Does that work for men also?

Not until they pay the check. ;) The chivalrous Brits must protect fair lady.
I think it's a good idea if she's in danger, but if she's just disappointed or changed her mind, it's rather underhanded to sneak out.

All it takes is one stalker to make you afraid that every guy is a stalker. It's not fair, but it's true. (Nevermind the many guys who aren't stalkers, but who still get angry to some degree when you tell them, no matter how politely, that you aren't interested.)

Does that work for men also?

Well, I've never personally met a man who was stalked to the point of fear (rather than the sort of irritation you get from a buzzy fly) but I suppose it happens.
However I do know men who have developed intense feelings of jealousy and controlling behaviour and blame it on a single woman who either cheated on them or finished with them. Of course it's all "he said, she said" because I've never known both parties, but some of these men were seriously creepy and felt justified in being so.

Nothing to do with this particular scheme of course, which I suppose can come across as sexist. But fear can sometimes be a learned behaviour, and if you are physically smaller and weaker than every date you have, and face daily ogling and comments on your physical appearance (and supposed shortcomings) I can certainly understand wanting a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

I've never bailed on a date in this way, but I have set up code words with friends, asked for calls at certain times, and frankly just lied to get out of first dates without trying to challenge the "masculinity" of my date, in case I get into a situation I can't handle...

"Men are afraid women will laugh at them, women are afraid men will kill them."

I think it's rarely justified, but certainly common sentiment.

flippant comment .. didn't really warrant a response.

Any comment, even flippant ones, keep the dialog open and views expressed. That's always a good thing.

Makes sense, if they show too much leg strip them naked.

The religion of peace, my ass.

Falsely claim to be Muslim holy men.

and a quarter century ago

Heck, there are televangelists in the US today blaming the gays for hurricanes.

Unlike all the other major religions which of course have a super record on women's rights and equality :p

My favorite part of the Bible is the part where it says I have to remain silent in church and never cut my hair.

Of course Dana, stripping them in public is so humiliating(even though they've been circumcised), not like hanging or burning at the stake. ;)

Did someone say stalker?

https://youtu.be/pwAgD-F6cXo

Any religion that imposes its beliefs on anyone else is a Satanic religion.

This is a long read, but a fascinating look at the plight of women in Nazi Germany and Ravensbruck, the women's concentration camp, pretty much lost to history.

It has the history of the camp and it's main characters. A really fascinating at the Nazi regime and women.

Smart woman...

Badass women...

Now that the US military is allowing women into its elite units, there's an effort to augment the Green Beret (male) statue at Ft. Bragg with a female version next to it. The latter would be similar in design and oriented to face the former. It would capture the current uniform and individual weapon, be constructed of space age polymers and done in full color.
The current statue was privately funded and so too must be any new statue. They decided to sell miniatures (statuettes) of the proposed design to raise the money and test marketed pre-production samples. Those didn't go over well. Perhaps it was because there aren't many female Green Berets yet. They tweaked the final design for the statue; however, and now the miniatures are selling like hotcakes: Link

That link goes to a white dot on a black screen.

you might be looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

The link goes to my BB photo album. I have it set for viewing by registered users only; so, you have to be logged in to see it.

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

What? No facebook? :rolleyes:

Nope, I was redacted.

Oh dear... :lol2:

Gee, I wonder how she managed to keep her job. :eyebrow:

Question on Quora...
What will it take to close the gender wage gap?

Todd Miller, former Marine Corps jet pilot
Written Mar 14

Stop hiring women
Don’t allow women to take company offered time off
Force women to upgrade to higher paying positions as soon as they become available

Here’s the explanation of how women Airline Pilots are paid less and why, despite the pay scales being gender neutral.
Wages measured are average aggregate wages by gender.
Since women are entering the workforce at the highest rate in history, they are entering at the bottom of most company pay rates. Which pay the least. So they drag down the average aggregate pay.
This is especially true with Airline Pilots.

