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.
"Join us as we shutdown 4chan and prevent more pictures from being leaked."
Yeah, that is definitely going to prevent anyone from posting any more photos.
I agree- we should shut down 4-Chan. And all of the other sites posting naked pictures of women without their consent. And all of the sites demeaning women or ethnic minorities. And the forums providing a conduit for homophobia and racist slurs and.......guys......anyone still there?
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
The company that wants 4chan shut down also doesn't seem to exist; it looks like this was a publicity stunt by a social media agency.
http://www.theguardian.com/fil...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You forgot the right to register for selective service and conscription.
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
It's like destroying a prison to stop crime.
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?
. By displaying the results front and center and tweeting about emmayouarenext.com's viral success, the campaign's organizers are perhaps more focused on promoting their own brand and services than issues of privacy and gender equality.
Forget the brand, forget the event, and forget this firm ever existed. We're talking about a fairly controversial site but what needs to be respected is the tenacity and seemingly endless realm of their users. after a cat was abused, they tracked down a fourteen year olds full name and address in under 24 hours. They tracked down a bomb threat in 2007 to a student in a High School in Pflugerville, Texas in under 6 hours and have a laundry list of relatively high profile internet attacks. Both Verizon and AT&T have banned the site at some time during its existence. Speaking as someone who works in hosting, What this ad agency fails to realize is once you become a target of 4chan we questionlessly invoke our right to terminate your service at any time. Its either a chargeback at worst on our credit card processing or we watch everything from signup to shared/vps hosting go up in flames.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
I'm sorry but you clearly don't have even the first bit of experience in the field if that's what you believe.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I bet she even showers naked...
If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".
(Improved childcare opportunities are one of the great equality demands in the sciences right now. You're on a different side than you realise.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
So you want women to always "get equal or preferential treatment"? Since women do get preferential treatment in many areas, that isn't a campaign for equalitiy, it's a campaign for treating men worse than women.
Most of the feminist agenda these days isn't about government discrimination, it is about private conduct. So, the positions you mock are actually pretty much the positions feminists take: right to self-determination in most cases (except when it interferes with feminist notions of equality), right to liberty usually (except when we need to restrict it in order to achieve feminist goals), right to due process (except when rape, harassment, or other crimes feminists care about are involved), freedom of though except if it is inconvenient (because people don't believe what feminists believe).
Couldn't happen to a nicer site.
Best Slashdot Co
Did you know that men are roughly 50% of the population, but only 13% of elementary education teachers in the United States are men?
Help, help, we're being oppressed!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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!
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
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
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Yes, and? 98% and 99% are both vast majorities, but that's the difference between 200 million people getting the short end of the stick and 100 million people getting the short end of the stick.
You might as well say "the vast majority of people live past reproductive age" and say that we can pack in modern medicine.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
This has been allowed for in the various studies of the subject. Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs. Thoug, from one article in the Economist, the discrepancy almost disappears for childless women not in any relationship.
This, as has been pointed out, the discrepancy never flips the other way, as would be the case in a truly fair environment, In such an environment, necessarily finite studies should show results randomly either side of equality.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Or that she didn't have any interest in giving some random jackasses attention.
I'm sorry you clearly can't tell I'm taking the piss out of a position that you advanced earlier.
Yes, the "women first" bias in the UK court system's awards of custody certainly needs to be addressed. If people who claimed to stand up for men's rights spent their time addressing these issues and not nit-picking feminists we'd probably have that licked by now.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The phenomenon obviously exists, but why do you attach such negativity to it? Without babies the humanity will cease to exist pretty soon no matter how successful "freed" women are at their other pursuits.
And pregnancy — and subsequent child-rearing — do cost women professionally. Not because anybody is "sexist", but simply because you can not give a promising assignment to an employee, who just is not there (because she is on maternity leave).
Some women may view this as unfortunate, others — as a privilege, but whatever you feel about it, there is no one to blame for it any more, than we can prosecute someone for gravity...
Maybe, some day, we'll have incubation centers freeing women from the need to carry the burden for months. But I'm not very optimistic, given that we are yet to solve even the much simpler problem of breast-feeding.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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
Except that the latest recession has been called the Mancession for a reason. More women than men are working, and making more money.
More women are earning degrees at all levels. Women are CHOOSING to work fewer hours. They choose quality of life because they CAN. Men do not have this option. Women simply have more choice of what they do.
Today's feminist propaganda/dogma has noting to do with reality. Victim mentality. Total absolution from personal responsibility.
Wouldn't the logical inference from that be that men in technologically advanced, socially developed Western societies deserve at least some proportion of feminist women?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The Feminazis are already doing that. They can't stand it that other people make different choices. People choose to do things that they don't approve of. This could include motherhood or making nude photos. Feminists want to interfere with the choices of others as much as "church lady" types do.
People should be free to do what they want. That was kind of the point of Emma's speech.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I'm sorry - but unsurprised - to hear that the only women who will tolerate your company for more than a few minutes at a time require some form of payment for their service.
