Why should you respect your elders?

[BurnedOut]

Just one argument. The world is run by 'elders' (40+ and above). History tells us that they have been quite garbage at doing it. My catholic college's insistence on values like 'obedience' and their overall demand towards frock-wearing diddly daddies never ceases to infuriate me. Plus, most elders act like they are worthy of all kinds of adulation and politeness. They are absolutely not.

Interesting all the diddly daddies, sugar Fathers and lusty pastors that I have observed here seem unnaturally frustrated and pissed at everything. I have not seen one daddy who does not look at women lecherously. My hostel's superintendent went as far as to ask me if I did not like a professor because she looks ugly when I told him that she acting like a pedophiliac. A few minutes ago, I saw other fuckdaddy being unable to keep his eyes off the breasts of 'sisters' who were sitting in front of him. It was absolutely disgusting.

My previous college also had an issue with this pedantic, dogmatic, perverted motherfuckers who unconsciously behave like cucks. Also, they have an odd habit of being proudly sexist. These potbellied only-physically-celibate losers have a really annoying habit of dispensing generic advice and have an anal insistence on rule following insofar common sense is disregarded.

This has caused one of the ruddest awakenings in my life - experience does not correlate with wisdom, it correlates with stupidity which correlates with wisdom. And we don't need much evidence to understand that stupidity is indiscriminate in its affliction.

PS: My critique applies to any and all kind of group settings and societal mechanisms which have a premium placed on age and 'experience'. It's very intuitive to think that the world is path dependent and experience counts more than anything because, well, 'stability' but turns out it is extremely unintuitive to consider the world as being strictly path independent in the absence of solidly established causality. This renders the whole question of 'experience' garbage. One cannot reduce the perception of experience of being 'facts accumulated over time' if there is no rigorous scientific validation of the tests done. This issue is malignantly pervasive in the whole of liberal arts and my sadass subject pottylical science which jerks off to 'wisdom', 'experience' and 'stability'. Without a scientific mode of conducting replicable tests, one can never draw a strong relation between experience and performance. Thinking Fast And Slow has dedicated an entire section on debunking the so-called 'expert advice' being any better than an ordinary man's guess in fields that are heavily theoritical with no pragmatism in sight.

 

[birdsnestfern]

Elders have ideas that worked in the past and don't always work in present day, so you have to take the good stuff and cull that and separate wheat from chaff. No, never take anything anyone says as truth without your own filtering system, or experience.

Anytime you repress something like sex, etc, it comes back ten times stronger, ie, becomes devilish in that person.
Its the people that say sex is bad that are the lecherous ones, because they are condemning it in themselves as unnatural.
Therefore, definitely, eye Catholicism with a healthy dose of doubt. Its too harsh for a happy spirit.

My Dad was Catholic and I even called in Catholic priests for his last rites, nobody else thought to do it.
I do believe in the Saints and St Jude and St Anthony have helped me find things so many times, and I do believe in Angelic beings, have actually seen several in amazing detail.
Angels look both male and female simultaneously, gorgeous sight to see, they impart intense feeling in you, no words, just a feeling of forgiveness and love too real for words and intense.
I did not have any church upbringing, did not believe in angels, and yet, I've had quite a few help me! So I do believe in them now after they intervened for me.

I developed cat scratch fever and woke up with blurry vision.
and archangel Gabriel or Raphael, not sure which was hovering over me as I woke up in that classic angle you see them hovering in, about 6 feet above me. Golden curls falling over beautiful physique.a beauty that is both sexes, GORGEOUS to see. The side that the angel was on my eye sight was saved. The other side, I lost my vision in it from Cat Scratch Fever.

Anyway and the other time was at the Colorado River when a whirlpool was just about to drown my sister and I, the current was going so fast and swept into it, down river. This was on a trip to Florida when we had a mountain lion in the back of our truck to take to Sea World. We stopped to cool off in the Colorado river and it took us with it. After a good long time, I saw an angel hovering over the bank of the river about 30 feet in the sky. It downloaded information into me that said to lay flat and backfloat and frog swim backwards, and showed which way to get out. I pulled my sister out of the edge and did what the angel said and we got back to the shore and walked back to Mom and her friend who were in the truck not paying attention. Without that angels direction, we probably would have drowned in the Colorado river whirlpool, were just on the edge of being taken down. So, there are elements to Catholicism that I believe in, just not everything.

Catholicism is messed up, it has good and bad elements to it. After you've done your studies, just take the good things you learn from it and leave the rest.
But if god gave you a body, he meant for you to enjoy it. Shame is toxic!

 

[Hadoblado]

It's beyond question that experience is important in wisdom. It's empiricism-lite, and empiricism requires data.

But what your experiences are determine what sort of wisdom you develop. And if your experience is cloistered off then your wisdom becomes restricted to how to navigate that cloister. So wisdom can be narrow.

Then, when dispensing that wisdom, the wisdoer assumes their experience generalises to the wisdee. Since the progression of technology and generational differences exist etc., this assumption can often be wrong. So wisdom can be shallow.

Your job, as the wisdee, is to judge what you think is valuable to you, and leave the rest.

 

[Black Rose]

I think you should show respect to everyone.
I mean if you show disrespect what result do you expect?

That does not mean you cannot form judgments about people.
It matters whether they are accurate about things or not or decent or not.

It is just not a good idea to toy with others.
And not everyone is a good judge of character.
Stupid people are going to be stupid young or old.
But wise people only get wiser as they get older.

 

[Hadoblado]

respect != Respect

I can respect you as a human, and I can Respect you as an authority. You can be kind without being a slave.

When people demand respect, it's usually pretty clear which one they're demanding. In BO's case, it sounds like these people demand respect for their authority, and this is causing him to lose both kinds of respect for them.

 

[Black Rose]

ya but it sounds like he is saying all old people are Catholic perverts.

which is just from his narrow experience he is trying to generalize to all elders?

it's not that clear because the title and the op mismatch each other.

 

[Hadoblado]

Fair. BO sprays and prays when they're riled up. They'll start a tirade against one group and finish crusading against another :shruggie:

 

[Cognisant]

There's a trope in media of overlaying the male/female dynamic with a predator/prey dynamic with varying degrees of subtly, for example:
The fox and rabbit from Zootopia, I'm sure this is common in furry fiction.
Twilight and every other variation on the "my boyfriend is a monster" genre.
Beauty and the Beast.

Now consider what happens to animals that end up living in caves (like fish and salamanders) how in the absence of selective pressure for vision their eyes atrophy away over the generations until they're just vestigial or gone completely. Metaphorically (because nature is not a person with intent) nature selects for traits that result in an animal passing on its genes and anything that doesn't is selected against because from nature's perspective those eyes are wasted calories.

The more calories wasted on a trait the stronger the selection pressure against it.

