Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Annoyed]

Fighting racism.

As i pointed out earlier, punishing callers isn't going to do anything. This is a problem outside the justice and police system.

EDIT:
Punishing callers is obviously going to one thing: Stop people from calling the police. It'll certainly reduce the amount of times the police has to go check something out, but there are obvious and serious doubts that it'll reduce crime.

And what of the inevitable situation where there is a real, legitimate threat and one of these folks fails to call the police for fear of punishment?

[Gatefan1976]

You do realize people want equal rights, not perfect equal everything? because then men should wear bras and use tampons, to name a few.

But what about when men bleed from their wherevers??
What will they do to plug it up??

[thekillman]

And what of the inevitable situation where there is a real, legitimate threat and one of these folks fails to call the police for fear of punishment?

That was my point.

As I understand it, the cold water bit is an established and accepted method to measure pain tolerance. So I consider the results legitimate.

As far as "additional studies required", they always say that. They have to to get more funding.

It sounds to me like it was a really ****ty study.

But what about when men bleed from their wherevers??
What will they do to plug it up??

Men don't bleed!

[Womble]

Seriously, I wonder if this is because women start out with a higher "natural" pain tolerance level and this just brings the males to the level they're at already.

That women have naturally higher tolerance for pain is a myth. Studies show the opposite.

[aretood2]

What I have bolded is the most dangerous part of sexism from a male perspective, "boys will be boys" sexism.

Indeed. It is a most offensive aspect of it to men if you ask me, and often helps perpetuate the very culture feminists are against, that of sexual harassment and rape.

And it will "probably" happen that way anyway.

I don't get the all-male/female clubs to begin with anyways. Like I said, our student clubs are co-ed from the beginning of their existence. That is, if I even knew how old they are. Universities differ in age, but most of them began when women weren't allowed to study so... who knows.

I get that if there is a compelling cause or reason or need for an all women club (or all men) then it should be allowed. But wouldn't it have been better to just amend the rules to reflect such a need than to explicitly make a blanket claim that all women clubs have a go ahead of breaking the rules but not all men clubs? Ironically, Seneca Falls wasn't an all female thing...1/3 of its signatories were men and half of its detractors were women.

Did you read the article about the Porcellain club? I found it rather hilarious that the president of the board was forced to quit after stating it would lead to more sexual assaults if they would let females in. Well, he knows his boys then, I'd say.

Different side of the same coin.

Yes, men are allowed. Whether they'll be let in, is another matter.
Yes, women are allowed. Whether they'll be let in, is another matter.

That remains to be seen.

Except that it's not about equality. It's about genderneutrality, making the exclusive clubs, inclusive instead.

That's some fancy double talk you have there for a non-native English speaker. If it was about gender neutrality, the Seneca group would be forced to allow men into their club. As in the couldn't deny any based on gender for that wouldn't be gender neutral. This is not the case. They still have carte blanche to deny male applicants based on gender.

I refer to the article about the oldest Harvard male-exclusive club.

Exclusive All-Male Harvard Club Says Letting in Women Could Increase Sexual Misconduct



So in order to lower the misconduct, they want the clubs co-ed, but Storey thinks it will only increase -- male logic at work?

I say it would do nothing because it's not a related factor in sexual assault. The Campus seems to think it would magically fix things. Both seem to be a folly in this.

What about this "male tears" thing a lot of so called "online feminists" rave about?

What's the deal with that?

Isn't that satirical?

The what now?

I did a quick search -- if it is what my google search says it is than it's not within the PG-13 limits of the forum.

...So it's not what I was thinking?

That's why I said that it's unlikely to change. Those people's feelings are their true feelings.

So, again, the question is "what is the solution?"

It's a social one. I'd say forming an awareness group that will seek to support means to spread the idea that black men watering plants in a nice neighborhood aren't criminals but simply law abiding neighbors watering their own plants. But then you'd call this group racist and wrong, so I have no idea what solution would make you happy.

[Falcon Horus]

Ok, so who are the women's rights advocates going to complain to about this?

Unless someone decides that only men can have access to medical cannabis, no one can complain about it.

Smoking marijuana provides more pain relief for men than women

It's a fascinating study.
Could in the long run, help in determining what sort of pain relief is more applicable for the subject.

You do realize people want equal rights, not perfect equal everything? because then men should wear bras and use tampons, to name a few.

Saw a video somewhere about men wearing high heels.

To be fair, I'd break my ankles at the first attempt.

As far as "additional studies required", they always say that. They have to to get more funding.

Because further studies are needed to determine whether it really is legitimate, or whether it depends on the sort of pain cause no one's going to take a painkiller after sticking their hands in cold water for too long.

That women have naturally higher tolerance for pain is a myth. Studies show the opposite.

Comes from childbirth?

But wouldn't it have been better to just amend the rules to reflect such a need than to explicitly make a blanket claim that all women clubs have a go ahead of breaking the rules but not all men clubs? Ironically, Seneca Falls wasn't an all female thing...1/3 of its signatories were men and half of its detractors were women.

Harvard made the rules - they may have not fully researched the outcome.

