*f-cking dead* Amber Rose Organizing "? Walk" Protest To Combat ? -Shaming
Options
Comments
-
The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol Let me ask ya'll a couple questions about this so-called double standard. Women who sleep around get called ? . Men who sleep around don't. That's about the gist of it right.
What gender do you think does the most ? shaming?
What gender chooses not to criticize men for the same poor behavior?
My personal opinion is that the answer to the first question is women. That's supported by the fact that this topic exists because a group of women were supposedly ? shaming Amber Rose.
The answer to the second question is definitely women.
So if women are the ones bashing women who adhere to low standards and aren't holding men to higher standards. Isn't this an internal female problem? And isn't this so-called double standard against women being largely perpetuated by the actions of women?
Women frown up at sexual liberation from other women due to the same reason Black people will frown up at "niggerish" behavior from other Black People: because both parties have bought into the tastes, beliefs, mores, that patriarchy/White Western Europe have conditioned them to believe in.
Understand that typically people who ARE MOST DEPENDENT on what ever system they are oppressed by will be the first ones who buy into the lies the system pumps out. -
When you talk about how women like amber rose are shameful understand that you're not a man when you say that.
You're like one of those muslims who have to make their women where linen because the feel threatened about other dudes look at them.
It's insecure, men are born to ? a lot of ? . That's just not a manly thing to say. -
Cool with me. I aint like the average dude to just jump on whatever broad cause you think she's attractive. I prefer to see what she about. So this is them showin what they about. And if i dont like what you portray i aint bothering you you can be all the ? you want not my concern i aint involved. Also sometimes dudes get tricked at least they being honest.
-
Generally, men getting a lot of ? = Good thing.
Generally, women getting a lot of ? = Bad thing.
The double standard is obvious, and has been around for centuries, cross-culturally;
Because all men have issues with pride ~ Which is why female ? shaming is mainly done by men.
No man wants to know that their woman has a past, so collectively ( and almost subconsciously ) men shame women into thinking that being promiscuous = Being a hoe; To lessen the chances of shorty having been with more men than a ? 's pride can handle.
That's the psychology behind it all.
It's really that simple. -
desertrain10 wrote: »
Me the troll? Lol
The way u are stubbornly trying to make it seem as though no double standard exist, and male and female promiscuity are viewed by soceity in the same light leads me to believe u are the troll
As I already stated fact is guys who sleep around are perceived differently than women who do the same
It's undeniable
That's why I believe it's about policing womens bodies
If you can't even come to terms with that, we have nothing further to discuss
I'm not trolling. As I said before. I've explained why it's not a real double standard on multiple occasions, but if you'd like me to do so again I will.
For something to be a double standard, two parties have to be treated differently for some reason when all other things are equal.
There is a double standard when it comes to how women are paid because a woman can go into a company and do the same exact job as men (sometimes better) and still get paid a lower amount. That is a true double standard.
This whole ? vs playa ? isn't really a double standard because all other things are not equal due to traditional gender roles. The roles men and women are expected to play in sexuality and relationships are different. Men are expected to be the pursuers. Women are expected to be the discriminators and choosers.
Men get called playas or pimps or whatever you want to call it because if they have a lot of sex that means they have some set of skills or characteristics that lead to them getting chosen frequently. So besides simply having the sex, they are actually accomplishing something.
Women don't get that same respect when they have a lot of sex because they don't have to accomplish anything to have sex. It literally comes to them. Most women get hit on from sun up to sun down, so there is nothing particularly impressive getting a lot of ? . In fact, it really just meaning you're not playing that "discriminator" role too well.
The analogy I always use is that men are set up to be hunters and women are set up to be prey. The lion that can get the ? every time it goes out is going to be treated as a valued member of the pride. The gazelle that lays down and lets the lion get it is just food. There is nothing respectable about that.
