Women-only screening of Wonder Woman: Reverse Sexism at its Finest

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

Why in the h3ll does that seem like a good idea to you? Evening out the playing field? In what manner?

Look, there are certain people who built our society by the inch and by the mile over the past hundred centuries or so. They are not defined by a race or a sex, but by a mindset of production and innovation. Now, we have people who, instead of trying to improve their own situation, expect for the government to "even out the playing field" for them? If you want something, you MAKE it, and hopefully you marginally improve society as a happy side effect.

Piss on "evening out the playing field". Daniel Hale Williams and Grace Harper would be appalled.

Boy you sure really went far into left field with that one. No where did I say that they were trying to use the government; however, the government is meant to represent and protect all its citizens, especially the disadvantaged. You can be against the equality of opportunity or an even playing field but that is distinctly in contrast to the notion of the American dream, however diminished that concept may be today.

At least they're out there working to better their own station in life. Political activism (which this particular case is not, by the way) is one method by which to do that, though I understand that may be lost on you if you're a white hetero male.

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

Because blacks are the only minority in this country? That is pretty racist of you.

Where are the Historically Asian colleges? Oh, I forgot, there aren't any, because Asians are too busy getting degrees and good jobs from reputable (Howard excluded from that jab) universities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jarrett-l-carter/hbcu-return-on-investment_b_5049115.html

Good point, the historic plight and struggle of the African-American in America is no different than that of any other race.

Maybe if there had been a significant population of Asians dragged to America by whites and refused admission to colleges based on their ethnicity we would have historically Asian colleges.

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:My complaint is simply over the phrase "historically black". Complete double standard. I am not talking about the racial makeup of any university (or the gender makeup of any movie theatre, to get back on point); I am talking about how entities represent themselves.

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

How do any of the things you are whining about actually affect you? Typical conservative snowflake.

In most social circles today, you would be celebrated for ending your point that way, and that is exactly my point.

Also, lol "disadvantaged". Take a look around the world, son. Our "disadvantaged" are among the top 1% SES on the planet. Wake up.

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

Catholic seminaries only accept men. Are they crucified by our society?

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

I've already presented you with an example of a business that is literally called "For Men Only" that receives no complaints.

Xanax wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

Because blacks are the only minority in this country? That is pretty racist of you.

Where are the Historically Asian colleges? Oh, I forgot, there aren't any, because Asians are too busy getting degrees and good jobs from reputable (Howard excluded from that jab) universities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jarrett-l-carter/hbcu-return-on-investment_b_5049115.html

Good point, the historic plight and struggle of the African-American in America is no different than that of any other race.

Maybe if there had been a significant population of Asians dragged to America by whites and refused admission to colleges based on their ethnicity we would have historically Asian colleges.

What Europeans (and later North Americans, to a lesser degree than South Americans by an order of magnitude) did to African slaves was absolutely horrible and inexcusable.

That being said, what % of American blacks would trade places with a random African? What % of Africans would trade places with a random American black?

As has been pointed out, they were "historically black" because they wouldn't let black people into other universities, and there is no injustice in stating that fact, nor any loss from a lack of universities advertising as being historically white.

Where's the grief?

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

In most social circles today, you would be celebrated for ending your point that way, and that is exactly my point.

Also, lol "disadvantaged". Take a look around the world, son. Our "disadvantaged" are among the top 1% SES on the planet. Wake up.

So the fact that most "social circles" have come to similar conclusions that, on average, straight white men in America have it better than others, means that it can't be true?

But of course, you're right. Our country, though it should, doesn't provide equal opportunity to all citizens, but because people in Ghana or Peru have even less opportunity, they shouldn't just be happy to get anything, right?

And I'm sure you don't think you're being selfish or hypocritical either.

Count Chocula wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

Catholic seminaries only accept men. Are they crucified by our society?

1. Do they ADVERTISE themselves as Men-Only the way that HBCU (an actual entity) advertise themselves as Historically Black?

2. You don't think the Catholic Church is criticized? lolol!!! (For what it's worth, I think much of the criticism against the CC is valid... but I cannot believe you would sit there and type something like that.)

3. Your claim is false. Women can certainly attend many (I have no idea if "all") seminaries.

bigtime wrote:

Not an Oppressed Male wrote:

I may go. Seems like a good place to meet women.

I think we've found op's real problem.

Agreed.

I'll take things Jamin might say for $600, please.

tiresome tiresome wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:My complaint is simply over the phrase "historically black". Complete double standard. I am not talking about the racial makeup of any university (or the gender makeup of any movie theatre, to get back on point); I am talking about how entities represent themselves.

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

How do any of the things you are whining about actually affect you? Typical conservative snowflake.

Very little. I happen to care about our society as a whole, even parts that do not directly affect me. By some definitions, that classifies me as "unselfish".

You should try thinking outside of your bubble sometime.

straw man wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

I've already presented you with an example of a business that is literally called "For Men Only" that receives no complaints.

Does the presence of Danika Patrick disprove sexism? Does the presence of Barak Obama disprove racism?

lol "an example"

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

If someone advertised a Men Only, or Historically White, etc. event, they would be crucified by our society, except for a small minority of Trump voters.

straw man wrote:

I've already presented you with an example of a business that is literally called "For Men Only" that receives no complaints.

The haircut place only for men would also be illegal in the City of New York:

It is against the City Human Rights Law for a public accommodation to withhold or refuse to provide full and equal enjoyment of those goods or services based on the following protected classes under the Law:

Age

Alienage or Citizenship Status

Color

Disability

Gender

Gender Identity

Marital or Partnership Status

National Origin

Pregnancy

Race

Religion/Creed

Sexual Orientation

Examples of Public Accommodations:

Stores

Banks

Medical or dental offices

Government agencies

Hair salons

Hospitals

Hotels

Theaters

Restaurants

Schools

Taxis

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

straw man wrote:

I've already presented you with an example of a business that is literally called "For Men Only" that receives no complaints.

Does the presence of Danika Patrick disprove sexism? Does the presence of Barak Obama disprove racism?

lol "an example"

My example disproves your statement. That was the point.

If you say "if X happens, then Y will happen," I only need a single example of a time that X happened and Y did not follow to prove that you are wrong.

The Obvious Answer wrote:

bigtime wrote:

I think we've found op's real problem.

Agreed.

I'll take things Jamin might say for $600, please.

lol, just saw this. That wasn't me. But that IS funny, whoever wrote it.

fwiw, I probably WILL go see it (with my wife).

straw man wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

Does the presence of Danika Patrick disprove sexism? Does the presence of Barak Obama disprove racism?

lol "an example"

My example disproves your statement. That was the point.

If you say "if X happens, then Y will happen," I only need a single example of a time that X happened and Y did not follow to prove that you are wrong.

Meh, you win this one on a technicality. Good job pointing out an error in semantics and finding a counter-example.

Still, you cannot possibly claim that the existence of a local barbershop(?) disproves my greater point, can you?

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

The Obvious Answer wrote:

Agreed.

I'll take things Jamin might say for $600, please.

lol, just saw this. That wasn't me. But that IS funny, whoever wrote it.

fwiw, I probably WILL go see it (with my wife).

Now I know the above post is not from the real OP. Why would you let your property out of the house?

more hands wrote:

Not an Oppressed Man wrote:

lol, just saw this. That wasn't me. But that IS funny, whoever wrote it.

fwiw, I probably WILL go see it (with my wife).

Now I know the above post is not from the real OP. Why would you let your property out of the house?

lol. She has been good this week.

Okay, made it to 100 posts. It has been fun, gents. Carry on.