Funny events in anti-woke world

[thebobmaster]

I highly doubt he's actually gonna try that. This is ironic coming from the guy that leaches off of everybody else,and has not done anything useful.

I do want to point out that there's a difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday. Pretty much anyone can declare a national holiday. For example, May 7th was National Tourism Day. May 9th will be National Sleepover Day.

Making this a FEDERAL holiday would be another story, but national holiday? That's easy.

 

[BrawlMan]

I do want to point out that there's a difference between a national holiday and a federal holiday. Pretty much anyone can declare a national holiday. For example, May 7th was National Tourism Day. May 9th will be National Sleepover Day.

Making this a FEDERAL holiday would be another story, but national holiday? That's easy.

Good to know. I won't be celebrating anything made by that dumb fuckhead. By the way, Trump, we have Veterans and Memorial Day already covering those wars but you're too much on a shit face to respect our country's soldiers.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'll just run that through my translator


Seems par for the course.

Apparently, the 2020 Census includes Latino and Hispanic people, as well as middle Eastern, north African and Arabic people as White.

I don't really care about race that much, it was the first result...

Back to Trunkage's point about the box office from last year. The current top 10 of 2025 features 50% minorities as the main character (not counting the 2 animal movies so 4/8 of the remaining movies).

Good to know. I won't be celebrating anything made by that dumb fuckhead. By the way, Trump, we have Veterans and Memorial Day already covering those wars but you're too much on a shit face to respect our country's soldiers.

Ok, now I must have Trump make a Brawlers National Holiday!!!

 

[Bedinsis]

It is, but more interesting to me is how easy it seems for people to think "the people I don't like are doing this policy, it must be a bad policy".

No doubt.

So, were there any Republican you were paraphrasing?

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Of course, Trump can't even get the date for the end of World War II right...

 

[Silvanus]

I don't really care about race that much, it was the first result...

Back to Trunkage's point about the box office from last year. The current top 10 of 2025 features 50% minorities as the main character (not counting the 2 animal movies so 4/8 of the remaining movies).

Having a look for myself. According to IMDB the top 2024 films by box office returns were;

Inside Out 2 (white girl)
Deadpool & Wolverine (2 white men)
Moana 2 (Polynesian girl)
Despicable Me 4 (white man)
Wicked (green woman played by a black woman)
Dune Part 2 (white man)
Mufasa: The Lion King (lion)
Godzilla x Kong (apart from Kong & Godzilla, main human character is a white woman)
Kung Fu Panda 4 (panda)
Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (apart from Sonic, the main human characters are 2 white men)

So yeah, if you exclude Mufasa and Kung Fu Panda, 4/8 star white men, and 6/8 star white people. That's more representation for white men and white people than those demographics actually make up in America. So minorities are underrepresented, not over.

 

[tstorm823]

Yeah, this is just like what a load of medieval societies said - orWahhabi Islam and the Taliban. It requires warping of any understanding of what authority and respect mean to gibberish. Like those remote parts of Pakistan where tribal courts order women to be gang-raped when a male relative commits a crime, because of the rationale that women hold the honour of the family.

One actually looks at how human civilisations have more commonly treated women - mothers - and you get the real idea: women as property, expected to be absolutely obedient under threat of physical violence or abandonment, mothers dispossessed of their children whenever it has suited a man to want so. Authority that is utterly conditional on the whim of the father / husband / closest male relative / liege-lord is not a woman's authority, it is just a man's authority on loan.

It's kinda fun that from the actual historical figures we know of and all the writing and literature that survives is absolutely full of strong women who command their husbands. From Adam and Eve to Lady Macbeth, women take the driver's seat left and right. Yet you are convinced as effectively a truism that women were simply oppressed for thousands of years.

Medieval societies respected women and mothers more than you do.

(even comparing it to a massive innate advantage!)

Women do have a massive innate advantage in birthing children.

 

[Seanchaidh]

From Adam and Eve to Lady Macbeth, women take the driver's seat left and right.

There is a point to be made about the supposed universality of the subjugation of women and how far it really extends but this is very much not it. These are two fictional characters, the first entirely invented and the second fictionalized. Notably, both of them do something bad, perhaps in order to reinforce the idea that women should be obedient to their husbands else bad things will happen. Eve is meant to be prehistoric, so hardly intended as some kind of depiction of the status of women in society, proper or otherwise. Lady MacBeth accomplishes what she does by goading her husband to take certain meaningful actions. So this point...

Authority that is utterly conditional on the whim of the father / husband / closest male relative / liege-lord is not a woman's authority, it is just a man's authority on loan.

... has not been addressed by that example. At all.

 

[Gergar12]

China needs to have a conversation on race, like America on class, like India on Religion, and Russia on paranoia.

 

[Thaluikhain]

China needs to have a conversation on race, like America on class, like India on Religion, and Russia on paranoia.