From nature's perspective a man who does not pass on his genes was wasted calories from the day he was born so the selection pressure on males to compel them to pass on their genes is incredible. In this way all men are predatory, compelled to pursue women with the same life or death desperation as a vampire is compelled feed on the living. For a man not having sex or a family (for obvious reasons the reproduction drive lessens up once a man has offspring to care for) is like ever so slowly starving to death, every fiber of his being screaming at him to do something, anything, consequences be damned!

But man is not an animal, he endures it, and every man knows the beast, every man suffers its hunger (if not to the same degree) but despite this mutual understanding we can afford no compassion. Any man that lets the beast win is a dead man, his body overtaken, and it is the solemn duty of every other man to see this beast put down or imprisoned lest our apathy embolden the beasts within ourselves.

Which is not to say women are incapable of being predatory, its circumstantial, in a society with fewer men than women and social conventions preventing men already claimed from being accessed naturally women will take on a more predatory mindset. But it's never quite the same, men are incorrigible pollinators and because of this women will always have options, it may not be the kind of man they want but there's always a man available. Consequently women are just not as driven as men, they've never been subject to that degree of do-or-die selection pressure.

Interesting all the diddly daddies, sugar Fathers and lusty pastors that I have observed here seem unnaturally frustrated and pissed at everything. I have not seen one daddy who does not look at women lecherously.

You live in India right?

Spoiler

It's a bit hard to read (here's the original) but that dark blue segment on the left is excess men and there isn't a female surplus until age 60 which is just because men are dying off sooner. Irrespective of all other factors there's hundreds of thousands of excess men in India, that's horrifying, that's misery on a scale and depth that's hard to comprehend.

I have no love of the clergy, I'm sure they're a bunch of backwards-thinking dusty old perverts and I'm not asking you to respect them much less Respect them, just don't hate them for being human, they're suffering enough already.

 

[BurnedOut]

Your job, as the wisdee, is to judge what you think is valuable to you, and leave the rest.

But if these erroneous wisdoms became a standard in a culture, how do you still retain your freedom because these uncontextual wisdoms end up determining your liberties in that setting.

It's beyond question that experience is important in wisdom. It's empiricism-lite, and empiricism requires data.

Empiricism-lite? It's riddled with mental biases, the same kind of reasoning evolution uses when it gave male sage grouse oesophegal boinking breasts which have no practicality. Similarly to the cockscrew dicks ducks have. Garbage in, garbage out

Fair. BO sprays and prays when they're riled up. They'll start a tirade against one group and finish crusading against another :shruggie:

That genuinely was funny.

 

[BurnedOut]

Then, when dispensing that wisdom, the wisdoer assumes their experience generalises to the wisdee. Since the progression of technology and generational differences exist etc., this assumption can often be wrong. So wisdom can be shallow.

You hit the right chord here. Generational differences are a historically unfalsifiable fact. This renders the whole notion of 'be respectful to elders' beyond the rudimentary scientific facts they bestow as completely untenable. Mankind has always had concurrent inventors, no inventor can keep a secret if their secret is a fact derived by empirical fact. It is a function of time. For example - democracy being touted as a western construct

 

[BurnedOut]

It's a bit hard to read (here's the original) but that dark blue segment on the left is excess men and there isn't a female surplus until age 60 which is just because men are dying off sooner. Irrespective of all other factors there's hundreds of thousands of excess men in India, that's horrifying, that's misery on a scale and depth that's hard to comprehend.

That is the case with North Indian states. Many Indian states have a surplus of females and in other, the ratio is roughly equal.

 

[BurnedOut]

Duplicate post, deleted.

 

[Cognisant]

That is the case with North Indian states. Many Indian states have a surplus of females and in other, the ratio is roughly equal.

Why does that matter? The graph I posted was for India as a nation.
Ok so there's more women than men on your street, that doesn't change the fact that there's more men than women in your society, you're just picking the scope your data by what best supports your narrative.

The fact that some states are better off than others just means that some states are also worse off than others, which is besides the fact that these are catholic clergymen you're speaking of, didn't they swear an oath of celibacy? In that case the availability of women doesn't matter at all.

Why shouldn't I debate with feminists? How do feminists differ from other people?
Are you trying to say feminists are automatically right because they're feminists?

But if these erroneous wisdoms became a standard in a culture, how do you still retain your freedom because these uncontextual wisdoms end up determining your liberties in that setting.

What wisdom specifically?
If you won't share specifics with us it may be possible that on some level you know their wisdom is valid, but you just don't like it.

 

[Hadoblado]

Your job, as the wisdee, is to judge what you think is valuable to you, and leave the rest.

But if these erroneous wisdoms became a standard in a culture, how do you still retain your freedom because these uncontextual wisdoms end up determining your liberties in that setting.

It's beyond question that experience is important in wisdom. It's empiricism-lite, and empiricism requires data.

Empiricism-lite? It's riddled with mental biases, the same kind of reasoning evolution uses when it gave male sage grouse oesophegal boinking breasts which have no practicality. Similarly to the cockscrew dicks ducks have. Garbage in, garbage out

Liberty:
There will always be mutual control so long as you exist in a society.jpg. If you can clarify to yourself what you're willing to compromise on, then you might be able to find a nook that suits you best.

Empiricism:
Empiricism is also riddled with error. People are riddled with biases. Observation is riddled with both. It's a feature, not a bug. You can reduce it but you cannot escape it. Wisdom is pretty close to unstructured and unregulated empiricism. You think one thing and then a lifetime later you might think another. Then you die. True wisdom is learning from experience. Foolishness is assuming you know things on account of the raw amount of experience you have, rather than the specific lessons you have learned.

People have wisdom but tend to be foolish in their understanding of the wisdom they have.

 

[scorpiomover]

The world is run by 'elders' (40+ and above). History tells us that they have been quite garbage at doing it.

Both of these claims have been made since the 1960s by the media, which has had the effect of convincing most parents and grandparents to not try to teach their kids anything useful, and to convince most young people not to learn anything from their parents and grandparents.

This has had the effect of making young people ignorant of what came before. Useful in a society where babies can advanced significantly without parents. But in a society which relies upon knowledge like that in science and technology, that puts them at a severe disadvantage, which makes them fools. A fool and his money are soon parted. The corporations, however, retain their knowledge, and thus gain more and more information about how to fleece people. Thus, the corporations gain more and more money with such a system.

Then you wonder why you're struggling to get a job and be listened to, when you think 1-day-old babies know more about your own field than you do.

This has caused one of the ruddest awakenings in my life - experience does not correlate with wisdom, it correlates with stupidity which correlates with wisdom.

So more experience => more stupidity?
Then you've had too much experience to say or do anything useful, and thus you are unemployable.

Do you understand that you are using a poor strategy that was popularised by the media in order to undermine you?

PS: My critique applies to any and all kind of group settings and societal mechanisms which have a premium placed on age and 'experience'.

