It's a well known phenomenon. "bossy boots" is an actual phrase applied to girls.
Emma Watson on Feminism
- Thread starter rcoobc
- Start date
Not really.
This is the least significant shit I've ever read in regards to feminism.
If only you guys knew how unsexist Mitcher really is. Some of his best grandparents are women.
I can't say I've ever known an adult to be called a bossy boots.
The point is that from a very early age girls are encouraged to be submissive.
But she isn't a real gamer Eboue. I don't think you fully appreciate that.
Last edited:
That's all I've been pointing out. Whenever these studies fail to be conclusive I don't see how anyone an cling to them unless they have real life experiences of it also. That's why I asked and why Silva didn't want to answer. A study can also be heavily influenced by the result you want.
Yeah, must be extremely hard out there for a white, British, male.
One study, not when they're done as repeatedly as ones on the pay gap which have been going on for decades.
Can't be arsed going through 8 pages but I've seen it pop up a few times now so I think it warrants a comment. All this "the wage gap only exists because women do lower paying work" stuff is surely a massive problem in itself? There's still a huge disparity between the numbers of men and women going into STEM fields, with women very much being a minority throughout.
Whilst it appears anecdotal evidence is something of a touchy subject on here, I'll jump in anyway. When something is done about this disparity (and this doesn't just apply to women, race suffers from a similar affliction in certain places), men, often white, complain about how (black) women have taken their jobs, which begs the question, why do they feel that these jobs are theirs to begin with?
Whilst it appears anecdotal evidence is something of a touchy subject on here, I'll jump in anyway. When something is done about this disparity (and this doesn't just apply to women, race suffers from a similar affliction in certain places), men, often white, complain about how (black) women have taken their jobs, which begs the question, why do they feel that these jobs are theirs to begin with?
It's generally not. That's the point. Keep up.
Exactly, which is why your constant sarcastic one liners don't hold any water.
You haven't linked to a conclusive study yet. Even the ones you have point this out. I'm done with the debate though as I've wasted more than enough time already.
Because I should only care about my own race, sex and creed?
Are only black people allowed to hate racism?
I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't continue to argue this one.
It's the new thing, isn't it? Let's label anyone with an opinion regarding the lives of people not themselves a Social Justice Warrior, add Tumblr in there for added hilarity, and laugh at how silly and ridiculous they are for not being a shit.
I want to be mad at Redcafe but to be fair 8 years ago this site was all louts posting "gashout" so maybe if I hang on 8 more years it'll be rid of dorks posting about "fake gamers" and how women get paid less because of periods.
Theoretically, if Emma Watson is dating "The Rock", & a burglar broke into their house, it wouldn't be cowardice of him to make her go check what's happening? Hmmm, in that case, I'm all for this feminism thing. 
On a serious note, great OP speech by Hermione.
On a serious note, great OP speech by Hermione.
It would be cowardly, but it would also be cowardly if The Rock was dating Sylvester Stallone and that exact scenario took place. Best thing to do, really, would be to call the police and just let the thieves take your telly.
Are you supportive of minimum quotas of women on the boards of FTSE 100 companies?
Reading EW's speech, it's all a bit basic. The uproar about it feels a little shallow and patronising, all she's really said is what most moderate feminists have been saying for decades.
Yes. A report published by the UK government said that the main reason women don't get those jobs is the 'old boys network' and that having women, minorities and people from the lower classes at board level is actually beneficial the company as having a bunch of white upper class male Oxbridge graduates just means you've got lots of people with the same ideas running them. It'd not only be good for society as a whole, but also for those companies.
My question might have sounded accusative, it wasn't meant to be. In the field I am, it doesn't seem that much of an issue in sense. The UK heads of private banking heads at JP Morgan and Royal Bank of Canada are female and my company's editorship split is equal by gender.
I do think a quota is a blunt tool though. Maybe some greater enhancement of shareholder voting rights around board members could work, but saying you must have x number of women, men, black people or whatever on a board is mental. You need meritocracy, but hopefully by going in through a grassroots shareholder activism route that can be achieved.
4chan just doxxed the guy behind the threat to leak nudes of Emma Watson, turns out it's a total hoax, a news story orchestrated by FoxWeekly. The origin of the IP traces back to a guy who works for them.
I think the resentment comes from the fact that if equal standards were applied across the board (based on GPA, extracurriculars, etc) i.e. merit, then they would probably get jobs ahead of less qualified applicants who happen to be women or minority. I get the reason for affirmative action, but I don't expect all "rich white males" to be understanding and altruistic about it.
As an entrepreneur
I have no special preferences on the gender of my employee (at least on sexism alone), but off course as a human being subconsciously I'd have calculations in my head, permutating all sorts of pros and cons such as:
Let's say for example I would want to employ an admin clerk
1. I want my admin clerk to be good looking, it's easy on the eye
2. Woman tend to complain less than male, and very seldom causing tension (unless she's a biatch by nature)
3. But woman have off days, is my applicant married? Is she settled? Any chance she'll be having maternity leave soon enough?