I think you could have kept the conversation on race in all those countries, TBH. Or class, or probably religion. Dunno about paranoia, in many places, they are out to get you.

 

[Agema]

It's kinda fun that from the actual historical figures we know of and all the writing and literature that survives is absolutely full of strong women who command their husbands. From Adam and Eve to Lady Macbeth, women take the driver's seat left and right. Yet you are convinced as effectively a truism that women were simply oppressed for thousands of years.

It's fascinating you should pick on Eve and Lady MacBeth: have you not noticed that they are villains of their stories?

For instance, Eve tempts Adam into sin, and on top of the general punishments to both, God additionally punishes Eve with the pain of childbirth and commands that she must obey Adam ("and he will rule over you"). You are in a sense right that there is a relatively common theme of strong women who dominate their husbands. However, those women are portrayed as malign and their husbands are castigated as weak: these are moral warnings for women not to act above their station and for men not to let them do so. There are positive portrayals of female strength, of course, except that strength exists only within the limited gender roles of the time e.g. chastity, piety, loyalty and service to family, obedience to whichever male family member owns her, etc.

And sure, there have always been strong women, and a few have been respected. Wise men would have valued the opinions of wise women irrespective of society's strictures. But the reality, experienced by the vast majority, can be seen in the laws and institutions of the state and the customs and traditions of the society. For instance, the reality of the average female monarch is that she ruled only because her family ran out of male relatives to take the throne ahead of her. Just because they existed doesn't mean society didn't load the odds heavily against them.

Medieval societies respected women and mothers more than you do.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean about you sounding like the Taliban, who too will explain to anyone who cares how much they respect women. It's a strange notion of "respect" that dictates what they should be and do rather than letting them speak and act for themselves.

 

[Silvanus]

Women do have a massive innate advantage in birthing children.

Uh-huh, but we're not simply talking about who should be encouraged/allowed to birth children. We're talking about the roles people are encourage/allowed to take-- stay-at-home caregiver, worker, etc.

Now if you think women's ability to birth children means that women are massively, innately disadvantaged at working, or that they should be discouraged/disallowed to work, then say that. And acknowledge that what you said previously, about how people shouldn't let their birth sex determine their role and presentation in society, was just a lie.

 

[tstorm823]

Now if you think women's ability to birth children means that women are massively, innately disadvantaged at working, or that they should be discouraged/disallowed to work, then say that.

Literally nobody is saying that.

It's a strange notion of "respect" that dictates what they should be and do rather than letting them speak and act for themselves.

That is your problem now, isn't it? God forbid Bret Cooper wants to be a wife and mother...

There is a line by feminist writer Simone de Beauvoir that conservative commentators bring up pretty often: "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children." It's used to say "look, it's the feminists who don't want women to choose for themselves", though it is slightly unfair and removed from context, as it was said specifically in response to the suggestion that government should compensate mothers for their work raising children. Her intended meaning was not that women should be ripped away from their children, but rather just that motherhood should not be systematically encouraged. That being said, she's still kind of heinously wrong, as she's constructed a world view where the single most important task towards the continuation of the human species is now uniquely wrong to encourage. If we have programs encouraging people to be doctors, nobody is getting upset that its taking other options away from people. Mothers are more important than doctors, encouraging that life because it is good is not taking away a freedom.

You speak of having baby dolls as if its a plot to brainwash girls into being moms, though I think it's more of a chicken and egg scenario: do girls want to be moms cause they're given dolls, or do girls want the dolls because they want to imitate their moms? Regardless, even assuming its a deliberate thing to encourage girls to want babies, I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't see how its worse to encourage motherhood than it is to point kids towards doctors or firefighters.

 

[Silvanus]

Literally nobody is saying that.

Strange, then, that you compared women in the workplace to someone 5 ft tall playing basketball against someone 7 ft tall.

 

[BrawlMan]

China needs to have a conversation on race, like America on class, like India on Religion, and Russia on paranoia.

Fuck heads need a Detroit style ass kicking. You don't harass people minding their own business and not bothering anyone. Bitches like them are scared, because they don't get any women or have a much harder time dating one.

 

[tstorm823]

Strange, then, that you compared women in the workplace to someone 5 ft tall playing basketball against someone 7 ft tall.

I mean, it goes way deeper than just "women in the workplace". There are areas of work where women dominate: healthcare, education, etc. If I applaud their success in those spaces, it would still be viewed as sexist, because we're only allowed to applaud if they're competing in "men's spaces".

It's not that women are inherently disadvantaged all over the place. It's that every space that isn't a perfect 50/50 is going to have more women or more men. If a space has more men, that's seen as men excluding women. If a space has more women, that's seen as men subjugating women. It's downstream from the feminist view of men as the bad guys who ruin everything, but the unintended consequence of that paradigm is that the only way for a women to get respect is to "fight" into the places the men are, whether it is what she likes or not, whether she's good at it or not, and whether the task is even respectable for anyone in the first place. We are obsessed with glass ceilings, which you can't break by having babies, as women have done that before.