It's not a double standard. That doesn't mean its fair. Women have the same urges men do, so they shouldn't necessarily be relegated solely to a role of discriminating between who offer is the best, but that's how the traditional gender roles are set up. Which is I've been saying this whole time that if you want to get rid of this so-called double standard, the best way is to get rid of the gender roles. And you don't do that by continuing to accept the role but complaining about the treatment you receive when you break the rules of that role. That's stupid -
Knives Amilli wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »lol Let me ask ya'll a couple questions about this so-called double standard. Women who sleep around get called ? . Men who sleep around don't. That's about the gist of it right.
What gender do you think does the most ? shaming?
What gender chooses not to criticize men for the same poor behavior?
My personal opinion is that the answer to the first question is women. That's supported by the fact that this topic exists because a group of women were supposedly ? shaming Amber Rose.
The answer to the second question is definitely women.
So if women are the ones bashing women who adhere to low standards and aren't holding men to higher standards. Isn't this an internal female problem? And isn't this so-called double standard against women being largely perpetuated by the actions of women?
Women frown up at sexual liberation from other women due to the same reason Black people will frown up at "niggerish" behavior from other Black People: because both parties have bought into the tastes, beliefs, mores, that patriarchy/White Western Europe have conditioned them to believe in.
Understand that typically people who ARE MOST DEPENDENT on what ever system they are oppressed by will be the first ones who buy into the lies the system pumps out.
Couldn't have said it better myself -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Sexism and racism work together to create a hierarchical social structure where affluent white men are on top
And fosters an environment that is not only hostile for women but blks as well
You want equality well it's counterproductive to continue to to ? shame, subscribe to sexist double standards
Utter and total ?
Expound
You state that sexism and racism work in tandem to keep white men affluent and that's the reason why they are on top and every one else below.
But you discount that we live in a capitalistic democracy and that white people are the sole biggest population Therefore they will naturally be the most affluent population. If you remove sexism and racism whites will still be on top of the social structure because money and wealth are the greatest determining factors that decide status in a capitalistic society. Followed by race and then sex.
A capitalistic environment is intrinsically hostile because it's based on competition, IT'S the white family vs the black family for the use of economic resources. men have to play their role and women have to play their role when this works in harmony we are capable to attaining gains in this system when women/men engage in behaviors that ? with this harmony we are weakened as a whole . Men will not respect ? AND IF WE DON'T respect you we won't be inclined to marry you, because just like money ? has value based on it's level of rarity. Now being that the family in the basic building block of any society if we don't marry you then it weaken black society within the usa.
so we ? shame you to disincentive behaviors that make you undesirable as mates. -
desertrain10 wrote: »Sexism and racism work together to create a hierarchical social structure where affluent white men are on top
And fosters an environment that is not only hostile for women but blks as well
You want equality well it's counterproductive to continue to to ? shame, subscribe to sexist double standards
There you go again... -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Sexism and racism work together to create a hierarchical social structure where affluent white men are on top
And fosters an environment that is not only hostile for women but blks as well
You want equality well it's counterproductive to continue to to ? shame, subscribe to sexist double standards
Utter and total ?
Expound
You state that sexism and racism work in tandem to keep white men affluent and that's the reason why they are on top and every one else below.
But you discount that we live in a capitalistic democracy and that white people are the sole biggest population Therefore they will naturally be the most affluent population. If you remove sexism and racism whites will still be on top of the social structure because money and wealth are the greatest determining factors that decide status in a capitalistic society. Followed by race and then sex.
A capitalistic environment is intrinsically hostile because it's based on competition, IT'S the white family vs the black family for the use of economic resources. men have to play their role and women have to play their role when this works in harmony we are capable to attaining gains in this system when women/men engage in behaviors that ? with this harmony we are weakened as a whole . Men will not respect ? AND IF WE DON'T respect you we won't be inclined to marry you, because just like money ? has value based on it's level of rarity. Now being that the family in the basic building block of any society if we don't marry you then it weaken black society within the usa.
so we ? shame you to disincentive behaviors that make you undesirable as mates.
Marriage, lol. What a ? .