With a path-independent subject, all roads of gaining knowledge lead to the same fundamental conclusions that are the distilled essence of what really matters in that subject. Thus, whoever has more experience, and thus is further along his or her path, is closer to the same fundamentals that represent the only truths worth knowing.

It's very intuitive to think that the world is path dependent and experience counts more than anything because, well, 'stability' but turns out it is extremely unintuitive to consider the world as being strictly path independent in the absence of solidly established causality. This renders the whole question of 'experience' garbage. One cannot reduce the perception of experience of being 'facts accumulated over time' if there is no rigorous scientific validation of the tests done.

The more experience you gain, the more physical evidence you have accumulated, simply by having more life experiences. So the more experience you gain, the more scientifically-accurate knowledge you have.

This in turn means that you understand more, by actually engaging with the very topics you are attempting to understand, and actually experiencing the real-life consequences.

This in turn means that someone who has done his own car maintenance, and suffered for the mistakes he made, understands a lot more about the reality of cars, than a theoretical physicist who has never owned a car, and never changed their oil.

This issue is malignantly pervasive in the whole of liberal arts and my sadass subject pottylical science which jerks off to 'wisdom', 'experience' and 'stability'. Without a scientific mode of conducting replicable tests, one can never draw a strong relation between experience and performance.

This is a problem with those subjects that divorce theory from practical testing, as they never get the hard evidence that tells theorists where their theory is wrong.

In those subjects, those who are most respected are the ones with the cleverest rhetoric and charisma that impresses people, not those who actually know what they are talking about.

So ultimately, you chose to do a subject that to succeed, requires you to have a high level of skill in psychological manipulation and diplomacy (the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that the person is looking forwards to the trip).

If you wish to succeed in political science, you need to learn how to manipulate people. I would suggest that you take a part-time sales job on the side, as in sales, the objective is mainly to convince the customer to buy what you are selling, and so the main goal is to manipulate people into agreeing with you and doing what you want. So sales teams actually teach you how to manipulate people. So by doing such a job part-time, you will be taught the skills that you will need to succeed in your field of choice.

If you don't wish to do that, then I would suggest choosing an alternative field where those who are more knowledgeable get promoted.

 

[Cognisant]

Aww you deleted that bit about how I shouldn't argue with feminists, oh well.

This has caused one of the ruddest awakenings in my life - experience does not correlate with wisdom, it correlates with stupidity which correlates with wisdom. And we don't need much evidence to understand that stupidity is indiscriminate in its affliction.

The second rude awakening is that this also applies to yourself, stupidity is indeed indiscriminate in its affliction. Let's examine this paragraph by paragraph.

Just one argument. The world is run by 'elders' (40+ and above). History tells us that they have been quite garbage at doing it. My catholic college's insistence on values like 'obedience' and their overall demand towards frock-wearing diddly daddies never ceases to infuriate me. Plus, most elders act like they are worthy of all kinds of adulation and politeness. They are absolutely not.

The 'elders' running the world are garbage as compared to...?
This is what's called a baseless assertion, and it's the sort of thing that (as you well know) so called "experts" do when they give advice based on nought but subjective impressions and speculation.

The next part is a bit vague, I presume "frock-wearing diddly daddies" are clergymen and the "demand towards" them is that you be obedient to them, but you have left out what that obedience entails. Is your college truly making unfair demands of you or are you just being a spoiled brat who is rankled by the perceived imposition that you must obey people who you deem lesser than yourself? If this is a catholic college then the clergy must be the faculty, so in this institution (of which you willfully participate) they are your superiors, and you are at this college for the purpose of learning from them, are you not? Maybe you ought to get over yourself and show them some respect to your teachers.

Personally I think anyone who is engaged in teaching me something, and whose tuition I am actively seeking, is implicitly owed some respect given their position of authority over me as a teacher to a student. Of course that authority is not without limits and nor is that respect irrespective of anything else, but it is necessary if I am to learn from them.

Interesting all the diddly daddies, sugar Fathers and lusty pastors that I have observed here seem unnaturally frustrated and pissed at everything. I have not seen one daddy who does not look at women lecherously. My hostel's superintendent went as far as to ask me if I did not like a professor because she looks ugly when I told him that she acting like a pedophiliac. A few minutes ago, I saw other fuckdaddy being unable to keep his eyes off the breasts of 'sisters' who were sitting in front of him. It was absolutely disgusting.

You have a considerable lack of respect for these people, granted I have not met them so I cannot say for sure that it is unwarranted, but if that were the case and these people are as irredeemable as you seem to imply then I wonder what motivates you to attend this college? Surely they must possess knowledge of sufficient value to warrant your attendance, despite their moral failings, otherwise by your own admission your attendance is a mistake.

My previous college also had an issue with this pedantic, dogmatic, perverted motherfuckers who unconsciously behave like cucks. Also, they have an odd habit of being proudly sexist. These potbellied only-physically-celibate losers have a really annoying habit of dispensing generic advice and have an anal insistence on rule following insofar common sense is disregarded.

Can you give a specific example of the rules they demand you to follow so that I may determine for myself whether they are beyond the scope of common sense? Without specifics it is rather difficult to sympathize with your situation, unless I were to accept on face value that I ought to be outraged on your behalf, but I'm not in the habit of letting people tell me how to think or feel.

As I've already explained in my post prior I think you're a bit sexist too.

PS: My critique applies to any and all kind of group settings and societal mechanisms which have a premium placed on age and 'experience'. It's very intuitive to think that the world is path dependent and experience counts more than anything because, well, 'stability' but turns out it is extremely unintuitive to consider the world as being strictly path independent in the absence of solidly established causality. This renders the whole question of 'experience' garbage. One cannot reduce the perception of experience of being 'facts accumulated over time' if there is no rigorous scientific validation of the tests done. This issue is malignantly pervasive in the whole of liberal arts and my sadass subject pottylical science which jerks off to 'wisdom', 'experience' and 'stability'. Without a scientific mode of conducting replicable tests, one can never draw a strong relation between experience and performance. Thinking Fast And Slow has dedicated an entire section on debunking the so-called 'expert advice' being any better than an ordinary man's guess in fields that are heavily theoritical with no pragmatism in sight.

Likewise your self confessed feminist beliefs and feelings of outrage have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of your arguments and with those parts stripped away what's left is complaining, name calling and a point about how expertise must stand on its own objective merits, that part I agree with.

 

[BurnedOut]

@Cognisant, I had made a duplicate post and added that feminist bit to that and forgot that the original one did not have it, I was just pulling your leg.

Can you give a specific example of the rules they demand you to follow so that I may determine for myself whether they are beyond the scope of common sense?