You should try being a better person, I bet you'd find that you meet much nicer girls as a result.
The 4chan crowd ain't known for its ability to take stuff like that lightly. If I was that marketing company, I'd make sure my servers are hardened against any kind of onslaught.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
While that's true, it's still not a simple issue. If you look at the whole it looks like a big, pervasive problem, but having worked in several jobs in financial positions I can tell you that none of them used gender as criteria for salary. If you were in position X, you made $Y regardless of your gender. So it's largely not the case that men make more than women who are equally qualified and employed.
So what's going on?
First, many women stop work to have children. This interrupts their career progress, resets their salary, and prevents them from ascending as high as men. This is the reason that women who stop work to raise children and later divorce still get alimony. There is also a perception that women will do this, of course, and that is a problem.
Second, the careers that men choose tend to pay more. A carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, an engineer, a doctor, a tool and die machinist, a computer programmer or administrator, etc. The careers that women choose tend to pay less. A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care. Now the reason for this is actually pretty complicated. Professions that men worked were paid a salary to support an entire family wife and kids. That amount of money was simply what a man cost, since any job he took necessarily had to support his family due to cultural standards of the day. If he wasn't getting paid that amount, then he could neither support his existing family, nor could he marry a woman and start a family. Professions that women worked were paid a salary to support a single person or possibly a single person with one child. Today, those salaries remain affected by those historic amounts due to market forces. That's why professional jobs designed to attract men have reasonably good salaries even if they largely didn't exist when the workplace was divided on gender lines (i.e., computer programmers).
The key to take away here is: women and men are voluntarily choosing their own professions and we still see a salary discrepancy. The professions they choose have salaries determined by market forces, which includes how people were paid in the past. Programs exist which encourage women to take college paths that lead to better paying careers, but in spite of the fact that women now consistently and significantly outnumber men in annual college enrollment numbers, men still outnumber women in technical and professional degrees and women are still not choosing degrees which result in better paying careers.
So who is to blame? On the one hand you have people saying that women don't make as much and that's a problem for society as a whole. Women are also not taken as authoritatively as men are, so men tend to get hired into positions of higher authority which, of course, pay more. On the other, you have people saying that women made voluntary choices that resulted in them earning less so they should bear the responsibility for the consequences of their own choices rather than expecting society to fix it for them.
Fundamentally, none these problems can be easily solved through government policy or regulation. Are we expecting the government to step in an force salaries for jobs to be increased or decreased? That you have to pay a teacher and an engineer the same? That's not equality. That's parity. Are we going to say that the woman who worked 5 years, quit 10 to raise kids, and then returns deserves the same salary and opportunities as a man who has worked for 15 years? How is that fair to devalue 10 years of relevant experience? What about the increasingly common situation where the man quits his job to raise the kids? Does he deserve the same considerations?
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
That she didn't call their bluff...
Means that she probably did take some nudies at some point.
She is not obliged to call anyone's bluff.
Not everyone has a mind as adolescent as the geek who mods up craptastic sexist comments like yours as "Interesting."
May your soul rest in peace now that you have angered 4chan. Sincerely The Internet
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Nice to know you are dating all the 'bitches' because that leaves all the nice ones for me. Go dutch dumbass. Ask up front and they are usually shill about it. Even at the end of a lunch/dinner I've had most women ask the waiter/waitress for separate checks as if they thought I was going to pay in the first place. As the other responder said, you'd probably find nicer girls if you acted like a better person.
"That's right...I said it."
I'm confused - what exactly was the point of Emma's speech?
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)
You mean an hours-worked discrepancy. Men put in the majority of overtime hours, and the vast majority of 60+ hour work weeks. The "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on ignoring overtime and focusing on "skills" and "positions". If you're a woman, and you worked 10 hours more per week than a male colleague in the same position, you'd damn well expect to be paid more money as well.
Another one gone
Another one gone
Another meme bites the dust
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
Solution is to legalize prostitution. The prohibition of prostitution creates an artificial scarcity that allows women to demand free drinks and meals in exchange for the possibility of sex.
Legalize prostitution and those women will be lowering their standards significantly in face of cheaper, market-regulated, and guaranteed sex.
So, did you read just one paragraph and miss out the rest of the article? A 33% gap does not appear to be "equal" in my dictionary.
While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
Not if she's working the same hours and has the same experience, she's not. Men get paid more because they work more.
The latest recession was never called the mancession.
How is this rated informative? It is plain wrong.
You could find the same few examples (among many others) with a simple Google search, but since that is obviously too much work ...
Mancession Definition
The Mancession
Thanks to the “mancession,” metrosexuals have become “manfluencers”
One Mancession Later, Are Women Really Victors in the New Economy?
Economy: The Man-cession and the He-covery
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession!
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.
You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?
