Slashdot Mirror
Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan
ideonexus writes: After Emma Watson gave a speech on the need for feminism (video) to the United Nations, 4chan users threatened to release nude photos of the Harry Potter star in retaliation, setting up the emmayouarenext.com website with a countdown clock. Now it has been revealed that the site was an elaborate hoax intended publicize a movement to shut down 4chan.
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
So you admit that it's all about tinkering round the edges, not achieving some paradigm shift or anything major, then. Frankly, not really UN material.
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
In practice, that's pretty much all anyone gets.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Have you ever considered that many women often choose being a mother instead of focusing on a demanding career?
Also, in other categories where men get the short end of the stick statistically, do you automatically assume its because of some big conspiracy?
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
You can't really believe that every single man who believes in "Men's Rights" is "dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs."?
That's like believing that all women who are feminists believe 90% of men should be phased out.
Get some perspective.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or that she didn't have any interest in giving some random jackasses attention.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense? Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men. This is a real problem. Why does this scare you?.
This is just not true. Once you factor in time & effort on the job, the gap nearly closes. Women choose to place domestic priorities higher than men. Why does this scare you?
Dark Reflection
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)
Be careful of that broad brush you're painting with. My girlfriend is a feminist. She has exactly the same issues with what she considers a vocal minority within the feminist movement (much like the "all penis-in-vagina-sex-is-rape" crowd) that Emma has. What's the point of giving women empowerment over their own bodies if you're going to turn right around and shame back into a niqab? It's lunacy. Mainstream feminism, as opposed to the Fox News sensationalist headlines feminism, isn't about what *you* think it is. It's a tired trope, but the loudest 2-3% gets all the press for just about any group you can think of, and that 2-3% is generally batshit crazy.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?