So how can Airline pilots, who are solely paid based on type of airplane flown, and position (i.e. Captain or FO), pay women less?
Well for starters, an airline like Skywest, a regional feeder airline pays less than an airline like United, a global airline.
Regional airlines fly Regional Jets. Major airlines fly 777s.
If airlines (and other businesses) completely stopped hiring women, they would only be hiring men.
Those men would be hired at the lowest payrate. Which means that those men being hired would be paid less than all women currently working there.
Since pilots entering the workforce do so at regionals, they are paid less than experienced pilots at major airlines.
In time, the gender pay rates would be the same, until women would start being paid more because only men are being hired, so the lowest paid employees would be only men.

Also, when employees want to take time off, you’d have to restrict that choice for women.
Right now at airlines, female pilots voluntarily take three times as much time off as male pilots do.
In a recent company offering of monthly leaves of absence by a major airline, roughly 20% of all leaves requested were by women, despite women only representing 6% of that airlines pilots force.

Additionally, women pilots are far less likely to voluntarily upgrade to a higher paid position, but choose to stay in a lower paying position to have better seniority.
A recent analysis showed that in narrowbody and widebody First Officer positions at a major airline, 15% of those positions were held by women who could bid Captain, but chose to stay in those seats for the benefits of controlling their schedule. In many bases the #1 First Officers were women. Despite being only 6% of the pilot force. Those women could choose to upgrade to Captain at any time, but have chosen to forego the higher pay of that position for the benefits of better schedules, better vacation selection, and ensuring they could have weekends off, while their male counterparts overwhelmingly chose to upgrade, flying weekends, and getting paid more money.
If we removed the choice of women to take time off, and forced them to upgrade, the gender wage gap would disappear.

"forced them to upgrade"
 

HA!

See, this is why funding sports for girls is a waste, they can't even follow the simple rules of T-ball.

http://cellar.org/2017/sign-her-up.gif



:lol2:

She hits like a girl

But she's swinger!

Here's a problem for men. Most agree that NO means NO. From her point of view it's NO, but from his point of view it's ON. What we have is failure to communicate. Think about that before you give sworn testimony.:eyebrow:

Oh, it's on, alright.

Like a pot o' neck bones.

In the US, women's right to vote was rescinded by each state between 1777 and 1807, starting with NY and ending with NJ.
In 1838 KY said, female heads of household in rural areas could vote in elections deciding taxes and local boards.
In 1848 women started having conventions, getting organized and stirring up shit in every state. They chilled during the Civil War.
In 1867 Kansas voted No on women and/or Black Males voting. In 1869 WY Territory voted yes for women.

That got them really fired up and switched from pleading to confrontational tactics.
The 1870 15th amendment says no barring for race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but still allowed for sex.
1870 Utah said Yes, but 1872 Dakota Territory says No by one vote. 1874, MI No, 1875 MI and MN Yes for school board elections

In 1880 NY grants school suffrage to women. 1883 Washington territory says Yes.
1887 women in Utah and Washington Territory lose it, but win Yes in municipal elections in Kansas, But No in RI.
1890 No in SD, Yes in WY and 1893 CO says Yes. 1896 Utah and Idaho Yes, but CA No, and 1902 NH No.
1910 WA state and 1911 CA vote Yes.
All during this time there have been several National leaders and organizations which came and went, merged and split, infighting and arrests, plus anti-suffrage organizations campaigning in some states.
So by the time this picture was taken women were split between the pretty frustrated, and didn't give a shit.
Teddy Roosevelt's third party had put suffrage as a plank in their platform.

Long slow road, ladies.

[BOLD MINE]

Ha!

They typically want candidates who already have at least one term of service under their belts, those well oriented to the military, for placement in spec ops units. They waiver the time in service requirement and make it an enlistment option when they have to fill quotas. That usually happens when they're critically short on spec ops personnel. They seem; however, to be graduating full classes ... except they're all men.

Makes me wonder if they're taking people right off the street for spec ops training, hoping to snag some females, just to be politically correct. There's a reason women already in the military aren't volunteering to be trained for those assignments. It'll be interesting to see if this plays out as anything more than a dog and pony show.

Probably because women aren't mean enough. :haha: :lol: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Women Parliamentarians of Iran in front of the gate of the Iranian Parliament , mid 1970s. Thank Allah that threat is gone.

Why is it always the pretty ones that shoot me down? ;)
OK, I misspelled fighter, exciting women do that to me, so shoot me.. wait no, don't shoot.

Ah yes, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol...

