It should be obvious that having pockets in trousers is sexist against men, because women have taken over everything and have taken the pocketless clothing as their own.

Likewise they often have zippers and fasteners in the back - so that must be more desirable, too.

And high heels? Of course if women wear them they must be better than the awful shoes men are forced to wear due to the Vast Feminist ConspiracyTM.

Why aren't the Equalists demanding to dress as the dominant class? Are they asleep at the wheel?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Forty Two wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:You might have to face the fact that anything you don't have to pay to read may have little value as currency in an argument,

Yet, almost every source cited on this forum comes from sources you don't have to pay to read. Do we automatically discount all citations from non-pay sources as click bait? If not, then what is the metric to be used?

I didn't say we automatically discount everything we read for free. I said that whatever you're reading for free may have little value in an argument. I'll give you a few guesses about why that is.

That's a statement applicable to any source which can be read for free. Of course a source "may" have little value. Or, it may have great value, because the ideas expressed are valid and backed up by reason. Also, discussion of the issue raised in given publications may be valuable in and of itself.

However, stating that some sources may have little value is not of much use until you apply it to a given situation. Apply that principle to the sources in the OP. Are you saying the sources or articles in the OP have little value? If so, what metric are you using to determine that they have little value? Why?

Cito di Pense wrote:
In answer to your questions about the Jezebel article (or whatever you quoted in your OP), it's pretty obvious from the way it's written that it's intended as click-bait.

Perhaps. In a way, all online articles are "click bait." Advertising is paid on traffic, and clicks are recorded to show traffic to a site. So, any web publication that charges advertising based on traffic has an incentive to increase clicks. However, that doesn't say anything about the substance of the article or its arguments, does it? Couldn't it be click-bait AND a good argument?

Also, does it have to be a good, non-click-bait, article to be discussed calmly and respectfully here? Why not just discuss the substance? If everyone agrees that the substance of the article is bollocks, then it'll be a short discussion, won't it?

By discussing the "is it clickbait" issue, people avoid opining on the actual argument made in the articles. I wonder if that's purposeful.

Cito di Pense wrote:

It's pretty obviously intended to irritate people who have a particular (mistaken) view of feminism.

What makes you think these articles have anything to do with feminism? You asked me above if I thought that any commentary on a sexist cultural issue had to be about feminism, and I of course answered "no" of course it doesn't. Maybe this doesn't. it's written by avowed feminists, and the artlcles do appear to link the issue to feminism in terms of feminism's battle for equality. The allegation is that this is an oppression of women -- women don't get to have clothes with pockets, and it's sexist culture that compels them to wear pocketless clothing. The article in Jezebel even criticize men for not reacting with enough interest and enthusiasm when a woman exclaims that she has found clothing with pockets.

so, maybe the article has to do with feminism, maybe it doesn't.

But, do you think The Atlantic Monthly published this article for the purpose of driving clickbait traffic -- appealing to people who have a mistaken view of feminism?

And, what's the mistaken view? Is it the view that feminists often claim things like clothes and pockets are sexist? Is that "mistaken?" Or, could it be that many feminists really do raise these kinds of issues, and that's unpalatable to some people because it helps foster a bad image of feminism as sometimes creating issues of sexism where there aren't any?

Remember, these are feminists writing these articles. Saying "those aren't real feminists espousing real feminist views" is only persuasive if you actually demonstrate that they aren't real feminists and that feminism doesn't hold or support these views in general.

Cito di Pense wrote:

I'll grant you that a certain amount of material that gets quoted here in posts is merely due to somebody getting a little exercised about something that somebody else did or said that ended up getting a line or two in the news. Because, I have to tell you, bro, getting exercised about the kind of stuff you quoted in your OP is quite normal around here. Instead of being a response to click-bait about religious fundamentalism using a straw man caricature of atheism, it's a response to click-bait using a straw man caricature of feminism. The spanner in the works is that you're not really exercised about that, or you'd spend more effort discussing why you (personally) are. Why would you act like you want people to think you have a (mistaken) view of feminism that you do not, in fact, adopt?

I don't act like I want people to think I have a mistaken view of feminism.

However, if you or anyone else thinks I have a mistaken view of feminism, i'd love to know what you think my view of feminism is and how it is mistaken?

Do the writers of the articles I linked to in the OP have a mistaken view of feminism?

And, again, can't the issues in the OP be discussed without reference to feminism? I think you implied earlier it could. So, let's discuss the issues in the OP.

Forty Two wrote:In the link I provided, yes.

