018-01-01 5:27 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Maybe, but maybe not. I've been pretty clear about my views on sexual assault allegations......it's the only crime where I work from a start that the offender is guilty. It protects victims and I'll be right about 10-1. Now here's another POV from my wife. When she was 16-21 she modeled in Europe (even made the cover of Italian Vogue), Dallas, New York, etc. Big stuff for a young girl. She won't talk about it today, and I didn't even know about it until we had been together a few years and her parents let the cat out of the bag when they showed me her book. So that's the background. Now, as all of these stories come out, many of them decades old, she mostly just shakes her head. She says that it was a common practice for some models, and she's sure actresses as well, to "sleep" (not her word, but cleaned up for this forum)their way to modeling contracts and roles through photographers, agents, producers, etc. She said the entire industry was full of it, and the major reason she became disgusted and quit. She says it's completely disingenuous for these women to come forward now and cry foul......and she further believes that it taints the REAL cases of harassment and assault. She was there, I was not, so there's that. I found myself arguing with a woman that women must be believed in these instances, as I always do, while she argued that many of them are full of crap, got what they wanted at the time, rose to the top, now use that voice to cry foul. She's not buying it. Arguing with her always leads me to heavy drinking.
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Always good to look things up before putting down whole groups of people - in this case I'm assuming that by "those people" you mean feminists. Actually, I'm not crazy about the term myself. It is a response to people blaming women for being sexually assaulted - what was she wearing, why was she in his room etc. The idea was that women should not have to be virginal to be "real" victims. A woman could be sexually active and get raped. She could dress in attractive or sexy ways and still not want to have sex with a particular man and get raped. It's a thing that comes from younger feminists. Reclaiming the right to be sexual and not have that used as a justification for rape. Now maybe because I'm old I don't like much of the be sexually free stuff in general. Like being a cool, hippie chick of the 60's, it meant doing what guys wanted but pretending it was your idea. Think of it as reclaiming a word that has been used against you and making it positive. Don't think it works as slut is still a negative term. Of course trump meant to demean Sen. Gillibrand as a woman. Two men had previously called for him to step down due to charges but he only responded to her in a tweet. "Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!" Of course he meant it in a sexually suggestive way. It is also poorly written, disrespectful of a Senator and a total embarrassment that someone like that can be in the Oval Office. I can't say he is the leader of the free world as that is probably now Angela Merkel. Probably the final nail in that coffin was pulling out of the TPP, that sought to unite all the countries of the Pacific rim, while isolating China. Deal still exists only China has stepped in as leader and we are one excluded. And trump has not negotiated any trade deal with China or any country. Trump used almost the same words about Mitt Romney....but nobody thought he meant he was down on his knees for sexual reasons. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Always good to look things up before putting down whole groups of people - in this case I'm assuming that by "those people" you mean feminists. Actually, I'm not crazy about the term myself. It is a response to people blaming women for being sexually assaulted - what was she wearing, why was she in his room etc. The idea was that women should not have to be virginal to be "real" victims. A woman could be sexually active and get raped. She could dress in attractive or sexy ways and still not want to have sex with a particular man and get raped. It's a thing that comes from younger feminists. Reclaiming the right to be sexual and not have that used as a justification for rape. Now maybe because I'm old I don't like much of the be sexually free stuff in general. Like being a cool, hippie chick of the 60's, it meant doing what guys wanted but pretending it was your idea. Think of it as reclaiming a word that has been used against you and making it positive. Don't think it works as slut is still a negative term. Of course trump meant to demean Sen. Gillibrand as a woman. Two men had previously called for him to step down due to charges but he only responded to her in a tweet. "Lightweight Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a total flunky for Chuck Schumer and someone who would come to my office “begging” for campaign contributions not so long ago (and would do anything for them), is now in the ring fighting against Trump. Very disloyal to Bill & Crooked-USED!" Of course he meant it in a sexually suggestive way. It is also poorly written, disrespectful of a Senator and a total embarrassment that someone like that can be in the Oval Office. I can't say he is the leader of the free world as that is probably now Angela Merkel. Probably the final nail in that coffin was pulling out of the TPP, that sought to unite all the countries of the Pacific rim, while isolating China. Deal still exists only China has stepped in as leader and we are one excluded. And trump has not negotiated any trade deal with China or any country. There's a phenomenon with various people that makes them always see things through their spectrum. I grew up extremely poor, so everything bad that happened to us wasn't our fault it was somebody else's. Many minorities struggle with seeing everything bad in their lives as being because they're a minority, and the example of seeing sexism in this tweet is exactly the same for anyone that sees sexism or anything sexual at all in it. If everything is sexism or sexual harassment then nothing is sexism or sexual harassment. He was simply stating that she was singing a different tune when she wanted something from him and because she didn't get it she's now trying to make him pay for it. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but to suggest something sexual is just silly. As for the TPP being the final nail. Hah, that's kind of funny. Even Bernie and the majority of the Democrats wanted that "deal" gone. It's probably the most bi-partisan supported thing he's done so far. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() "China is in a very tough spot right now and they are not at all happy with the way things are going". Evidence for your statement? Here's how they are loving it. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/21/japan-china-stepping-in-as-trump-vow... Besides them stepping in, trump promised a new deal with China, where is it? There are a number of problems I had with Sanders. Sure, too much of the deal was written by corporate lobbyists, but if you are happy with trumps numerous appointments of Goldman Sachs executives and others to heads of agencies and Cabinet positions, that shouldn't bother you. Sanders was also wrong about needing a single-payer health plan when we are much more likely to achieve universal coverage in more incremental ways - ACA state exchanges, CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Plan), through employers etc. So I don't follow Sanders the way people are followers of trump. btw, what kind of heartless a**holes do you have to be to not fund CHIP, to leave poor children uncovered, as R members of Congress are now doing? |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by MuscleMomma You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Maybe, but maybe not. I've been pretty clear about my views on sexual assault allegations......it's the only crime where I work from a start that the offender is guilty. It protects victims and I'll be right about 10-1. Now here's another POV from my wife. When she was 16-21 she modeled in Europe (even made the cover of Italian Vogue), Dallas, New York, etc. Big stuff for a young girl. She won't talk about it today, and I didn't even know about it until we had been together a few years and her parents let the cat out of the bag when they showed me her book. So that's the background. Now, as all of these stories come out, many of them decades old, she mostly just shakes her head. She says that it was a common practice for some models, and she's sure actresses as well, to "sleep" (not her word, but cleaned up for this forum)their way to modeling contracts and roles through photographers, agents, producers, etc. She said the entire industry was full of it, and the major reason she became disgusted and quit. She says it's completely disingenuous for these women to come forward now and cry foul......and she further believes that it taints the REAL cases of harassment and assault. She was there, I was not, so there's that. I found myself arguing with a woman that women must be believed in these instances, as I always do, while she argued that many of them are full of crap, got what they wanted at the time, rose to the top, now use that voice to cry foul. She's not buying it. Arguing with her always leads me to heavy drinking.
This is the problem, men in positions of power in the workplace so that they can demand that kind of quid pro quo from subordinates. Many aren't thinking about politics when they do what is required to succeed. Your wife was not in the room, she doesn't know how many initiated what they knew would help them and how many were coerced and complied to keep their career. The problem isn't that more women don't sacrifice their careers, it's that any are forced to make that decision. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma "China is in a very tough spot right now and they are not at all happy with the way things are going". Evidence for your statement? Here's how they are loving it. https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/21/japan-china-stepping-in-as-trump-vow... Besides them stepping in, trump promised a new deal with China, where is it? There are a number of problems I had with Sanders. Sure, too much of the deal was written by corporate lobbyists, but if you are happy with trumps numerous appointments of Goldman Sachs executives and others to heads of agencies and Cabinet positions, that shouldn't bother you. Sanders was also wrong about needing a single-payer health plan when we are much more likely to achieve universal coverage in more incremental ways - ACA state exchanges, CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Plan), through employers etc. So I don't follow Sanders the way people are followers of trump. btw, what kind of heartless a**holes do you have to be to not fund CHIP, to leave poor children uncovered, as R members of Congress are now doing? That article is in regards to the TPP and if you recall China wasn't even part of the TPP. There was a famous gaff on the campaign where Trump talked about China taking advantage of people with the TPP and Rand Paul pointed out that they aren't even part of the TPP. As for the tax cuts, China is in a very tough spot. Here's an article from earlier in the year talking about a lot of their concerns. As for CHIP, I know Bernie likes to make stuff up to make Republicans sound all scary and mean but you need to not fall for it. He lies a LOT. I'm kind of with him on the Goldman Sachs executives, but there's been a ton of influence by them in all the administrations so it's not just Trump. One could argue that you need to hire high level financial people for financial positions, and he would get destroyed if he hired a stay at home mom from Detroit for the positions. hah
