Well, I refuse to buy any goods with "Made in China" on them, also "Made in India", now "Made in Indonesia" is added to the list. If the Whole world did that, then these 3rd world, tinpot, despised administrations, might get to see their trade disappearing and decide to join the rest of the world in the 21C. My little gesture is a futile thing but it is matter of principle to me. The rest of you can decide for yourselves.

Right, because if you take away peoples jobs and income they will magically develop and advanced, service based economy like we did.

In case you forgot your own history, Europe and the US also didn't transform from agricultural economy to service based economy overnight. We had our own period of sweatshop labor, the industrial revolution, that laid the foundations for a more developed economy.

And as bad as the working conditions might be in those sweatshops, they are still better paying than working as farmers for a lot of people. You want those countries to develop to the 21st century? Well they are doing just that. But before they get there, they need to work through the 19th and 20th century first.

Ah yes, the "good old days" of "Made in Britain".

At least Britain has entered the 21C...

Rotherham
Oxford
London
Jimmy Saville
Gary Glitter
Stuart Hall
Rolf Harris
Cyril Smith


...& the latest...Leeds

Yep, Britain in the 21C, lovely place to be especially with all those knife attacks courtesy of "Made in Sheffield".

It seems I need to point out that "rape culture" is not restricted to one country. In some it is still worse than others, but you can see plenty of examples of it in western culture today.

For those of you who don't know what it is:
What is Rape Culture?

Thanks the feminist movement in western cultures, there has been much improvement in the way women are viewed, however I still hear people claim that a women dressed in a certain way is "asking for it". Is that so different from the Indian men who claim that a women out on her own at night is "asking for it"? How about the recent claims that women on University campuses only have themselves to blame because they chose to drink?

We are still talking about very real limits placed on women's freedoms with the threat of rape if women step over those boundaries.

Don't take the bus at night in India.
Don't drink on a university campus.
Don't dress in a certain way.
Don't do this. Don't do that.

The only people to blame for rape are rapists. There are rapists in all cultures and most women are raped by someone they know and trust.

In Canada there are 1000s of missing aboriginal women. Murdered and missing aboriginal women deserve inquiry, rights group says
The government doesn't want to do anything because these women have no worth.

The treatment of women is a global problem and no country has a glowing record.

---

Reality Internet Personality

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31851830

---

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31851830

Blazing trail stuff and a scary medieval connection and response.

For all of 8 minutes! Hopefully those 8 minutes will hit home at the misogynist culture there rather than the woman and women.


Can the backwardness of supposed fundamentalism be turned back?...

All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

India in the news still...
Delhi rapist says victim shouldn't have fought back
In 2012 an Indian student was violently raped on a moving bus in Delhi and died of horrific internal injuries. Leslee Udwin spoke to one of the rapists on death row while spending two years making a film about the case. She came away shocked by India's treatment of women - but inspired by those seeking change...
All a question of questionable culture?...
All a question of better education and better values towards women?...

The Swedish television aired this documentary "India's Daughter" by Leslee Udwin a few days ago.

India's Daughter Trailer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YROBVxk17cM

"India's Daughter" documentary director flees India!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBVOdtuWuZs

Indian government condemns BBC for showing India's Daughter
Senior minister Rajnath Singh claims BBC has 'breached conditions' by broadcasting the rape documentary
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11451443/Indian-government-condemns-BBC-for-showing-Indias-Daughter.html

And in a very different part of the world with a very long history:


Female Viking Lesley Simpson makes Shetland history

The first female Guizer Jarl - or chief Viking - in the 130-year history of Shetland's world famous fire festivals is preparing to don her armour...

... The event is one of several Viking-themed torchlit processions held on Shetland every year.

Only men are allowed to take part in the main Up Helly Aa festival in the capital, Lerwick. Women have been playing a more prominent role in many of the similar fire festivals that have spread to smaller communities around the islands.

But Ms Simpson, from Bigton, will be the first woman to ever play the honoured role of the Guizer Jarl, around whom the whole festival revolves. ...

... It has been a long build up, five years of knowing that this was going to happen, five years of people talking to me about it and wishing me the best with it and it is going to be a wonderful day...