Boys cannot wear round neck t shirts while entering the college gate. But none of that applies to women who wearing more 'revealing' clothes (emphasised by my diddly super who used made a gesture of breasts and expressed his annoyance). We gotta keep our room doors open from 9.30pm to 10 for "inspection" which is nothing more than 'floor incharges' simply peeking in the rooms when they can peek through the windows. You cannot call anybody after 9.30pm. Super's insistence on addressing him as 'Father' and not sir. You cannot snack on food inside the rooms and only in the refectory. Not even snacks but our rooms are cleaned by us including throwing the trash. During every college/hostel event, it is mandatory to thank the diddlies otherwise they will be upset and won't let you do jackshit

 

[BurnedOut]

The 'elders' running the world are garbage as compared to...?

All the bureaucrats who are responsible for the actual management are NEVER young. Their average age is 50-ish. Look at the courts and parliaments and all the politicians.

FYI, you know better than to tell me that I am name calling no evidence whatsoever. It is no secret how sexual harassment and pedophilia is rampant in the church. Hindus had this concept of devdasis (maids of God) who were raped and prostituted by none other than the Hindu clergy on most part.

Let's talk about that feminist bit. You were excusing diddlies on the basis of the male population being more. Who's responsible for it? Men themselves. I did name calling and everything that you mentioned but they simply deserve it. Celibacy is unnatural and humans are animals by specie. It is common sense that if you want diddling then you should not have joined the clergy in the first place. Secondly, giving generic advice to a whole bunch of crowd without knowing their lives is just plain stupid. These guys control the narratives for eons and generations to come.

 

[BurnedOut]

Do you understand that you are using a poor strategy that was popularised by the media in order to undermine

It still holds water today. The average age of world leaders is ridiculously high making it all about themselves and their perspectives. These people span across a minimum of 2 generations depending on their political success and charisma. Spanning across two generations with the outdated knowledge accoupled with egoistic biases of the generation prior to those two is nothing better than oppressing the neophytes

 

[BurnedOut]

Empiricism is also riddled with error. People are riddled with biases. Observation is riddled with both. It's a feature, not a bug. You can reduce it but you cannot escape it. Wisdom is pretty close to unstructured and unregulated empiricism

Granted that even empiricism is riddled with biases but if biases can be reduced significantly, why not reduce them?

Here's an example of standardized empiricism-lite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism (Soviet Biology)

 

[BurnedOut]

The more experience you gain, the more physical evidence you have accumulated, simply by having more life experiences. So the more experience you gain, the more scientifically-accurate knowledge you have.

If your experiences are filtered through emotions, then how is experience a function of scientific accumulation of knowledge?

So ultimately, you chose to do a subject that to succeed, requires you to have a high level of skill in psychological manipulation and diplomacy (the art of telling someone to go to hell in such a way that the person is looking forwards to the trip).

Political Science has cutting edge fields that are heavily scientific which delve with quantitative measurements of political phenomenon - Political Economy, Development Studies. Sadly. I fucked up enough in my teenage to not get into these colleges but I will. However my Masters is a pure joke regarding the 'science' part of political science.

 

[Cognisant]

Boys cannot wear round neck t shirts while entering the college gate. But none of that applies to women who wearing more 'revealing' clothes (emphasised by my diddly super who used made a gesture of breasts and expressed his annoyance).

The injustice!

We gotta keep our room doors open from 9.30pm to 10 for "inspection" which is nothing more than 'floor incharges' simply peeking in the rooms when they can peek through the windows. You cannot call anybody after 9.30pm.

They're doing a headcount, checking to see nobody's where they're not supposed to be and they don't want people wandering around making noise in the middle of the night. Pretty standard dorm stuff.

Super's insistence on addressing him as 'Father' and not sir.

Right or wrong its his privilege to enforce a title while you're a part of the institution, like the captain of a ship, you might not be a sailor but if you're on a ship you have to refer to the captain by title if he expects it.

You cannot snack on food inside the rooms and only in the refectory. Not even snacks but our rooms are cleaned by us including throwing the trash.

Yeah it sucks but again this is normal for a dorm, 99 people might keep their room clean but it only takes one grot to cause problems so its easier just to enforce one rule for everybody.

During every college/hostel event, it is mandatory to thank the diddlies otherwise they will be upset and won't let you do jackshit

They're faculty, you have to show them some respect and if they're hosting a recreational event it makes sense to thank them for organizing/allowing it.
Is diddlie a derogatory term?

All the bureaucrats who are responsible for the actual management are NEVER young. Their average age is 50-ish. Look at the courts and parliaments and all the politicians.

In Australia "elders" and "elderly" are a bit different, the former has a tribal/familial connotation, I agree that the world is ruled by old people but I'd dispute that being old automatically puts someone in a position of authority (i.e. an actual patriarchy).

FYI, you know better than to tell me that I am name calling no evidence whatsoever. It is no secret how sexual harassment and pedophilia is rampant in the church.

I'll happily call catholicism an institution full of pedos but I wouldn't direct such accusations at an individual without being very very sure. Granted you're not accusing them directly but even such accusations made in private to someone who doesn't know the person you're speaking about can still be incredibly damaging/dangerous if they later find out who that person is.

Consider a scenario where you say in private to a friend that the principle of your college is a pedophile and your friend doesn't attend this college. But what if later on they do and they spread this rumor and it gets traced back to them, and back to you, now you're liable for libel and that you didn't mean to do it is no excuse.

Hindus had this concept of devdasis (maids of God) who were raped and prostituted by none other than the Hindu clergy on most part.

Despicable but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Let's talk about that feminist bit. You were excusing diddlies on the basis of the male population being more. Who's responsible for it? Men themselves. I did name calling and everything that you mentioned but they simply deserve it. Celibacy is unnatural and humans are animals by specie. It is common sense that if you want diddling then you should not have joined the clergy in the first place. Secondly, giving generic advice to a whole bunch of crowd without knowing their lives is just plain stupid. These guys control the narratives for eons and generations to come.

Oh now I know what a diddlie is, yeah you got to stop saying that.
And to clarify I'm absolutely not excusing the act of diddling, as I said men who can't control themselves need to be locked up or put down like rabid animals, not as a matter of morality but as a practical necessity.

As for the men of today being responsible for the policies of of men in the past, smells like social justice to me, how do you feel about persecuting the son for the sins of the father because that's basically what social justice is. I don't think the men of today are responsible for the decisions of the past, nor are they owed affection even if they arguably need it to be psychologically healthy, they just got dealt a shit hand and that's just what they have to play with

 

[BurnedOut]

The injustice!

Let me add some more context. He goes to th girls hostel and harasses girls if they happen to wear 'exposing clothes', he bickers at them. Not to say, the diddly always has red eyes, he's always sleep deprived. All the hostel staff hate him. He does not treat the older staff who slog their arses day and night preparing food and cleaning the hostel well either. Also, many guys have to simply splurge money on getting collared tees because many of them have only round necked tees.

Oh, we don't live in a dorm. Max number of students allowed is just 3 in a room and the curtains are not hung above the windows, so it's possible for anybody to peek through them.

