Prince Myshkin

Something I hope will change in the near future is the way that feminism is reported in the media, and the negative stigmas behind it. This thread is all about the problems girls and women face. Nobody has yet to say that these issues aren't genuine. Feminism is all about eradicating these kind of things. It is about equality. But people spin it into man hating far too easily. People feel ashamed to be labelled a feminist because they are worried it will make them look like a man hater. There is a tiny minority of people who do take things too far but that's the case for absolutely everything. But they often get a platform because they shout the loudest and it makes a good story. This tarnishes feminisms reputation. But as I said, it's the same in other areas. You get people who have genuine concerns about the negative effects of religion who get lumped in as racists because there are people like the English Defence League who have platforms and are racist and spin things a certain way. It's important to remember that at the heart of it, feminism is about equality. There are side issues which get dragged into the mainstream (because so much is discussed and there's plenty to be discussed) and not everybody agrees on everything (because that's life) but the actual core of what it is trying to tackle is the things that are listed in this thread. I think that unless a person is sexist, they would see that if we could eradicate the things in this thread then the world would be a better place for men and women. I think people would be far less hesitant as identifying as a feminist. But unfortunately it's not the case at the moment.

I'm a fool for thinking I'd wake up to pictures of the suspect this morning. It's not like a shooting where it's all easily traceable and you tend to have the backstory of the person who did it within about an hour and a half. I'm surprised at the graphic nature of some of the reporting. Don't have an opinion on whether there is a problem with such a response yet as I've not had the time to think.

Indeed. Programs like that and How To Look Good Naked could actually be useful programs if they didn't just resort to saying, well the only way to see if this has worked or not is to get a group of men to decide on what they would want to do to you now you look like this. Or if you can take your clothes off in public for a group of people and if they cheer then what are so worried about? The psychology behind overcoming the original problems the people who went on the program had is far more complex than is made out. It's a quick fix that doesn't work. Confidence in yourself is very important but it's looked through completely the wrong spectrum in those programs.

The very existence of 'gold diggers' should be a signal that there is inequality in society. Why are people behaving in this way? Why is it (supposedly) predominantly one sex which is involved in this far more than the other? Either a) women tend to have less money because of pay inequalities or b) women are the only ones who are being called out on it, which is ridiculous and unfair. But of course, gold digging is far less prevalent than people believe, or want others to believe. And it's an easy insult to throw out there to bring somebody down a notch or two or make up excuses for their own inadequacies.

Anyways, what can I do to make you fall in love with me? I'm sorry you disagree with me that Bieber is immature and an idiot and that Minaj is a dreadful role model for girls who has very tame music. I'm not just on a tirade against popular music. There is some stuff I do like so I'm not coming from that angle. Come on, cheer up. It doesn't matter. You'll never have to meet me. And I don't care if you disagree. But if you want to explain why Bieber is not an idiot and why Minaj is a good role model for girls then feel free to put me in my place. If it's the Minaj thing though, you might as well reply directly in that thread. Edit: And to clear up my statement about Bieber fans, the majority of Bieber fans are aged between 8 and 14. They are young and therefore are less likely to be aware of Anne Frank. I was simply meaning to say that people shouldn't be too harsh on their reaction as it's not really a surprise. Bieber, on the other hand, had just been on a two hour tour of the museum, had looked into her and that was all he had to say. This is why I think Bieber's comments are worse than his fans. I didn't elaborate on that though, so apologies for the bluntness of my previous post regarding the fans.

It's perfectly understandable for Bieber to be an idiot, mind. The guy has not had a normal upbringing. I wouldn't trade my life for his. It's a shame he has to live his life the way he does. But then when he does things like that he deserves to be called out on it for his ignorance. Half the stuff that gets dragged up about him does not deserve to get dragged up because it really doesn't matter what he thinks about anything. That's why I've never bothered with this thread before. But if you go all the way through that museum and that's your thoughts then you've got serious problems with how you look at life and that's a great shame. He's old enough to use a bit of perspective.

Which makes you as stupid as I for making such rash judgements ;) Anyway, http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/explainer/2013/04/justin_bieber_at_anne_frank_house_what_pop_culture_did_she_enjoy.html

I'd not recommend the first time to be with brownies, though I've never had it in food. Reason being it's apparently hard to gauge the strength of the dosage. I've not smoked cigarettes so my first time smoking weed wasn't pleasant as such, but that was more to do with the experience of smoking, not smoking weed. But I prefered it as I had direct control over how much I had. I had like two or three drags of a spliff, felt a bit light headed and that was it. About a year later I started doing it proper with friends who had done it before and in controlled environments away from parents. Pretty sure it was when my friends parents went away actually. But it's best to take things slow at first. Too slow and you don't get much effect at all (that's not necessarily a bad thing as it's best to ease yourself into it - but if you're taking it seriously and have an interest in it don't presume weed is rubbish and doesn't do anything as you may have done something wrong). Have some people around who can look after you if you don't feel well (like some people's first experience with alcohol it's known for people to 'pale' and feel nausea and dizziness because they have too much at once and have no tolerance at all to it). Paling is unpleasant but doesn't last for too long. Just one of those things. If you do panic, like you said, it's probably not going to be the best experience. That's not guaranteed, but it won't help things. But it's not usually like acid in terms of having a bad trip. You've just got to weigh up the pros and cons. It can be very very good, but sometimes there's a few hurdles to clear at the start. This is why it helps to do it with people who have experience in it and who you trust. It's part of the reason I'd never specifically recommend drugs to a person (other than the illegality). It's got to be up to the person and shouldn't be forced on anybody. All I can say is, done correctly, it is worth it.

