It's the result of years, decades, and centuries of manipulation
It's the result of years, decades, and centuries of manipulation observation.
FTFY
Before you know it, sexism means hiring a more qualified male employee, instead of a less qualified female employee.
No, it remains hiring male employees regardless of female employees' qualifications.
And similarly, the adverse reaction remains, but the definition of the word changes from touching someone to merely flirting at a bar.
Again, no. No one calls flirting harassment, it becomes harassment when you keep bothering a girl after she's told you no already.
The manipulation you're seeing here comes from Conservatives, who complain about situations the words don't mean in order to make it seem as though liberals are over-reaching.
There's no way you can actually believe that.
I'm sorry to say, but you are factually incorrect in your statements.
Sexual harassment has been called "anything a woman considers sexual harassment". And, of course, can mean absolutely anything. No way the definition for something that serious should be that loose.
Also, male dominance in work places, and certain fields, is complained about all the time. Even though women themselves don't show as much interest in said fields. It's blamed on sexism all the time.
Calling something a fact doesn't make it a fact.
I've personally hit on women at bars and never been accused of harassment. Finding a couple feminazis who overreach doesn't mean anything, we can all cherry pick examples of the other side going too far. Pretending all liberals think flirting is harassment is no different than accusing all conservatives of being Nazis.
The "sexism" part of women not being in other fields is a lot more complicated than you make it sound; but it mostly has to do with the harassment women get when trying to enter those fields. And I don't mean just sexual harassment.
It's interesting, actually, that you start off saying conservatives manipulate words then go on to rant only about conservatives. It's a good propaganda technique, to make yourself sound fair and balanced while you actually only attack the other side.
The bottom line here is that you're engaging in exactly what I'm talking about: Arguing against a definition that doesn't exist, to make it seem like the other side is manipulating the definition.
Generalizing purely from your own experiences is a common logical fallacy.
Just because Person A hasn't experienced something, doesn't mean said something doesn't exist, period.
I believe you meant to say that I focused on liberals?
Yes, I focused on them because their re-definitions of words like sexism and racism are such blatant examples of what I was talking about.
Well, I had a meeting starting when I wrote the last post so didn't have time to look something up. Now that I have, here you go:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/01/feminist-guide-to-non-creepy-flirting/
Exactly what I said, feminists aren't against flirting they just want to be treated with respect.
See, a non-propaganda piece would have also used a conservative manipulation that was equally qualified. Like shouting Freedom when they want to pass laws restricting freedoms, like anti-drug laws and restricting religions. Or implying liberals are fascist with a tag, while the Republican President adopts ever more fascist behavior like trying to get a book shut down or attacking the press.
Define respect. You're doing exactly what I write about in the post.
There's "respect" and "flirting". Two words that can mean anything, so they won't take us anywhere with this.
How women feel about flirting depends largely on who is doing the flirting. If a socially awkward, overweight geek grabs them by the backside, it's harassment, but if it's Brad Pitt, it's him being confident.
And mind you: this is actually natural, since women have a built-in mechanism to sway off mating partners that would not make for good fathers for their offspring.
So did you not read the article I linked? Because that spelled it out pretty clearly.
No.
Love how you vote for every single one of your own posts.
And didn't give anything to the guy who brought up the subject.
Pretty much tells me everything I need to know about you. Notice how the guy you are debating isn't doing that?
Progressives are always self dealing while they scream about how unfair everyone else is. Never changes.
Socialism = theft from production via governments
Socialists = A person scared of competition. Of life. The natural order of things.
(and explains why they want to disrupt the natural order of everything - through weak pseudo intellectual masturbation)
Exactly.
Because their experience consists of repeatedly coming up short in a meritocracy, they instead choose to gang up on the successful using greater numbers to overpower the successful, telling themselves that the successful got that way solely through graft and abuse of power, and thus that they are merely righting a wrong when they themselves use the power of numbers to force the scales in their own direction, and thus count themselves as heroic and righteous for doing the same thing they castigate others for doing.
It's a giant mind f_ck.
LOL. I voted up two of my own comments, and no I didn't upvote his post because I massively disagree with it and think it is propaganda. If you look back you'll see I have upvoted other posts of his.
I really wouldn't care if he did. Upvotes are worth cash. I've had good debates with plenty of people who upvoted their own comments.
LOL. As if you needed to reveal you were biased. Stop reading all the propaganda about progressives and maybe realize they are people too.
They are people, indeed - and deserve all the help they can get- to try to return them to good mental health..
That's a sexist statement. Assumption of gender roles?
Or it's not - because the vast number of cases is males harassing female.
Of course - that being the case- You are also saying the sexes are different, ergo not equal....
Pesky logic...
No, we were discussing a specific situation @schattenjaeger brought up. If a man said no and the woman kept bothering him it would also be harassment.
In fact if any person says they don't want to talk to you and you keep pressuring them to talk it is harassment.
So a person can decide - at anytime - if they are being harassed or not ?
If someone is talking to them, (no matter what is being said), the recipient of the words can choose to be a victim at any point?
"I'm a victim, I'm a victim!", kind of thing...? seriously?
Wow, way to ignore what I said.
Although even at that, yes they could but literally everyone would laugh at them if the other person just said "hi" and they started screaming harassment.
But hey, feel free to give me your phone number and I'll just keep calling you. Because no one can be harassed, right?
Exactly. Hence the universal eye rolling of the adults in the room about the ubiquitous shrieks of "racism!" and "harassment!" coming from the juveniles over on the Progressive side. Just turns into white noise.
Glad we understand each other.
Should I upvote my own comment here?
Except you're assuming that's what happens as a defensive measure. Neither you nor anyone else has provided evidence that a majority of progressives are screaming racism/sexism over silly matters. In fact, what happened here is that op made the claim that progressives call flirting harassment and I presented an article from a feminist website telling exactly how to flirt respectively.
An article that was ignored, btw, because it doesn't fit op's narrative.
I'm typing on my phone so can't easily copy the link but I just made a blog post about this kind of tactic so maybe check that out.
In short it's an attempt to discredit a group based on a straw man argument.
Otherwise, I notice you didn't give me your phone number. What, are you afraid I'll call you once and be polite?
You are mischaracterizing the article. The post was about the power and danger of words, and that we should be careful that we don't allow definitions to drift.
That's not what you want to talk about, which is why you mischaracterize it. And then claim that people posting comments are mischaracterizing the article that you mischaracterized first. And then when you are called on this mischaracterization and it is pointed out that dealing with persistent mischaracterizations and attempts to derail and redirect arguments is what makes discussion with Progressives so frustrating, you claim that people are making false generalizations.
And thus the real topic never gets addressed, now does it....
Neat debating trick -- for sophomores. But some of us tire of the BS. We'd like to have productive discussions. Rather than wade through ridiculous requests for phone numbers and financial dick swinging contests.
Last post goes to you -- have fun.