Despicable but I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Because many of you are accusing me of shitting on Catholics only. I was illustrating using an example. Granted I use harsh language but that gets the point across at the speed of light. I don't care about diplomacy much unless it is going to cause me some serious trouble.

direct such accusations at an individual without being very very sure

It requires plenty of research to see if some old guy is oggling at 18-25 years old's breasts and secretly smiling about it right?

They're faculty, you have to show them some respect and if they're hosting a recreational event it makes sense to thank them for organizing/allowing it.
Is diddlie a derogatory term?

Nobody is supposed to show them respect if their diddliness and sexist behavior and enforcement of nonsensical rules is slowly destroying the college. Plus, nobody is obligated to call these diddlies to the stage and give an hour long condonation for them simply being daddies in the first place. That's just plain bullshit.

As for the men of today being responsible for the policies of of men in the past, smells like social justice to me, how do you feel about persecuting the son for the sins of the father because that's basically what social justice is

Yeah, I feel no qualms in persecuting someone engaging in perverted behavior. If the son has inherited the same behavior as the father, he is obliged to pay for the sins of his father because syllogistically he is just his father. Cultural cancer needs to be excised, it keeps metastasizing across generations.

 

[BurnedOut]

In this college ran by diddlies, there has been zero representation of women in the higher management despite the fact that roughly 50% of the competent professors are women. Even professors have to condone these diddlies. My previous college got so fed up with these diddlies, they got rid of them more or less entirely and now that college despite having a male principle (due to state goverment politics) has more women than men in the higher management and it is sort of regaining it's lost reputation back because the new management got rid of the stupid biopower clothing oppression of the diddlies.

Not to mention these diddlies have no restrictions on their own clothing but the 'sisters' have to wear diarrhoea colored sarees and the graduated nuns have to look like Fraudster Teresa. They can wear no causals, nothing at all. And yeah, none of these condonations demanded by diddlies are extended to a single upper-management woman despite them being just as competent as the frock-wearing pervs.

Feels pretty good to always see diddlies being in the center of all the pictures and all the Teresas being in the corners, ignored, right?

 

[BurnedOut]

Well. These diddlies do not give a damn about anything other than furthering their diddly Jesuit agenda of whoring for money from catholic alumni and students. Despite the fact that humanities has more female than male students, the gents toilets are comically large. They don't even have toilet paper and have to squat. The Women's Cell in the college is shut because the diddlies don't want their diddling to come to light.

But the funniest part about all this is that female professors don't care at all about these things - women getting communicable diseases while using unclean unsanitized toilets that require them to squat because they have a nice washroom replete with bum spray and all the goodies you'd expect to find in a dignified toilet.

And what's even funnier is that none of the girls themselves care about these things and have no qualms about any of this. So I suppose you are right. It is useless being a feminist.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You guys produce way too much text.

Care to give me a short summary of what this thread's about? Started as generational divide but then turned into gender population and feminism discussion wild...


Respect has to be earned. Elderly often don't show respect to young people, but expect to be venerated.

In my experience older people are not wiser, but rather tend to be more bigoted and narrow minded. I say we shouldn't be rude to them, but we shouldn't automatically accept what they say as wisdom. Another problem is that the values and norms the elderly fought for are nowadays obsolete or need to be improved further which becomes a point of contention.

The society traditionally has been structured to value the elderly for their past contributions and wisdom and there is some value in that, but this often comes at a cost of ignoring and demotivating the youth from taking the lead or becoming authorities on subjects they are competent at.

Social norms often lack nuance. If the prevailing convenance is to respect the elderly then this is done to such a harmful extreme that only sparks division.

 

[Cognisant]

Also, many guys have to simply splurge money on getting collared tees because many of them have only round necked tees.

If they went to a catholic school in Australia they'd be wearing a full uniform. Wearing a collared shirt and full cover shoes is like the absolute bare minimum for professional attire. They should count themselves lucky they don't have to wear a jacket and tie.

Let me add some more context. He goes to the girls hostel and harasses girls if they happen to wear 'exposing clothes', he bickers at them. Not to say, the diddly always has red eyes, he's always sleep deprived. All the hostel staff hate him. He does not treat the older staff who slog their arses day and night preparing food and cleaning the hostel well either.

Ok so he's an asshole but he's well within his rights to tell the girls attending the college to dress appropriately, sure his idea of appropriate may be overly modest but its a catholic institution, what would you expect?

Oh, we don't live in a dorm. Max number of students allowed is just 3 in a room and the curtains are not hung above the windows, so it's possible for anybody to peek through them.

Is lack of privacy a concern, are you worried about people peaking in while you change? I know Christians the world over can be draconian about ensuring young people are afforded the absolute minimum of privacy so they don't get up to anything naughty.

Because many of you are accusing me of shitting on Catholics only.

HAHAA I'm the last person who would ever care about that.

It requires plenty of research to see if some old guy is oggling at 18-25 years old's breasts and secretly smiling about it right?

That's hardly being a pedophile, that's just a man, we're obligate perverts which is why some men get so hung up on getting women to dress conservatively because they're trying really hard not to be perverts. Which way do you want it, do you want to wear a burka so men can't see your body or do you want to dress fashionably and risk being the highlight of some old man's day?

Oh how hard it is to be pretty, what a burden to be admired, oh sure you complain about it now but wait until you're an old woman and men don't look at you anymore.

Nobody is supposed to show them respect if their diddliness and sexist behavior and enforcement of nonsensical rules is slowly destroying the college. Plus, nobody is obligated to call these diddlies to the stage and give an hour long condonation for them simply being daddies in the first place. That's just plain bullshit.

Was daddies a typo or are you talking about them being fathers?

Being a catholic doesn't make someone a diddler, admiring a nice rack doesn't either and part of that sexism you're complaining about is men being conservative because they're trying not to be perverts. You make it seem like you're being sexually harassed by them but so far you've not told me anything that would actually be sexual harassment. Are you having your ass grabbed/slapped as you walk by, are they sneaking a peek into your room as they walk by at an opportune time of the morning, are you being punished for trumped up misbehavior accusations and made to do jumping-jacks in front of a man that's watching your chest bounce?

Men are naturally obligate perverts but we're also obligated to keep it under control and if they're just looking well there's no harm in that, y'know as long as they're not obviously leering with their jaw agape and even if they are that's not harmful, that's just disgraceful.

As for the hour long self-congratulatory coronation that's just big fish in a little pond syndrome, you get that everywhere and it is bullshit.

Yeah, I feel no qualms in persecuting someone engaging in perverted behavior. If the son has inherited the same behavior as the father, he is obliged to pay for the sins of his father because syllogistically he is just his father. Cultural cancer needs to be excised, it keeps metastasizing across generations.

Define what you mean by "perverted behavior".

The gender imbalance wasn't a consequence of men being perverts, more than likely it was a consequence of families preferentially raising boys because they were seen as the better investment. It was a bad policy, a bad cultural value, and the men of today no longer believe in it because they're suffering the consequences of it.