Yeah, I used to work in a factory and was constantly called gay because I ate fruit and at dinner time I would read a book. I found it funny at times (though didn't encourage them by laughing) but eventually it just depressed me that people would actually think that way. There is a long way to go, even in the supposedly advanced societies, when it comes to women's and gay rights. Too much misinformation is spread. I debated with myself on whether to bring the gender discussion into this thread more when I made the thread (and I think I apologised for this at some point) but I didn't want to make it too wide reaching too early on and stop people posting about the expected appearances of women and immediately start with a gender debate, but now we have had a page of discussion on the topic, I think there's enough room to talk about what has already been said and also gender boundaries. It's such a wide ranging topic.

All I can suggest is patience I'm afraid (I'm not the best when it comes to meeting people advice - I've had plenty of relationships in real life but my only satisfying ones have been online).

I have to remind myself at times how lucky I am to (within reason) walk wherever I want, whenever I want in public places and not feel threatened. I hear stories from my female friends all the time about the abuse they get, and I've stories from girls on this site where they've been followed to the doors of their house. That is never in the back of my mind when I go out the house, it's something I have to actively think about, whereas for many women it's completely the opposite. It is something they have to (once again, within reason as being aware of one's safety is important) try and push to the back of their mind at times. The notion that if all women stayed at home then all men would have jobs is a ridiculous one. Sorry to once again make a broad statement on Asia and Africa (I am aware that they are diverse places and that this is not the case for everywhere) but places these continents see a lot of women who are simply there to give birth. When they get careers and become more educated they have less children and many create jobs for others. People should (usually) look upwards when it comes to complaining about unemployment figures, rather than at those they are competing with.

I have met about 3 people over the age of 20 who had not done any form of drugs (tobacco upwards, caffeine/prescription not included). One then went on to drink a bit later on. Another was my religious ex girlfriend who was a Mormon and it would have been better for her mentally if she indulged in drugs than been a Mormon, and the other was a dickhead (he wasn't a dickhead because he didn't do drugs). It must be really hard finding people. I find it hard to meet people who I'd like anything serious with and i've got a wide net to cast.

Fair enough and thanks for not coming in and being mean about it. I respect your choices :)

Haha. 'n' as in the lower case pronunciation of the letter N that you learn as a kid. If not it's noo. I'm 99% sure. Said it plenty of times to my French gf. Just paranoid she has a stupid accent now.

I do not know if this is genuine, but it looks as if it is. See these tweets. Once again, THIS IS NOT CONFIRMED AS LEGITIMATE. https://twitter.com/Eric_Twardzik

I think it's closer to n-wee.

Indeed. Doing anything excessively is rarely a good idea. It's as depressing seeing a person drinking all the time as it is one smoking all the time.

I didn't know if it was that or a celebrity.

What's a person of interest?

Considering how widely used drugs are (if we take it from tobacco through to heroin) and how many deaths there actually are it's pretty negligible. You've also got to take into account that many people only do a drug once or a handful of times. The vast majority of people who try a drug do not become addicts. With addicts you are talking about the same as alcoholics. Everyone who drinks alcohol is not an alcoholic. Admittedly you are more likely to get addicted to heroin than a bottle of beer, but I've at no point defended a drug like heroin. The war on drugs has failed. This has been admitted by the very people who have run it for several decades. Science is pretty clear of what is dangerous, and it's surprising when you stick alcohol and tobacco in there (but of course, two wrongs don't make a right, so just because alcohol is allowed doesn't mean something else should be). All civilisations have drugs. All of them. From tribes, to America, to Iraq. They have been used by people throughout time. There is a reason for this. In no way do I believe they are for everyone, however.

I was talking on a personal level, yes. Between weed and alcohol though, I'm quite sure that on a social level alcohol is more dangerous. But once again, you'd hope people wouldn't abuse whatever substance they were on (if we are talking about social interests - I'm not against people being drunk).

I'm sorry you have to go through that Safy. I will never understand.

It's really not a dismal post at all. It's a great post as it brings in another factor of the whole thing. The battered wife syndrome (not sure if this is the correct term, or a politically correct term, so I apologise in advance and assure you all that no offense is intended. i have heard this term used though). A situation where those who are oppressed stick up for those who oppress them (similar to a stockholm syndrome, if you want to think of it this way). Or a child who sticks up for their adult abuser because they do not see the wrong in it. On the other side there are also people who have been forced to act in their own interests because of the system they live in. It's very much a divide and rule culture. To make it in the world you have to sacrifice the things you believe in because your main focus (naturally) is your own well being. It then becomes perfectly natural for oppressed people (women in this circumstance) to enable their oppressors and contribute to the suffering. Like the large proportion of female brothel owners in Asia and Africa who sell their children into the machine. It feels like this is life. This is how it has to be. Like they can't do anything to change it. And why should they if they have their head slightly above the water line? It's better to keep quiet.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/erik-rush-kill-all-muslims-response-boston-marathon-attack

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/boston-police-no-arrests-have-been-made-in Boston Police: No Arrests Have Been Made In Marathon Bombing