4. What side job do i need he/she to perform? If i need occasional warehouse visit, I'd probably employ a He because he can handle those roughnecks at the warehouse. If I need more outgoing client visit, I'd probably more inclined for a She
5. Woman tends to be tidier and more meticulous than men, these traits are important for clerical job
6. Man tends to be spontaneus and playing not by the book, I'd prefer man when I need some slick talkers to deal with labors
That's based on gender alone.
If you want to start including race and education, here's what I have in mind
1. If I hire a good looking Indonesian Chinese, they'd probably won't respect me much, because they're from a well off family, and will only be looking for a job as a past timer, hence they won't work very long, and often their attitude sucks
2. No matter how much I paid them, they won't be happy, because to them it's only a past time.
3. I'd rather hire a High school graduate. With the package i'm paying them, they won't get anything better elsewhere, they will work for me for long time.
4. But high school graduate needs alot of mentoring and stuffs.
5. Which one is cheaper? Which one is more hardworker?
The above is a little insight to my train of thoughts, so I really think it is impossible to be indifferent to certain race/gender/qualification/physical looks/etc when you decided who you'd want to employ. And all that is not because of racist or sexist, it's just plain economic efficiency at the end of the day.
So, unless employment are determined via computer alone, as long as there's interaction between jobseeker and interviewer, these kinds of bias and prejudice will always exist.
I have no special preferences on the gender of my employee (at least on sexism alone), but off course as a human being subconsciously I'd have calculations in my head, permutating all sorts of pros and cons such as:
Let's say for example I would want to employ an admin clerk
1. I want my admin clerk to be good looking, it's easy on the eye
2. Woman tend to complain less than male, and very seldom causing tension (unless she's a biatch by nature)
3. But woman have off days, is my applicant married? Is she settled? Any chance she'll be having maternity leave soon enough?
4. What side job do i need he/she to perform? If i need occasional warehouse visit, I'd probably employ a He because he can handle those roughnecks at the warehouse. If I need more outgoing client visit, I'd probably more inclined for a She
5. Woman tends to be tidier and more meticulous than men, these traits are important for clerical job
6. Man tends to be spontaneus and playing not by the book, I'd prefer man when I need some slick talkers to deal with labors
That's based on gender alone.
If you want to start including race and education, here's what I have in mind
1. If I hire a good looking Indonesian Chinese, they'd probably won't respect me much, because they're from a well off family, and will only be looking for a job as a past timer, hence they won't work very long, and often their attitude sucks
2. No matter how much I paid them, they won't be happy, because to them it's only a past time.
3. I'd rather hire a High school graduate. With the package i'm paying them, they won't get anything better elsewhere, they will work for me for long time.
4. But high school graduate needs alot of mentoring and stuffs.
5. Which one is cheaper? Which one is more hardworker?
The above is a little insight to my train of thoughts, so I really think it is impossible to be indifferent to certain race/gender/qualification/physical looks/etc when you decided who you'd want to employ. And all that is not because of racist or sexist, it's just plain economic efficiency at the end of the day.
So, unless employment are determined via computer alone, as long as there's interaction between jobseeker and interviewer, these kinds of bias and prejudice will always exist.
Feminism movement is a lot more relevant in third world countries than it is in the western world. The difference in social conditions faced by females in the urban and rural areas in my country (India) alone is tremendous, never mind comparing the differences between the western world and here. While the girls from the urban families are getting good education and are getting into good jobs, a large majority of the girls from the rural parts of the country don't even study past middle school as the families believe that they won't be needing the education once they are married anyway. Female foeticide is a common occurrence. The Government for its part has introduced a lot of schemes to promote female education and has banned gender tests before the child is born, but it is the society as a whole that needs to change here.
Were you serious about your period comment? Are bears a problem where you are from?
Feminists often fight an entrenched view of society, going back thousands of years. They may appear uncompromising and hating men, but that's down to their experiences in the past. Pity, if everyone does the morally right thing to do at all situations, there would be no need for a feminist/egalitarian etc etc
It's not the fecking period. It simply means that out of the 20 days work, they'll took 2 more days off. That's 10% of the total work in a month, and that's the regulation.
It may not look much if you're running a cafe, try running a factory with 1000 workforce having
EDIT : and it's a fecking paid leave. Not to mention according to the regulations they are entitled for a 3months maternity leave (PAID LEAVE) And furthermore, what are you going to do for that 3 months? Hire a new one and sack him/her after she come back? Hired an unqualified temp worker to replace her? Who would want to work for a 3 mths job?
Last edited:
sky1981 - where exactly are you from and is it on the same planet and in the same century as the rest of us?
Ignoring the particular assumptions that Sky makes, he gives a decent insight in to the thought processes and the inevitability of discrimination (if not legislated against).
Has anyone seen that picture of her about to suck that dick? When will these celebs learn ffs. Such bad timing. One minute she's banging on about feminism and the next there's a pic of her worshipping a dick. Bloody hell.
no doubt photoshopped but in retaliation she could always les up for some strap on action to show she is all about the gender equality
*obligatory "she looks about 12" comment*
Had to laugh that the Daily Mail's first thoughts on her speech were about her outfit.