Respect has to be earned. Elderly often don't show respect to young people, but expect to be venerated.

True but as Hado said there's a difference between respect and Respect, certainly Respect has to be earned but if someone's your teacher by that fact alone they're warranted some degree of respect.

Care to give me a short summary of what this thread's about?

Just read my posts that'll bring you up to speed

 

[Daddy]

Respect is a privilege, unfortunately.

 

[BurnedOut]

Being a catholic doesn't make someone a diddler, admiring a nice rack doesn't either and part of that sexism you're complaining about is men being conservative because they're trying not to be perverts. You make it seem like you're being sexually harassed by them but so far you've not told me anything that would actually be sexual harassment. Are you having your ass grabbed/slapped as you walk by, are they sneaking a peek into your room as they walk by at an opportune time of the morning, are you being punished for trumped up misbehavior accusations and made to do jumping-jacks in front of a man that's watching your chest bounce?

I am calling him a perv because rather than secretly having his fun, he is openly doing it with women who are a minimum decade younger than him as if he's going to get away with it. Not only men but women too and pretty much all genders are obligate perverts, I agree with you on that part. However when you do that in someone's face, it turns into perversion. So, you take the point here.

I actually gave what you said a very long and hard thought and I am not being sarcastic about it. I think I misunderstood you and that pissed you off. Basically, you are stating a fact, an unchangeable reality about men. I cannot deny that all men are like that, it's just empirical at this point. I consider perversion to be openly undermining someone's self-respect sexually. The fact that he was doing it in their faces insofar being obvious about it even to bystanders, I suppose that counts for perversion because it explicitly renders the women in front of him subjugated by him.

I did realize that I am being an SJW, it's totally useless being a through and through feminist. The aspect of feminism that is taken seriously is the one that seeks to shatter glass ceilings for them in a professional setting but I don't understand how that is exactly going to happen if objectification is reified in female culture (that also applies to LGBTQ). Most of the women that I have observed throughout my life take being oggled at as a compliment. When I asked my girlfriend about this, she said it's a sad reality and we are a point where women DO NOT feel offended. I think being oggled at is simply disrespectful because for males rather than their physicality, their personality is considered to be more sacrosanct than their body. You can find too much evidence on that. For an instance, on Instagram, the guys will usually post pictures of their face or with something that shows off their (fake) status quo but for women, full body pictures gets them more followers. Another instance is the fact that plastic surgery is on the rise among women regarding their 'racks' or at least that is what my research yielded.

I had outed a perv in my class who never looked at a woman in their eyes. The next day I was hailed as some kind of a SJW in the class and even the female profs that I cited this to were also agreed with me. But the day after that, nothing changed. On the day before that, many girls thanked me but then their attention whoring continued on social media which I found pretty damning. Nothing changed. The guy got away with it with a clean chit in his hand.

To illustrate my point, I will give one example. In India, there is this disgusting culture of 'item songs' (actresses are called 'items') and these item songs are quintessential to the success of the films that contain them insofar without a good item song, the movie is unlikely to be successful. These item songs have a simple pattern - there is a scantily clothed woman dancing among a bunch/horde of pervy men oggling at them accompanied by some corny horny lyrics. However you will find more girls than guys dancing at these same item songs in parties and social occasions. It does not affect them nor disgust them. Here's the lyrics of one of the item songs called Munni Badnam: Hui (Munni was defamed)

"A figure like that of Shilpa (Shetty), a style like that of Bebo (Kareena Kapoor)
In my jerk there is pleasure of a movie,
You don't know my attitude,
Yeah, you don't know lacs of Rupees are spent on my attitude
that I became a mint, for you o darling..
Became a Cinema hall, for you o darling..
Munni got infamous, for you o darling.."

Another example:
Aa re pritam pyare
Come here my sweet lover
Bandook mein naa toh goli mere
There are no bullets in my gun /3x
Aa re pritam pyare
Come here my sweet lover
Sab aag toh mere kurti mein re
All the fire is in my kurti (top)
Zara hukka utha zarrra chillam jala
Lift the Hookah and light the pipe

Pallu ke neeche chupa ke rakha hai
It's hidden under my pallu (piece of clothing)
Utha doon toh hungama ho
If upraised then real fun will happen
Pallu ke neeche daba ke rakha hai
It's suppressed under my 'pallu' (talking about breasts here)
If upraised then real fun will happen

 

[Cognisant]

I consider perversion to be openly undermining someone's self-respect sexually. The fact that he was doing it in their faces insofar being obvious about it even to bystanders, I suppose that counts for perversion because it explicitly renders the women in front of him subjugated by him.

Its interesting that you use the term "subjugated".

Now I'm not going to make some pedantic semantic point about whether the situation you describe qualifies for the term, I hate it when people do that, I know what you mean he's making them feel uncomfortable and thus he is imposing upon them, making himself feel good at their expense.

But what is your expectation? You don't want women to have to dress conservatively much less wear burkas, so you want them to be visible, but not looked at, unless its someone they find attractive in which case its "notice me senpai".

So you want men to somehow know (without being told) whether or not they're allowed to look based on how attractive they are to the person they're potentially looking at and if there's an attractive woman in a man's field of view that he knows (somehow) he shouldn't be looking at then the onus is on him to look away, to respect her privacy, in public.

Thing is I actually do this and I err on the side of assuming I'm not attractive, not because I have low self esteem or anything but because its the safer assumption and saves me from having to evaluate myself every time I see an attractive woman. A funny consequence of that is sometimes I'll round a corner and see an athletic woman in skintight aerobics gear (for example) and scowl at her by accident because I'm trying to rip my eyes off her but still see where I'm going and that scowl is just a consequence of the mental effort.

So I'm not denying that in the situation you describe "some old guy is oggling at 18-25 years old's breasts" that he's imposing upon her, nor am I trying to say that by being visible and attractive she's unfairly imposing upon him. Just that its more of an imposition (and less practical) for the onus to be on him to know whether or not he's allowed to look or just assume he isn't, than it is for her to tell him to stop being a perv if he's making her uncomfortable.

I think to some extent we just have to accept boys will be boys (to a reasonable extent) and consequently women should have a provisional authority over men to tell them to fuck off, and that's just the natural male/female dynamic.

Most of the women that I have observed throughout my life take being oggled at as a compliment. When I asked my girlfriend about this, she said it's a sad reality and we are a point where women DO NOT feel offended.

Yeah because they understand the dynamic, now let's be honest as one female-attracted person to another, you perv on them too and the difference is you get away with it because they think you're checking out their clothes.

What if they were aware of it and the onus was on you to not look unless you knew they found you attractive too, which is impossible to know at a glance so you just have to err on the side of caution and always look away. It sucks, it's humiliating, you feel persecuted for being what you are because you're constantly having to police yourself, constantly having to consider how situations could be unfavorably interpreted.