That aside. ? and non-? can co-exist, you don't have to marry a ? you ? square. Let hoes be hoes. -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Me the troll? Lol
The way u are stubbornly trying to make it seem as though no double standard exist, and male and female promiscuity are viewed by soceity in the same light leads me to believe u are the troll
As I already stated fact is guys who sleep around are perceived differently than women who do the same
It's undeniable
That's why I believe it's about policing womens bodies
If you can't even come to terms with that, we have nothing further to discuss
I'm not trolling. As I said before. I've explained why it's not a real double standard on multiple occasions, but if you'd like me to do so again I will.
For something to be a double standard, two parties have to be treated differently for some reason when all other things are equal.
There is a double standard when it comes to how women are paid because a woman can go into a company and do the same exact job as men (sometimes better) and still get paid a lower amount. That is a true double standard.
This whole ? vs playa ? isn't really a double standard because all other things are not equal due to traditional gender roles. The roles men and women are expected to play in sexuality and relationships are different. Men are expected to be the pursuers. Women are expected to be the discriminators and choosers.
Men get called playas or pimps or whatever you want to call it because if they have a lot of sex that means they have some set of skills or characteristics that lead to them getting chosen frequently. So besides simply having the sex, they are actually accomplishing something.
Women don't get that same respect when they have a lot of sex because they don't have to accomplish anything to have sex. It literally comes to them. Most women get hit on from sun up to sun down, so there is nothing particularly impressive getting a lot of ? . In fact, it really just meaning you're not playing that "discriminator" role too well.
The analogy I always use is that men are set up to be hunters and women are set up to be prey. The lion that can get the ? every time it goes out is going to be treated as a valued member of the pride. The gazelle that lays down and lets the lion get it is just food. There is nothing respectable about that.
It's not a double standard. That doesn't mean its fair. Women have the same urges men do, so they shouldn't necessarily be relegated solely to a role of discriminating between who offer is the best, but that's how the traditional gender roles are set up. Which is I've been saying this whole time that if you want to get rid of this so-called double standard, the best way is to get rid of the gender roles. And you don't do that by continuing to accept the role but complaining about the treatment you receive when you break the rules of that role. That's stupid
And lol @ women not accomplishing anything by having sex
While we may not always initiate contact, we accomplish and set the same goals as a man
And when we do intiate contact it can be with something as simple as a smile or a long stare
Than we also must first find a willing partner with whom find suitable to help satisfy our urges
But I disagress u admit women have the same urges men do and that all that needs to be said
We shouldn't be viewed any differently than men for acting on those urges
That is all that needs to be said
-
desertrain10 wrote: »women have the same urges men do and that all that needs to be said
We shouldn't be viewed any differently than men for acting on those urges
That is all that needs to be said
Period. -
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Me the troll? Lol
The way u are stubbornly trying to make it seem as though no double standard exist, and male and female promiscuity are viewed by soceity in the same light leads me to believe u are the troll
As I already stated fact is guys who sleep around are perceived differently than women who do the same
It's undeniable
That's why I believe it's about policing womens bodies
If you can't even come to terms with that, we have nothing further to discuss
I'm not trolling. As I said before. I've explained why it's not a real double standard on multiple occasions, but if you'd like me to do so again I will.
For something to be a double standard, two parties have to be treated differently for some reason when all other things are equal.
There is a double standard when it comes to how women are paid because a woman can go into a company and do the same exact job as men (sometimes better) and still get paid a lower amount. That is a true double standard.
This whole ? vs playa ? isn't really a double standard because all other things are not equal due to traditional gender roles. The roles men and women are expected to play in sexuality and relationships are different. Men are expected to be the pursuers. Women are expected to be the discriminators and choosers.
Men get called playas or pimps or whatever you want to call it because if they have a lot of sex that means they have some set of skills or characteristics that lead to them getting chosen frequently. So besides simply having the sex, they are actually accomplishing something.
Women don't get that same respect when they have a lot of sex because they don't have to accomplish anything to have sex. It literally comes to them. Most women get hit on from sun up to sun down, so there is nothing particularly impressive getting a lot of ? . In fact, it really just meaning you're not playing that "discriminator" role too well.
The analogy I always use is that men are set up to be hunters and women are set up to be prey. The lion that can get the ? every time it goes out is going to be treated as a valued member of the pride. The gazelle that lays down and lets the lion get it is just food. There is nothing respectable about that.