|
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma Originally posted by Left Brain This is the problem, men in positions of power in the workplace so that they can demand that kind of quid pro quo from subordinates. Many aren't thinking about politics when they do what is required to succeed. Your wife was not in the room, she doesn't know how many initiated what they knew would help them and how many were coerced and complied to keep their career. The problem isn't that more women don't sacrifice their careers, it's that any are forced to make that decision. Originally posted by MuscleMomma You guys certainly do not know what you are talking about. Maybe, but maybe not. I've been pretty clear about my views on sexual assault allegations......it's the only crime where I work from a start that the offender is guilty. It protects victims and I'll be right about 10-1. Now here's another POV from my wife. When she was 16-21 she modeled in Europe (even made the cover of Italian Vogue), Dallas, New York, etc. Big stuff for a young girl. She won't talk about it today, and I didn't even know about it until we had been together a few years and her parents let the cat out of the bag when they showed me her book. So that's the background. Now, as all of these stories come out, many of them decades old, she mostly just shakes her head. She says that it was a common practice for some models, and she's sure actresses as well, to "sleep" (not her word, but cleaned up for this forum)their way to modeling contracts and roles through photographers, agents, producers, etc. She said the entire industry was full of it, and the major reason she became disgusted and quit. She says it's completely disingenuous for these women to come forward now and cry foul......and she further believes that it taints the REAL cases of harassment and assault. She was there, I was not, so there's that. I found myself arguing with a woman that women must be believed in these instances, as I always do, while she argued that many of them are full of crap, got what they wanted at the time, rose to the top, now use that voice to cry foul. She's not buying it. Arguing with her always leads me to heavy drinking.
Forced? You weren't in the room either. (that's one problem with these discussions, you can't come from a different perspective than the one you cast doubts on, but there are people much closer to an issue than others.......I'll take their words over the other) And yes, I realize force can come in many colors, but short of physical force there is also a choice involved when we are talking about adults. (and if you deny that, then explain the CHOICE to come forward now, since many have/will not) It's a tough discussion, and I've had it many times, but it falls quite a bit short of men in power bad, women good. I still stand by my opinion that every woman, or person of lesser power, makes an allegation you should start from the perspective that they have no reason to make it up and are being truthful. You'll win that one almost every time. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The other deal, MM, as explained to me by my wife......there were/are plenty of women who knew they could make their own overtures in order to get spots they wanted.....which caused some men to believe that was acceptable, or at least an avenue, for them with other women. It can't be denied that it happens....remember, men and women are the same, right? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Not the same when it comes to economic issues. Positions of authority are overwhelmingly held by men, meaning they are in positions to distribute jobs and pay. Thinking it is cleaver to throw that line in my face (when it is a reference to a completely different issue), your seeing women as somehow the ones in control, is just a blind desire to ignore real structural inequality. No facts or reason will change your underlying beliefs. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma Not the same when it comes to economic issues. Positions of authority are overwhelmingly held by men, meaning they are in positions to distribute jobs and pay. Thinking it is cleaver to throw that line in my face (when it is a reference to a completely different issue), your seeing women as somehow the ones in control, is just a blind desire to ignore real structural inequality. No facts or reason will change your underlying beliefs. No, I've just lived long enough and been in enough situations to know that almost nothing is completely one sided......as if economics were all that was in play. And no, I didn't think it was cleaver......I'm just still blown away and laughing at how ridiculous I find the idea that men and women are the same. Nowhere in nature does that occur. I know, I know.....we are much more evolved than animals. And for the record.......I've seen my wife control men for 2 decades. LOL |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Originally posted by MuscleMomma Positions of authority are overwhelmingly held by men.... Serious question for you. If men and woman are fundamentally the same, why is it that men are overwhelmingly in positions of authority? I read an article long ago about how men and woman behave differently in the office place. I man is much more likely to toot his own horn. "So I finally got that contract finalized for the company!" Whereas a woman is more inclined to share the glory, "It was a team effort and we all chipped in." |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() My wife is the supervisor for a 3 office region of a large Federal Agency. She directly and indirectly supervises about 120 women and 15 men. Go tell her they are the same. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! |
|