I think being oggled at is simply disrespectful because for males rather than their physicality, their personality is considered to be more sacrosanct than their body. You can find too much evidence on that. For an instance, on Instagram, the guys will usually post pictures of their face or with something that shows off their (fake) status quo but for women, full body pictures gets them more followers.

I'm struggling to comprehend this, you think men not getting views on social media for being attractive (some do, very few) is somehow a kind of privilege?
Because they're valued for their personality?
Oh what a privilege it is to not have a shortcut to social media success, to need to do more than just physically fit to be attractive and to have to do more than be attractive to get views.

Another instance is the fact that plastic surgery is on the rise among women regarding their 'racks' or at least that is what my research yielded.

Yeah the tyranny of the male gaze, it's terrible.
It's not like they're going out of their way and paying money for this because they want to, because it benefits them to do so.

I had outed a perv in my class who never looked at a woman in their eyes. The next day I was hailed as some kind of a SJW in the class and even the female profs that I cited this to were also agreed with me. But the day after that, nothing changed. On the day before that, many girls thanked me but then their attention whoring continued on social media which I found pretty damning. Nothing changed. The guy got away with it with a clean chit in his hand.

Got away with what exactly? And what do you mean by outed?
Sounds to me like you publicly humiliated a subjugated male, for being a male, and nothing actually changed because despite your warped perception you didn't score a goal against the patriarchy, because it doesn't exist.

There are patriarchs certainly, men in positions of power and I won't deny that they tend to favor other men for positions of power/authority, but that's not a patriarchy, that's a class and women in positions of power/authority do the same thing.

I have more to say on that but back to the matter at hand, a patriarchy is a system in which men occupy a position of authority simply by being men, in such a system you would have faced consequences for publicly humiliating this guy. Rather he took it on the chin, because he had to, because if any man humiliated a woman to the extent you humiliated him there would be immediate and lasting consequences.

You're not a member of an oppressed underclass, you are in power and you struck down and you're wondering why you're not getting praised more for it?

To illustrate my point, I will give one example. In India, there is this disgusting culture of 'item songs' (actresses are called 'items') and these item songs are quintessential to the success of the films that contain them insofar without a good item song, the movie is unlikely to be successful. These item songs have a simple pattern - there is a scantily clothed woman dancing among a bunch/horde of pervy men oggling at them accompanied by some corny horny lyrics. However you will find more girls than guys dancing at these same item songs in parties and social occasions. It does not affect them nor disgust them. Here's the lyrics of one of the item songs called Munni Badnam: Hui (Munni was defamed)

Yeah I'm familiar with the concept of pop music, bunch of guys dancing around a woman dressed/dancing like a whore while being made out to be an empowered, gorgeous, goddess-like figure. It's a woman's power fantasy and a man's titillation.
Sex sells, so what?

If you think that's bad you should see rap music videos, women bent over jiggling their asses but ask any American and they'll tell you that's the height of empowerment, but to me it just seems gross and obscene.

 

[Black Rose]

SJW and patriarchy seem to be overused words.

If you think that's bad you should see rap music videos, women bent over jiggling their asses but ask any American and they'll tell you that's the height of empowerment, but to me it just seems gross and obscene.

someone does not understand that 50% of Americans are conservatives and 10% of them are black.

 

[BurnedOut]

I'm struggling to comprehend this, you think men not getting views on social media for being attractive (some do, very few) is somehow a kind of privilege?

Women are gauged by their appearance, men usually are not.

It's clear that you have neither have had a discourse with a woman about all this and asked her about her perspectives or studied Gender Theory at the least. What I do conjecture after the arguments is that men are dogs and women are broads waiting to be fucked by the alpha. Ironically the cavemen and hunters and gatherers were more liberal than this. Evolution of sentience seems to be completely random not monotonically increasing.

 

[Cognisant]

It's clear that you have neither have had a discourse with a woman about all this and asked her about her perspectives or studied Gender Theory at the least.

Alright if you know better then leverage it, debate me into the ground so hard I leave a Looney Tunes style crater.

Honestly I'm sorry if I put you on the defensive, I realize this is all a bit confronting and the fact that you got this far with me while debating in good faith (which so few people seem to be able to do at all) has earned you a lot of my respect.

I still think your presumptions are wrong but to err is human.
Maybe someday you'll be a robot too

 

[BurnedOut]

Honestly I'm sorry if I put you on the defensive, I realize this is all a bit confronting and the fact that you got this far with me while debating in good faith (which so few people seem to be able to do at all) has earned you a lot of my respect.

It's not frustration, I don't think I am getting anywhere with this debate, neither are you. I cannot contradict your arguments considering the reality even if I disagree with you in theory.

I see no point in continuing this debate because I don't know how to falsify your arguments because my arguments are based on ifs and buts and the future implications. We can have a separate discussion on that in a different thread but it does not lie within the scope of this debate. And as far the 'men are dogs' thing, I admit that it is literally how the world is working right now. I cannot contradict you on that part because you are being pragmatic and telling me that it is how it is going to be and honestly, I can endlessly debate with you on why it should not be like that, the tomes of literature produced by feminists since the past 100 years have yielded nothing per se, who am I to think that this is going to change anything if both men and women are equally complicit in this tomfoolery

Although, I think you should look into Gender Theory or talk to other women about the same and gain their perspectives on this so that you get a better context on what I am trying to say. It was a good fight

 

[Cognisant]

I have no interest in researching a theory based on false presumptions about human nature, that's not even really a theory, it's just propaganda.

I cannot contradict your arguments considering the reality even if I disagree with you in theory.

Your theory is based on false presumptions, how about you engage with reality so we can debate whether your theory has any merit in reality?

 

[BurnedOut]

@Cognisant. You neither want to talk to women about this nor you have done any research on the history of sexism. I am done with this

 

[Black Rose]

"engage with reality"

@BurnedOut

If the guy you must call Father was looking lustfully at the female students. And you think that this is not in alignment with the conduct of such catholic school etiquette. Why is this a sign that elders are people in general people that should not be respected?

Old people are in positions of power because they have the social experience to get into those positions when others respect them first as in they came to learn what was expected and then they did what was necessary to get there. Young people do not know how to do things. it is assumed that old people know how to do things.

It is that if you are old and show merit then you become into your position. Why let unqualified people into positions of power? I would not let that happen so I would not put people in power unless they were qualified. And on average those people in power know the most socially and practically what to do. Thus old people promote old people before young people.

Responsibility is not something young people take seriously for obvious reasons.

(they don't have much)

 

[birdsnestfern]

On this one:
Looking good Susan isn't something you can be offended about, its the way its done and its the individuals reaction thats important. If a female said it to another female, it would not mean a thing.
One person may love that and another may hate it. So, the tactic here is, you immediately tell the person, I didn't like that comment, please stop. The person should then stop entirely any kind of
advance they have and leave the person alone. Thats good communication and would be all you need to mutual respect the other if the comments stop.