It's not a double standard. That doesn't mean its fair. Women have the same urges men do, so they shouldn't necessarily be relegated solely to a role of discriminating between who offer is the best, but that's how the traditional gender roles are set up. Which is I've been saying this whole time that if you want to get rid of this so-called double standard, the best way is to get rid of the gender roles. And you don't do that by continuing to accept the role but complaining about the treatment you receive when you break the rules of that role. That's stupid
And lol @ women not accomplishing anything by having sex
While we may not always initiate contact, we accomplish and set the same goals as a man
And when we do intiate contact it can be with something as simple as a smile or a long stare
Than we also must first find a willing partner with whom find suitable to help satisfy our urges
But I disagress u admit women have the same urges men do and that all that needs to be said
We shouldn't be viewed any differently than men for acting on those urges
That is all that needs to be said
yes you should because the results of you acting on those urges are more destructive to you and to society, it fosters misogyny and disrespect for women. you being a ? is going to encourage more men to seek out ? which will then encourage more women to be ? . -
Meta_Conscious wrote: »lol@equating slutiness with being an empowered woman.
from my impression of feminism when i first encountered it as a young woman was that it was very important to be valued for more than being a sexual objects, that men and the system needed to recognize our merits, intellectually or otherwise, outside of our sexuality. I have no idea how in the ? ? went from that to totally reducing yourself to your sexuality.
Maybe we need to organize a Women/Girls in Science walks instead of this ludicrous ?
That should be the real focus of feminism not pushing women to be immoral ? -
desertrain10 wrote: »The Lonious Monk wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »
Me the troll? Lol
The way u are stubbornly trying to make it seem as though no double standard exist, and male and female promiscuity are viewed by soceity in the same light leads me to believe u are the troll
As I already stated fact is guys who sleep around are perceived differently than women who do the same
It's undeniable
That's why I believe it's about policing womens bodies
If you can't even come to terms with that, we have nothing further to discuss
I'm not trolling. As I said before. I've explained why it's not a real double standard on multiple occasions, but if you'd like me to do so again I will.
For something to be a double standard, two parties have to be treated differently for some reason when all other things are equal.
There is a double standard when it comes to how women are paid because a woman can go into a company and do the same exact job as men (sometimes better) and still get paid a lower amount. That is a true double standard.
This whole ? vs playa ? isn't really a double standard because all other things are not equal due to traditional gender roles. The roles men and women are expected to play in sexuality and relationships are different. Men are expected to be the pursuers. Women are expected to be the discriminators and choosers.
Men get called playas or pimps or whatever you want to call it because if they have a lot of sex that means they have some set of skills or characteristics that lead to them getting chosen frequently. So besides simply having the sex, they are actually accomplishing something.
Women don't get that same respect when they have a lot of sex because they don't have to accomplish anything to have sex. It literally comes to them. Most women get hit on from sun up to sun down, so there is nothing particularly impressive getting a lot of ? . In fact, it really just meaning you're not playing that "discriminator" role too well.
The analogy I always use is that men are set up to be hunters and women are set up to be prey. The lion that can get the ? every time it goes out is going to be treated as a valued member of the pride. The gazelle that lays down and lets the lion get it is just food. There is nothing respectable about that.
It's not a double standard. That doesn't mean its fair. Women have the same urges men do, so they shouldn't necessarily be relegated solely to a role of discriminating between who offer is the best, but that's how the traditional gender roles are set up. Which is I've been saying this whole time that if you want to get rid of this so-called double standard, the best way is to get rid of the gender roles. And you don't do that by continuing to accept the role but complaining about the treatment you receive when you break the rules of that role. That's stupid
And lol @ women not accomplishing anything by having sex
While we may not always initiate contact, we accomplish and set the same goals as a man
And when we do intiate contact it can be with something as simple as a smile or a long stare
Than we also must first find a willing partner with whom find suitable to help satisfy our urges
But I disagress u admit women have the same urges men do and that all that needs to be said
We shouldn't be viewed any differently than men for acting on those urges
That is all that needs to be said
yes you should because the results of you acting on those urges are more destructive to you and to society, it fosters misogyny and disrespect for women. you being a ? is going to encourage more men to seek out ? which will then encourage more women to be ? .