His That statement is taken somewhat out of context:



He wasn't responding to a question such as "What should women do to not get raped during a traffic stop?" He's responding to a "What should I do during a traffic stop?"-type question.

That whole post is almost 'fake news'.

Skewed, at best.

Not really, being the spokesperson for the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, he was being interviewed by the TV station because of the numerous allegations and three convictions against his troopers for sexual assault and rape of women at traffic stops. Think how hard it is to convict a cop of anything.

If you weren't breaking the motor vehicle laws you wouldn't get raped, c'mon.
I don't know if coming out with that statement was an attempt to avoid the issue or he's clueless of how serious the problem is, or just extremely bad taste humor.

apologies if this has already been posted here, but...
 

In the beginning...

Algeria gets it... put them bitches to work so we poke the hookah and drink coffee.

This does not help:

This is from an article on the BBC news site looking at what today's 'suffragettes' are up to. Much of which is laudable - like anti FGM work - but making catcalling a fucking hate crime?

Jesus wept.

This:

Is insane.

It didn't need a new law. There are already laws in place to deal with a broad category of anti-social or lewd acts - if someone is shouting 'show us your tits' at schoolgirls, then the broad category of 'breach of the peace' or 'causing a disturbance' could come into effect.

It's not a criminal offence (in England anyway - not sure about Scotland) nothing goes on your record. But the police can arrest you. You get a warning and agree not to do it again. If you break that agreement in a given period you have committed an offence.

Breach of the peace/disturbance is already suitably vague and broad to be able to cover a frightening amount of stuff without adding another terrifyingly vague legal definition with much more serious consequences.

Rest of the article (some of which highlights really important work)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-42949970

Agreed. :facepalm:

With one caveat - the pre-existing laws pre-existed.

ie, they did not perform the function this law is intended to perform. That's not to say that this one will, either, as it is also vague, but saying that the police could apply existing law in a certain way to achieve the desired result doesn't help if they don't.

The problem seems to have been that the police didn't take the issue seriously. Would the 40 training sessions have been enough to fix that, if they weren't accompanied by a law that also made the offense more serious?

(not a rhetorical question)

If the training sessions don't cause them to act, it doesn't matter which law they're not enforcing, so there's no need for a new one.

Specificity also helps (though I'm not sure from the blurb in the article how good this particular law is on this front); If they aren't considering the behavior to be breaching the peace, that's not ignoring the law; it's interpreting it. But if the new law says it is, then you would have to ignore the law.

OK, I see your point, but it's still a matter of the cop... er, bobby, interpreting the actions of the man.

For the more serious cases of catcalling or sexual threat there has been a lack of enthusiasm for pursuing under the laws that are currently available - partly because it's not been taken at all seriously until fairly recently.

For most of the other stuff, what is needed is not another serious offence added to the books. If it's a particular problem in a particular town at any given time, police can go looking for that stuff and use the public order offences to discourage it, without criminalising people.

Or if someone tells them a guy on that street shouted lewd comments to them as they walked past, see if he's still there and have a word with him - point out its not acceptable behaviour in a public place. Doesn't have to be heavy. It's no different to telling someone they shouldn't be playing their music at its loudest volume late at night when they live in a small apartment block.


I think there has to be, and we are in the middle of it, a sea change in how we think about certain aspects of gendered experience and the ways in which our social structures and institutions respond to it, as well as how we navigate a world in which the gender roles have changed so quickly.

I say we're in the middle of it - perhaps I should say I think we were in the middle it when the Interwebz happened and threw everything into overdrive.

The speed everything moves now. #revolutions sweep across the twittersphere, are consumed by other movements and implode in a matter of days. A company launches a product with a questionable advertising strategy on Monday, the calls for global boycotts are in full voice by Tuesday morning, the advert is pulled on Tuesday afternoon, and a low level executive is fired on Wednesday.

That builds an expectation of rapid change and winnable battles. Which can be very alluring.

If we try to do this by criminalising more and more interaction - that is not going to help.

I think there are better ways to effect change. Slower - because it's complicated and messy and because whatever lines we draw in the sand we still have to live with each other.

Sometimes it's a good thing to march in the streets, give voice to a grievance and demand justice. Sometimes you have to find a livable solution to a complicated problem in which lots of people have a stake. And that's a much slower thing.