But this would not be a comment you could go to a boss about, its not sexist enough for management to take it seriously.
It would have to be more obvious I think and or, the person would have to explain why it bothered them and to what degree.

The appropriate response is, tell someone if you don't like something, and then ask them to stop. Then go to the boss if they don't stop.


One comment I especially dislike is when a Southern woman says Sweetie to either a male or a female. Yeesh!
Who wants to be thought of as a pet like that? Sweetie seems so derogatory to me. Is it your goal to be thought of as sweet? No.
Is it your goal to be enslaved as someones sweetie slave? No! ok, if I were male, this would put me off so much.

I want to be my own person, not sweet, not bitchy, just free of labels, because I am not a label at all, I am a free spirit.

I know its just my trigger word, but when I hear someone calling someone else sweetie, I hear a twinge of cheshire cat manipulation in it, which tells me what that person is and I refuse to engage with them again. I don't want to be caught in your trap and used. Hell, if you want a hug, just ask, can I give you a hug? Can I kiss you? Would you like to go on a date with me, you can ask, and then listen well.

I guess its because I worked in a catalog call center with Southern women once and the sugary sweet garbage they talk made me sick because they are manipulator tigers IRL, anything but sweet or kind.
I prefer the New Yorker attitude better, sometimes a bitch on the outside, but really nice and helpful on the inside when they get to know you.
Southerners are the opposite, sticky sweet but with ESFJ nonsense rules, IF you prove yourself. Venus fly trap reality there.

 

[scorpiomover]

Being a catholic doesn't make someone a diddler, admiring a nice rack doesn't either and part of that sexism you're complaining about is men being conservative because they're trying not to be perverts. You make it seem like you're being sexually harassed by them but so far you've not told me anything that would actually be sexual harassment. Are you having your ass grabbed/slapped as you walk by, are they sneaking a peek into your room as they walk by at an opportune time of the morning, are you being punished for trumped up misbehavior accusations and made to do jumping-jacks in front of a man that's watching your chest bounce?

I am calling him a perv because rather than secretly having his fun, he is openly doing it with women who are a minimum decade younger than him as if he's going to get away with it. Not only men but women too and pretty much all genders are obligate perverts, I agree with you on that part. However when you do that in someone's face, it turns into perversion. So, you take the point here.

I actually gave what you said a very long and hard thought and I am not being sarcastic about it. I think I misunderstood you and that pissed you off. Basically, you are stating a fact, an unchangeable reality about men. I cannot deny that all men are like that, it's just empirical at this point. I consider perversion to be openly undermining someone's self-respect sexually. The fact that he was doing it in their faces insofar being obvious about it even to bystanders, I suppose that counts for perversion because it explicitly renders the women in front of him subjugated by him.

I did realize that I am being an SJW, it's totally useless being a through and through feminist. The aspect of feminism that is taken seriously is the one that seeks to shatter glass ceilings for them in a professional setting but I don't understand how that is exactly going to happen if objectification is reified in female culture (that also applies to LGBTQ). Most of the women that I have observed throughout my life take being oggled at as a compliment. When I asked my girlfriend about this, she said it's a sad reality and we are a point where women DO NOT feel offended. I think being oggled at is simply disrespectful because for males rather than their physicality, their personality is considered to be more sacrosanct than their body. You can find too much evidence on that. For an instance, on Instagram, the guys will usually post pictures of their face or with something that shows off their (fake) status quo but for women, full body pictures gets them more followers. Another instance is the fact that plastic surgery is on the rise among women regarding their 'racks' or at least that is what my research yielded.

I had outed a perv in my class who never looked at a woman in their eyes. The next day I was hailed as some kind of a SJW in the class and even the female profs that I cited this to were also agreed with me. But the day after that, nothing changed. On the day before that, many girls thanked me but then their attention whoring continued on social media which I found pretty damning. Nothing changed. The guy got away with it with a clean chit in his hand.

To illustrate my point, I will give one example. In India, there is this disgusting culture of 'item songs' (actresses are called 'items') and these item songs are quintessential to the success of the films that contain them insofar without a good item song, the movie is unlikely to be successful. These item songs have a simple pattern - there is a scantily clothed woman dancing among a bunch/horde of pervy men oggling at them accompanied by some corny horny lyrics. However you will find more girls than guys dancing at these same item songs in parties and social occasions. It does not affect them nor disgust them. Here's the lyrics of one of the item songs called Munni Badnam: Hui (Munni was defamed)

"A figure like that of Shilpa (Shetty), a style like that of Bebo (Kareena Kapoor)
In my jerk there is pleasure of a movie,
You don't know my attitude,
Yeah, you don't know lacs of Rupees are spent on my attitude
that I became a mint, for you o darling..
Became a Cinema hall, for you o darling..
Munni got infamous, for you o darling.."

Another example:
Aa re pritam pyare
Come here my sweet lover
Bandook mein naa toh goli mere
There are no bullets in my gun /3x
Aa re pritam pyare
Come here my sweet lover
Sab aag toh mere kurti mein re
All the fire is in my kurti (top)
Zara hukka utha zarrra chillam jala
Lift the Hookah and light the pipe

Pallu ke neeche chupa ke rakha hai
It's hidden under my pallu (piece of clothing)
Utha doon toh hungama ho
If upraised then real fun will happen
Pallu ke neeche daba ke rakha hai
It's suppressed under my 'pallu' (talking about breasts here)
If upraised then real fun will happen

Your issue is one of frustration, one that makes perfect sense, when you examine things objectively.

The feminist narrative is that:
1) Women should be free to be as sexual as they like.
2) It is wrong to sexually objectify women.
3) This should be encouraged by SJWs complaining about it, not by the police.

This has resulted in a few behaviours:
1) Women get dressed up extremely sexily in order to attract a boyfriend, because that just women expressing themselves.
2) Moral men who want to treat women well, don't even look at women. So women feel rejected by them.
3) Women end up feeling they have to have sex with, and marry, evil rapists and evil perverts, because all the moral men aren't even looking at them when they're wearing really sexy clothing that is designed to make men ogle them, and so definitely won't be interested in dating them, having sex with them, and marrying them.

So all of that means that the evil rapists and evil perverts get everything they want, and women feel like they have no choice but to be abused by evil rapists and evil perverts.

Lex Luthor could not have come up with a better strategy to convince all feminists to ensure they turn 90% of women into sexual objectified playthings for evil rapists and evil perverts.

 

[sushi]

you should respect elders but they shouldnt abuse their authority. it should be mutual.

living longer usually means more wisdom, but i think there are alot of stupid low iq elders. Alot of elders arent empathic to the plight of the younger generation.

staying awake 200 years age is surely wiser than someone who has only lived 25. but then again, i think there should be a line of mutual respect.