Got it now. What is the significance of the demographics for you?

Forty Two wrote: But, you're just trolling, so it's no surprise you don't actually read the arguments against what you're saying before you post a retort.

Missing information in all innocence is not trolling.

Forty Two wrote: If I strawmanned you, then tell me what you think.

How about in future, you don't strawman and actually wait for people to tell you their views? Or you just ask for their views. Don't create strawman to try and provoke people.

Forty Two wrote:
Why should you be? So you wouldn't be a total idiot?

Why does my not being aware of the Atlantic make me the target of a personal attack?
What is there about the content of the Atlantic that makes one who is aware of it "not an idiot?"

Forty Two wrote:You never heard of The Nation? It's one of the oldest published political magazines in the western world.

Never heard of it.

Forty Two wrote: It's like saying you never heard of Scientific American, The Economist, or the Spectator.

I have heard of all of those. Apparently I am aware of some things and not other things. How not at all very telling.

Forty Two wrote: You may want to refrain from admitting that so publicly, and instead, give it a quick google and read something, so that you don't sound like such an unwashed provincial.

Why should I make a pretence about such a thing? There is no shame attached to not being aware of such publications. I'm not expected to be aware of every website/magazine/news on the planet am I? And the matter of whether some of them are particularly noteworthy, at least insofar as news goes, is very much a matter of opinion.

Forty Two wrote: If I strawmanned you, it's because you haven't stated your position.

That's really not a justification for strawmanning. Best advice is to just not do it.

Forty Two wrote:What's the problem with the Jezebel article?

I don't believe I've alluded to there being a problem with the article. My comments have been about the website and what it is.

Forty Two wrote:Do you have a problem with the Jezebel article?
Do you have a problem with the site Jezebel?

Well I find clickbait sites generally annoying, but they can be a starting point for anyone interested in a topic. Like all clickbait sites, they're problematic if people take the information there at face value.

Forty Two wrote:Is that what the article headline is here -- hyperbole?

It looks like hyperbole to me. Which is great for attracting attention, but as with most clickbait articles, its often misleading.

Forty Two wrote:More caponesque evasion.

In what way was my comment an evasion. I just called your claim of "white knighting" for what it is.

Forty Two wrote:Maybe just provide a list of topics you think I should be posting on. i'll see if any of them are of interest to me.

You're a grown up. So be a grown-up and own the fact that you have a clear agenda in your posts here and stop whining about it or post about stuff that isn't related to your agenda.

Forty Two wrote:
It seems as if it's you that gets stirred up. Could it be that you keep seeing feminists publish article after article of bizarre insanity, and it upsets you if a light is shined on these things. You'd prefer they not be discussed, such that we can all pretend that nobody takes these kinds of ideas seriously? These ideas spoil a narrative you find appealing, perhaps?

Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope.

such that we can all pretend that nobody takes these kinds of ideas seriously

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Do you really think this latest 'Pockets are Sexist' piece is anything other than parody? That anyone other than a complete moron would take it at face value?

Just what is it you want us to say about it? 'Ooooohhh, yes! I hadn't realised! It just isn't fair!!!!!'

If you yourself consider the articles that you are referring to are nothing less than 'bizarre insanity', then what in the blue blazes makes you think that anyone else, especially anyone here, would consider them to be worthwhile material for discussion on a forum like this one. I guess it just goes to prove that some of our viewpoints coincide to some degree, but why do you keep bringing such dross here? That's the question that comes to the fore. Do you think we are all stupid? It certainly seems that way.

If you really wish to discuss anything about feminism in a sane and sensible manner - which I somehow doubt - then you should stop with the ...... oh god, I cba.

I just know I'm going to regret posting this. It's like winding up one of those sets of chattering teeth and watching them rush around, clattering madly and frightening the dog.

Forty Two wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Then you think wrong, I've certainly disagreed with things she's said. It also helps that she strays from the proverbial one-note samba, something I'm sure we'd all be glad if 42 tried.

Two points on this: my threads and participation in threads covers a wide range of topics, sexism, racism, etc. News and current events. Palestine and Israel. The 2016 Presidential Election. Muslim clock maker scandal. Paris shootings. What's the last film you watched? Funny pictures. 100 Most beautiful faces. Police power to view internet history. The Bogeyman of ISIS. Should the World Adopt Islam's view of things. Reducing legal burden of proof for certain crimes. Fight over Confederate Flags. Bernie Sanders. Syria and the Law of War/Imminent Threat, Sex Robots. The Clinton Email Scandal. Justin Trudeau. Climate Change Deniers. South Park Raping and Murdering Donald Trump. Political Correctness on College Campuses. Republican Lunacy. Ashley Madison Hack. Queen Elizabeth II. Evolution of the 5 Senses. Obama and George Bush. Islam Timeline. The frivolity of fashion. Hillary Clinton's proposal on student loans. Orthodox Jews on airplanes. Gay marriage. The list goes on.