Here at Slashdot most of us have realized that not all bachelor's degrees are created equal. A bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts may be the same "education level" but they are not the same education nor do they qualify you for the same jobs and definitely not the same pay.
Before getting to articles, did you read the first and second sentences in a three sentence post?
The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more at a full-time job than a man working part-time? Of course you would.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more than a man if you work overtime while he works 9 to 5? Of course you would.
Of course, now you have your "wage gap", which in reality is a "work gap".
Did you? It's comparing equal pay for equal work and education.
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
When the father stays home, the mother gets a divorce and the law sides with the mother nearly all the time. Omg, the father wants to stay home with his children? I bet he's a perv! I bet he weighs at much a duck, kill him!
NASA officially calls it "Human Space Program", it is in their writing styleguide and has been for awhile.
http://history.nasa.gov/styleg...
Manned Space Program vs. Human Space Program:
All references referring to the space program should be non-gender specific (e.g. human, piloted, un-piloted, robotic). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spacecraft Center, the predecessor to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, or any other official program name or title that included "manned" (e.g. Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight).
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?
Not if they're working the same positions with the same hours, they aren't.
because bachelors degrees are definitely definitely equal. What's the gender difference in STEM fields (which pay more at the bachelor's level) compared to social sciences/education etc?
Do female EE's make more or less than men with the same degree, same level of experience? That's a valid comparison.
Females with a BA in sociology or anthropology making less than a man with a bachelors in computer science? Less so.
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
"A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care."
How many of those are 'chosen' by women, as opposed to being effectively closed to men?
Teacher, nurse, child care... any man who wants to pursue those careers is likely to be automatically suspected of being a pedophile.
While this response is cute, and I'm very much in favor of rectifying the very real discrepancies in pay for men vs. women, the denial that women enjoy any social advantages--usually though attacks on the men who point it out--helps no one.
I highly suspect many women would trade those advantages to resolve equal pay and other difficulties, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that many women don't make use of them.
Kythe
These are all good points, but they do raise the question as to what advances in pay should be based upon, if not performance and time in job.
The problem, as I see it, is women who do NOT leave for childrearing or other pursuits still being paid less on the basis that males are the breadwinners in their families.
Kythe
I think you missed the GP's point. Big corporations exhibit almost insatiable greed, and will do just about anything to save money, from H1Bs to outsourcing. Yet they don't hire women more than men. There are two possible explanations:
In theory, they are both equally plausible. And in practice, that's also true, at least up until the first study was published. But these days, given the sheer number of studies that all say that women are cheaper, you'd expect a significant number of the more forward-thinking execs to take it to heart and hire mostly women as a cost-saving measure. If that is not happening, it suggests the possibility that they have studied those cost differences internally and have come to different conclusions based on more complete information.
The only way to know for sure would be to find an exec willing to disclose a company's own internal studies on the subject, and that's not likely to happen. With that said, the longer we go without corporations deciding to hire more women, the greater the chances that those studies are flawed. After all, the alternative requires us to believe that something matters more to a corporation than money, which for most companies would require an almost unimaginable suspension of disbelief.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You are correct, her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. But it also raises a question: Why are we listening to her over any other random person pulled off the street? She's famous for being an actress, that doesn't make her an expert on gender roles or sociology. Oh, right now she's an actress using her fame to advance a good cause - but have already forgotten that elevating another actress to a position of self-proclaimed expert lead to the rise of the anti-vax movement and a significent number of avoidable deaths? We have something of a problem in current culture with the veneration of celebrities: When a famous person talks, people listen, even if they are no way qualified to speak on that topic.
For anyone interested, here are the (preliminary) stats for 2013: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/c... 302 Female fatalities, 4101 male. Not quite 19 out of 20 but close.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.
Hundreds of comments questioning whether women are still second class citizens* and nobody comments on the apparent fact that SocialVEVO trolled the entire internet, terrorising both Emma Watson and threatening hundreds of thousands of other women involved in activism are still trolling us, having duped everyone from the BBC to /. a second time.
*They are, it's bloody obvious and you're an ignorant douche if you say otherwise.
The timing of this BusinessWeek story is quite amusing. It tells about a startup founder who is hiring mostly women because they're cheaper.
So there you go.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
You assume an awful lot there, which I think is more telling of your attitude than anything. Maybe it's time you dropped the victim angle and tried to address the actual issue being discussed here.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's interesting how the narrative has become "an attack on gamers" simply by people like you repeating it so often. The assault on Ms. Quinn is quite unprecedented I think, and Anita Satkeesian actually goes out of her way to point out that most gamers don't hate women and even the developers are mostly just lazy rather than malicious.
Of course none of that matters. The professional victims like Thubdetf00t have too much to gain, and it's easy when your audience has too short an attention span to view the original material you are criticising.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The problem is this all too often extends into not giving women promising assignments because she just got married and might start making babies soon, or because she is about the age that society expects her to want to do that. That is why even in superficially equal societies such as we have in the West, women are still far from equal.