I think any movie that focuses on two people talking is going to be boring so I wouldn't choose to watch it
A movie doesn't have to "focus" on this to pass the test. It literally needs to have a single scene in which two women talk to each other about something other than a man. It could be a 30-second conversation about how they're going to defuse a bomb. It's a stupidly easy test to pass, and most media doesn't pass it, because most stories are about men and about how everything in the entire movie relates to those men.
Fair enough. Yeah, generally speaking, I try to default to whatever language the individual in question would prefer, since there are some differences of opinion regarding what language to use around these issues.
I was mostly just curious about your intentions, because I don't hear the phrase "gender confused" very often.
That's an article for "Gender Identity Disorder" that you were redirected to after using the search term "Gender Confused." Which indicates that "Gender Confused" is not an official medical term, and I've seen it used in a lot of contexts which are dismissive or invalidating to people whose gender expression does not match their gender assigned at birth.
Well, it certainly didn't take long to figure out what you're all about.
It's funny when you engage with someone who demonstrates a lack of sensitivity, and less than three comments later, they're sending you links to an anti-feminist rag that has little credibility and a transparent agenda.
Welcome to Slashdot -- where a distinction between the definition of "misanthrope" and "sociopath" gets modded to +5 Insightful, and discussions about the actual article are modded as flamebait.
I suppose that you don't mind when people use "lynching" as a metaphor, either? Because, if so, then I'd also suppose that you never had a grandparent who was actually lynched, huh?
Fuck you, buddy. I have yet to a a single conversation about women's issues where some asshole like you doesn't barge in and start yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT ME, AS A MAN!?"
Oh, for fuck's sake. Your post was basically a bunch of whining about how people can't talk about women's issues, because men have it bad too, or something.
Here's the thing: sexist, patriarchal bullshit is harmful to men AND women. So the "sexist status quo" is damaging to everyone. If you actually are interested in learning about how sexism is damaging to men (which it sounds like you are), you'd probably be interested in a documentary by Jackson Katz called "Tough Guise."
You don't have to file taxes in the U.S. if you don't get a tax ID number or SSN. Another commenter stated that getting an SSN is not required initially.
If the kids ever decide they want to move to the U.S. for school, work, or any other reason, they'll have a much easier time if they are citizens. I would say, talk to a lawyer first, but definitely consider it.
Can we stop referring to this kind of thing as a "witch hunt?" Some people are actually still burned alive for accusations of witchcraft, as in this article: http://wildhunt.org/2013/02/th...
Yeah. You're a citizen on the internet, too. We like to say that when we're talking about the rights of citizens on the internet... but it's also true of our responsibilities as citizens as well. Functional adults in a civilized society don't go around threatening to rape people, not even as a "joke."
There wouldn't be an armed conflict between the U.S. and Russia. These things never work that way. We would just "gift" Ukraine a bunch of tanks, planes, missiles, and bullets, and send some "volunteers" from the CIA to give them training on how to use their new toys.
My point is that the entities providing the solutions only start providing the solutions when there is a threat to their own constituents. If Ebola was still a disease that primarily threatened developing nations, there would be less attention paid to it.
You seem to have no problem with that, but it's not really clear why you have no problem with that based on your comments.
What's your argument? That it's okay to withhold medical care and resources from those who can't pay for them, because they've been systematically disadvantaged and exploited by people from developed nations who invaded their lands and stripped them of all their natural resources?
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really realistic.
I think any movie that focuses on two people talking is going to be boring so I wouldn't choose to watch it
A movie doesn't have to "focus" on this to pass the test. It literally needs to have a single scene in which two women talk to each other about something other than a man. It could be a 30-second conversation about how they're going to defuse a bomb. It's a stupidly easy test to pass, and most media doesn't pass it, because most stories are about men and about how everything in the entire movie relates to those men.
I like how you equate "uneducated and living in poverty" with "retarded."
You really are completely blind to your own privileges, aren't you?
Fair enough. Yeah, generally speaking, I try to default to whatever language the individual in question would prefer, since there are some differences of opinion regarding what language to use around these issues.
I was mostly just curious about your intentions, because I don't hear the phrase "gender confused" very often.
That's an article for "Gender Identity Disorder" that you were redirected to after using the search term "Gender Confused." Which indicates that "Gender Confused" is not an official medical term, and I've seen it used in a lot of contexts which are dismissive or invalidating to people whose gender expression does not match their gender assigned at birth.
I'm intensely curious to know what you mean by "gender confused."
where you will be 100% safe
Sounds like you've never been to prison.
Proportional typefaces were invented for a reason, you insensitive clod.
You can't just take the logic in one situation and apply it to another completely different situation. That's now how these things work.
Do you have an actual citation for that?
Well, it certainly didn't take long to figure out what you're all about.
It's funny when you engage with someone who demonstrates a lack of sensitivity, and less than three comments later, they're sending you links to an anti-feminist rag that has little credibility and a transparent agenda.
Welcome to Slashdot -- where a distinction between the definition of "misanthrope" and "sociopath" gets modded to +5 Insightful, and discussions about the actual article are modded as flamebait.
I suppose that you don't mind when people use "lynching" as a metaphor, either? Because, if so, then I'd also suppose that you never had a grandparent who was actually lynched, huh?
Fuck you, buddy. I have yet to a a single conversation about women's issues where some asshole like you doesn't barge in and start yelling "WHY AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT ME, AS A MAN!?"
Oh, for fuck's sake. Your post was basically a bunch of whining about how people can't talk about women's issues, because men have it bad too, or something.
Here's the thing: sexist, patriarchal bullshit is harmful to men AND women. So the "sexist status quo" is damaging to everyone. If you actually are interested in learning about how sexism is damaging to men (which it sounds like you are), you'd probably be interested in a documentary by Jackson Katz called "Tough Guise."
You don't have to file taxes in the U.S. if you don't get a tax ID number or SSN. Another commenter stated that getting an SSN is not required initially.
If the kids ever decide they want to move to the U.S. for school, work, or any other reason, they'll have a much easier time if they are citizens. I would say, talk to a lawyer first, but definitely consider it.
Can we stop referring to this kind of thing as a "witch hunt?" Some people are actually still burned alive for accusations of witchcraft, as in this article: http://wildhunt.org/2013/02/th...
Yeah. You're a citizen on the internet, too. We like to say that when we're talking about the rights of citizens on the internet ... but it's also true of our responsibilities as citizens as well. Functional adults in a civilized society don't go around threatening to rape people, not even as a "joke."
Are you willfully ignorant of the harassment and objectification that women are subjected to on a routine basis, or just stupid?
Misanthropy, or misogyny?
There wouldn't be an armed conflict between the U.S. and Russia. These things never work that way. We would just "gift" Ukraine a bunch of tanks, planes, missiles, and bullets, and send some "volunteers" from the CIA to give them training on how to use their new toys.
Citation needed.
My point is that the entities providing the solutions only start providing the solutions when there is a threat to their own constituents. If Ebola was still a disease that primarily threatened developing nations, there would be less attention paid to it.
You seem to have no problem with that, but it's not really clear why you have no problem with that based on your comments.
What's your argument? That it's okay to withhold medical care and resources from those who can't pay for them, because they've been systematically disadvantaged and exploited by people from developed nations who invaded their lands and stripped them of all their natural resources?
Now that Ebola is actually a threat to rich white people living in developed nations, we can expect that new treatments will be created soon.