So, the first point is -- I think you are full of shit when you accuse me of being a one-note samba. In reality, there are many notes, but you are objecting to one of the notes being played.

Someone is certainly full of shit, it's clear as day to everyone (including yourself I'm sure) I was referring to the threads you've started. But I'm sure someone is convinced by you providing a list of every thread you've ever posted in ever

Two, the second point is -- why in the world does it matter if you, me or anyone else participates in a wide array of subject matter for discussion or only one or two kinds of topics?

Why in the world does it matter to you that someone finds your one-note samba to be a one-note samba? Shouldn't you just take your own advice and ignore it and discuss the topic? Or is there really no topic to discuss, and the main goal is just to troll?

What if I just came here to discuss stamp collecting, or atheism? One note samba? But, if I came here to discuss feminism and not much else? That's a problem?

Or what if you just came to troll people? Problem? You mad, bro?

In other words, one you're wrong, and two, you're not even identifying an issue that is a problem. There is no shortage of threads for people to discuss. The creation of a thread on how to make baby oil from real babies, or something, doesn't limit anyone's ability to participate in threads they like. The focus of one particular member on a given area or subject matter has no impact on the ability of other members to focus on what they like.

Thank you for this meaningless word salad. As usual, if you don't like what people are saying in this thread, take your own advice and don't respond to it. But then we wouldn't hear much from you, would we? I know your threads generate "vigorous discussion" that doesn't leave you much time to address comments like mine

All you're doing is barking about the topics someone else chooses to discuss. Well, I'm sure there are things you're interested in which I couldn't care less about. So what? Should I start carping on about how you're starting threads I don't think are worthy of discussion? Should I start harping about how you don't post in a wide enough array of subject areas? What the hell does it even matter?

I'm not sure, you're the one who seems to be losing your mind about what I say. Is it only OK for you to say what you want to say and nobody else? Or is it a standard trolling tactic to play innocent in the most bombastic and hypocritical way possible?

I know why womens clothes usually don't have pockets...

So they can sell the handbags...


I wonder if feminists realise that they are primarily to blame for any claimed "trivializing of sexism" by coming up with stupid claims that practically anything you could name is now "sexist" in some way...?

johnbrandt wrote:I know why womens clothes usually don't have pockets...

So they can sell the handbags...

Did you figure that one out on your own, or was it one of the odd-numbered problems, with the answers in the back of the book?

johnbrandt wrote:I wonder if feminists realise that they are primarily to blame for any claimed "trivializing of sexism" by coming up with stupid claims that practically anything you could name is now "sexist" in some way...?

It's already been mentioned in the thread, but since you're just catching up, how do you know that labeling something "sexist" is actually a serious charge, without knowing whose keyboard it came from, and whether or not it's just an opinion?

Sexism is mainly trivialized by people who don't know whether to pick their battles or their noses.

johnbrandt wrote:I know why womens clothes usually don't have pockets...

So they can sell the handbags...


I wonder if feminists realise that they are primarily to blame for any claimed "trivializing of sexism" by coming up with stupid claims that practically anything you could name is now "sexist" in some way...?

Do you? Oh well, I guess it's up to you what shit you wonder.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Forty Two wrote:
such that we can all pretend that nobody takes these kinds of ideas seriously

You're having a laugh, aren't you? Do you really think this latest 'Pockets are Sexist' piece is anything other than parody? That anyone other than a complete moron would take it at face value?

Aha, the joke's on you Forty Two! The author was just pretending to be stupid! You know, on those well-known satire sites The Atlantic and Jezebel.

Of course, anything this stupid must be parody, as nobody could possibly actually believe it. Ken Ham was just pranking us all along!

Handbags and gladrags, that's the ticket ladies. "What has it got in its handbagses?" doesn't scan well, though.

Joke thief.

What I want to know* is how Forty Two managed to read an article that said that the too-big-for-purse-or-pissy-little-fake-pockets iPhone 6 Plus may inspire the glorious defeat the insidious non-pocket sexism of women's clothing, and take from that that the iPhone 6 Plus is also claimed to be sexist.

*not really