Presuming our culture keeps on this path, as work spaces become more even, they no longer become respectable goals for women, which will shift the goals to new areas that prior generations of women were even more disinclined to do, until the only things left are the rare spaces where there really is a significant biological disadvantage. That is the inevitable end result of your paradigm. Fortunately, that's not actually going to happen, as people will figure things out soon enough.

 

[Satinavian]

... has not been addressed by that example. At all.

There have been loads of famous powerful women in real life, even if we only take European middle ages.

Eleanor of Aquitaine
Adelheid of Burgund
Theophanu
Isabella of Castille and Leon
Hedwig of Poland
Theodora Porphyrogenita

And that is just women instantly coming to mind without looking deeper, so examples exist.

However if asked if i could name powerful men of the same area and time, i could fill pages upon pages. Powerful women did exist, but were exceptions.

One thing of note however is that unequality based on gender often waas less relevant than unequality based on class. Women taking on the role of men including all privileges and powers, particularly when no men were available in the family, was occuring often enough and in most cases accepted. And no, we don't only have female rulers as the above names might suggest, we have female leads of peasant households, female warriors, female trade guild leaders etc. It is just that rulers are generally more well known.
And yet even with all exceptions, society was very unequal and women in general had way fewer rights in general.

Also it is worth keeping an eye on things like inheritance and whether daughters can inherit. That was never universal but generally in societies where daughters could, women were more powerful.

If we go beyond Europe and middle ages, it was also generally true that matrilocal societies had more powerful women that patrilocal ones. No surprise here as one of the partners keeps their whole support network and the other doesn't.

One actually looks at how human civilisations have more commonly treated women - mothers - and you get the real idea: women as property, expected to be absolutely obedient under threat of physical violence or abandonment, mothers dispossessed of their children whenever it has suited a man to want so. Authority that is utterly conditional on the whim of the father / husband / closest male relative / liege-lord is not a woman's authority, it is just a man's authority on loan.

And while i generally agree with your point that history overall didn't treat women all that well, i disagree a bit on the severity.

The kind of society certain conservative voices want to "return to" is often worse than what existed most of the time. If you go back and look at sources, you often find the conservatives of those times lamenting how the women then and there also are too powerful / intrude into mens places /are not happy with their place as they should.

 

[Silvanus]

I mean, it goes way deeper than just "women in the workplace". There are areas of work where women dominate: healthcare, education, etc. If I applaud their success in those spaces, it would still be viewed as sexist, because we're only allowed to applaud if they're competing in "men's spaces".

Absolute bollocks. Applaud success wherever, nobody is telling you otherwise. Just don't railroad people into these roles according to their sex.

It's not that women are inherently disadvantaged all over the place. It's that every space that isn't a perfect 50/50 is going to have more women or more men. If a space has more men, that's seen as men excluding women. If a space has more women, that's seen as men subjugating women. It's downstream from the feminist view of men as the bad guys who ruin everything, but the unintended consequence of that paradigm is that the only way for a women to get respect is to "fight" into the places the men are, whether it is what she likes or not, whether she's good at it or not, and whether the task is even respectable for anyone in the first place. We are obsessed with glass ceilings, which you can't break by having babies, as women have done that before.

No, the mere fact of there being more of one sex than the other in any given space is not taken as proof of inequity. The fact is that there exist barriers to people entering certain fields, often depending on sex.

Feminists broadly want the removal of those barriers, and for society to stop stereotyping certain fields as appropriate for only one sex or the other. A subset of Republicans (and plenty of others) want to shepherd people towards the roles traditionally/stereotypically associated with their sex and strenuously defend those barriers.

That is the inevitable end result of your paradigm.

You haven't even begun to understand or engage honestly with the "paradigm". You've substituted some inane hallucination.

 

[Agema]

That is your problem now, isn't it? God forbid Bret Cooper wants to be a wife and mother...

Society should support any woman who of her own free decision wants to become a mother. It should also support any woman who of her own free decision does not want to become a mother.

Thus I am perfectly happy for Brett Cooper to be a wife and mother. Her life, her choice. However, if she wants to shame and abuse women who do not want to be wives and mothers, encourage others in society to join in that shaming and abuse, support political movements that want to restrict women who have other ideas, then she can go fuck herself.

Feminism as a whole has put a lot of thought into what women can do. Much of this has been thinking about how they could be something other than than a wife and mother, obviously because that has been the novelty that has needed most investigation and consideration. But it's really just a right wing straw man to think that feminism has ever been about telling women not to be a wife and/or mother.

 

[BrawlMan]

Feminism as a whole has put a lot of thought into what women can do. Much of this has been thinking about how they could be something other than than a wife and mother, obviously because that has been the novelty that has needed most investigation and consideration. But it's really just a right wing straw man to think that feminism has ever been about telling women not to be a wife and/or mother.

Respect.

​