This ? white knighting. -
Christians, Muslims, and Jews have historically persecuted women for being women. If they have sex, they could be killed. If they get ? , they could be killed for being ? . Showing their face, arms, or legs? Capital punishment. Speaking in the presence of men? Punishment.
This is enough for me to pick my position on this ? shaming thing. -
soul rattler wrote: »Christians, Muslims, and Jews have historically persecuted women for being women. If they have sex, they could be killed. If they get ? , they could be killed for being ? . Showing their face, arms, or legs? Capital punishment. Speaking in the presence of men? Punishment.
This is enough for me to pick my position on this ? shaming thing.
Exactly, and that's been used to control people. The institution of marriage has been used to control people. If men can come and go as they please without hurting their morals then the ruling power lose control.
Look at the kind of people who are into ? shaming. zombie, this weird ass religious zealot, and a bunch of other square ass dudes. -
soul rattler wrote: »Christians, Muslims, and Jews have historically persecuted women for being women. If they have sex, they could be killed. If they get ? , they could be killed for being ? . Showing their face, arms, or legs? Capital punishment. Speaking in the presence of men? Punishment.
This is enough for me to pick my position on this ? shaming thing.
Exactly, and that's been used to control people. The institution of marriage has been used to control people. If men can come and go as they please without hurting their morals then the ruling power lose control.
Look at the kind of people who are into ? shaming. zombie, this weird ass religious zealot, and a bunch of other square ass dudes.
You are an outright ? get the foh -
Well. ? it then.
The HOH needs a march....who's down with that ? ? -
? shaming is mainly done by other women
-
-
BigBallsNoWorries wrote: »
This -
-
I will give Amber Rose this tho
she one of the FEW
and I mean VERY FEW
women that still look bad as ? with no hair
can't take that away from the hoe
oh my bad or lady of lesiure or whatever doesn't upset ppl these days -
I was just watching this episode.? shaming is mainly done by other women
Let's look at the type of men that ? shame. You got the religious types of course, but how about the guys who can't get ? as a result of being a lame ass and blame the women who aren't having sex as the problem... But as soon as they get some poor chick to give it up, they try to expose them or treat them like ? because they "accomplished" something. Fuckboys. -
desertrain10 wrote: »desertrain10 wrote: »Sexism and racism work together to create a hierarchical social structure where affluent white men are on top
And fosters an environment that is not only hostile for women but blks as well
You want equality well it's counterproductive to continue to to ? shame, subscribe to sexist double standards
Utter and total ?
Expound
You state that sexism and racism work in tandem to keep white men affluent and that's the reason why they are on top and every one else below.
But you discount that we live in a capitalistic democracy and that white people are the sole biggest population Therefore they will naturally be the most affluent population. If you remove sexism and racism whites will still be on top of the social structure because money and wealth are the greatest determining factors that decide status in a capitalistic society. Followed by race and then sex.
A capitalistic environment is intrinsically hostile because it's based on competition, IT'S the white family vs the black family for the use of economic resources. men have to play their role and women have to play their role when this works in harmony we are capable to attaining gains in this system when women/men engage in behaviors that ? with this harmony we are weakened as a whole . Men will not respect ? AND IF WE DON'T respect you we won't be inclined to marry you, because just like money ? has value based on it's level of rarity. Now being that the family in the basic building block of any society if we don't marry you then it weaken black society within the usa.
so we ? shame you to disincentive behaviors that make you undesirable as mates.
Marriage between a woman and man is great and all
But it doesn't pay the bills
Just think back when families, marriages were supposedly the strongest we still were largely impoverished and/or treated like second class citizens
Has there ever been a time in America when the blk community not just pockets has prospered?
Smh
And still you chase the rich white man's patriarchy and wealth, when we should be focusing on creating economic/ social policies that uplift all types of families particularly the most fragile