That's some fancy double talk you have there for a non-native English speaker. If it was about gender neutrality, the Seneca group would be forced to allow men into their club. As in the couldn't deny any based on gender for that wouldn't be gender neutral. This is not the case. They still have carte blanche to deny male applicants based on gender.

No, a simple misunderstanding of the equality-part on my behalf.

I interpret the issue as a gender-issue, in which the clubs are ruled to become co-ed.
The part that I misunderstood, and realized too late obviously, that you were refering to the issue that the male clubs are no exempt from barring females, while the Seneca club is when it comes to males.

There's indeed a discrimination happening towards the male clubs, but I'm sure this is also true for the other female clubs that aren't Seneca, which are not exempt from barring male members.

I say it would do nothing because it's not a related factor in sexual assault. The Campus seems to think it would magically fix things. Both seem to be a folly in this.

Magically no -- the idea that it will only increase - who's at fault there? The females joining or the males already in place?

...So it's not what I was thinking?

I don't know. What are you thinking?

[aretood2]

Harvard made the rules - they may have not fully researched the outcome.

A lot of that tends to happen regarding this particular subject.

No, a simple misunderstanding of the equality-part on my behalf.

I interpret the issue as a gender-issue, in which the clubs are ruled to become co-ed.
The part that I misunderstood, and realized too late obviously, that you were referring to the issue that the male clubs are no exempt from barring females, while the Seneca club is when it comes to males.

There's indeed a discrimination happening towards the male clubs, but I'm sure this is also true for the other female clubs that aren't Seneca, which are not exempt from barring male members.

Fair enough. I wonder if what you believe is actually true. In any case, anyother club who would want to follow Seneca's actions has precedent to do so now.

Magically no -- the idea that it will only increase - who's at fault there? The females joining or the males already in place?

Yes.

I don't know. What are you thinking?

I was thinking of the cheeky thing some do when they get called man haters. "I bathe in the tears of men" type thing, kinda like the female thread and the "Can Women Drive" thread.

[Annoyed]

Unless someone decides that only men can have access to medical cannabis, no one can complain about it.

Want to bet? I'm quite certain that some women's libber somewhere is trying to think of a plausible excuse to demand a taxpayer funded program to find a way to increase the analgesic effects of cannabis in females.

[Falcon Horus]

I was thinking of the cheeky thing some do when they get called man haters. "I bathe in the tears of men" type thing, kinda like the female thread and the "Can Women Drive" thread.

I did a google search on "male tears feminists" and the results were not that.

Want to bet? I'm quite certain that some women's libber somewhere is trying to think of a plausible excuse to demand a taxpayer funded program to find a way to increase the analgesic effects of cannabis in females.

Oh come one, now you're being ridiculous.

[jelgate]

Does he ever stop being ridiculous?

[garhkal]

As for the cause of differing rules, saying that women can have exclusive clubs but not men because of safety takes away the onus of men to well...be safe. It absolves them of their responsibility by taking it as a fact that something bad will happen no matter what. Instead of dealing the the source it only treats the symptom. And it is also offensive. Why bother not being a perverted predator if society will treat you as such regardless?

I have heard several politicians and judges say that in regards to women only gyms.. "they need their single sex only gym for safety reasons".. However if a man was to say "we need a male only XYZ for safety reasons" they would get laughed at for being wusses..

Ok, so who are the women's rights advocates going to complain to about this?

Smoking marijuana provides more pain relief for men than women

Seriously, I wonder if this is because women start out with a higher "natural" pain tolerance level and this just brings the males to the level they're at already.

I had to laugh at that, especially since i saw another article, saying the feds say there is NO proof medical marijuana does anything...
It was on United Press International, Inc, but i can't find it (it won't go back that far)...

That women have naturally higher tolerance for pain is a myth. Studies show the opposite.

That may be the case now. BUT i bet if you go back say 4 years, you will find another study saying the opposite..

[Falcon Horus]

Does he ever stop being ridiculous?

Sometimes he does.

I have heard several politicians and judges say that in regards to women only gyms.. "they need their single sex only gym for safety reasons".. However if a man was to say "we need a male only XYZ for safety reasons" they would get laughed at for being wusses..

I was waiting for the gyms to be brought up again.

I had to laugh at that, especially since i saw another article, saying the feds say there is NO proof medical marijuana does anything...

Let's ask the scientists, shall we:

DrugFacts: Is Marijuana Medicine?

Center For Medicinal Cannabis Research

Cannabinoid Science

Science Seeks to Unlock Marijuana Secrets

And hey look, the University of Vermont even has courses on the science of Cannabis.

That may be the case now. BUT i bet if you go back say 4 years, you will find another study saying the opposite..

Found you a study from 2008: Probing Question: Do women have a higher pain threshold than men?
More or less confirming Womble's link.

"Human studies more reliably show that men have higher pain thresholds than women, and some show that men have a higher pain tolerance as well," Jennifer Graham adds. Another way of thinking about these results, she points out, is that women show more sensitivity to pain.

[Annoyed]

Hmm.. remember reading the opposite a few decades back.

[Gatefan1976]

Damn that scientific method...........

[garhkal]

Well, we often DO see one study, refuting another study several years back...