Hopefully we can all progress from the 'old-style' days of the Vikings!

All in our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did

---

Reality Internet Personality

Female Viking Lesley Simpson makes Shetland history
Hopefully we can all progress from the 'old-style' days of the Vikings!

During viking age both men AND women was "equal".
But the thralls (trälar) had no rights at all....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall

Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did

Sorry, but that article is idiotic.

It wouldn't matter if feminists hate men? Because at best that supposedly only hurts our feelings? While if men hate women they end up killing women? I'm sorry but that is just beyond ridiculous. A women is just as capable of knifing a guy or picking up a gun and shooting a guy as the other way around. Women are not somehow incapable of violence against other people.

And even if it just hurts our feelings, how is that a good thing? Let me put this way, how is it a good thing to hurt the feelings of roughly 50% of the worlds population? How is that gonna convince them that Feminism is something worth fighting for? And sure, you insult a few jerks, but by brushing with broad strokes you also insult all the non jerks. For what reason? Because they were born as men thats enough reason to insult them?

And in the end, fighting hate with hate does not work. If you let hate be the thing that guides Feminism and women emancipation it will not lead to a better world for humanity.

So yeah, it most certainly matters if feminists would actually hate men.

Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did

Sorry, but that article is idiotic.

It wouldn't matter if feminists hate men? Because at best that supposedly only hurts our feelings? While if men hate women they end up killing women? I'm sorry but that is just beyond ridiculous. A women is just as capable of knifing a guy or picking up a gun and shooting a guy as the other way around. Women are not somehow incapable of violence against other people.

And even if it just hurts our feelings, how is that a good thing? Let me put this way, how is it a good thing to hurt the feelings of roughly 50% of the worlds population? How is that gonna convince them that Feminism is something worth fighting for? And sure, you insult a few jerks, but by brushing with broad strokes you also insult all the non jerks. For what reason? Because they were born as men thats enough reason to insult them?

And in the end, fighting hate with hate does not work. If you let hate be the thing that guides Feminism and women emancipation it will not lead to a better world for humanity.

So yeah, it most certainly matters if feminists would actually hate men.

I knew one of you would get offended.

Of course being offended isn't the same as being physically hurt.

So based on my experience living as an actual woman and dealing with the stuff that actual women have to deal with, I'd say the article is spot on and I'd take being offended any day over the sh*t I've had to deal with over the years.

Yeah. Being offended is a walk in the park. If your biggest concern is hurt feelings, then lucky you.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I knew one of you would get offended.

Strongly disagreeing with something is not the same as being 'offended' by it. I think its shortsighted and the reasoning behind the authors argument is flawed or demonstrably wrong.

So based on my experience living as an actual woman and dealing with the stuff that actual women have to deal with, I'd say the article is spot on and I'd take being offended any day over the sh*t I've had to deal with over the years.

Yeah. Being offended is a walk in the park. If your biggest concern is hurt feelings, then lucky you.

That argument only makes sense if you assume that people men only results in hurt feeling for the men and nothing else. But that argument is just nonsense. Hatred isn't some static emotion that remains constant over time. Hatred can increase in intensity. And if you hate something enough, it can result in physical attacks. And it doesn't matter whether you are a man or a woman, both can be just as deadly if all they feel is hate.


Also, funny those 'ironic' misandrists but is that really going to get more guys on the side of Feminism (and yeah, you need guys as allies or feminists if you want change)? Or does that just makes things easier for MRA's and people who are on the fence to decide that Feminists really do just hate men.

I knew one of you would get offended.

Strongly disagreeing with something is not the same as being 'offended' by it. I think its shortsighted and the reasoning behind the authors argument is flawed or demonstrably wrong.

In what sense?

That argument only makes sense if you assume that people men only results in hurt feeling for the men and nothing else. But that argument is just nonsense. Hatred isn't some static emotion that remains constant over time. Hatred can increase in intensity. And if you hate something enough, it can result in physical attacks. And it doesn't matter whether you are a man or a woman, both can be just as deadly if all they feel is hate.

You are missing out on the fundamental difference between men and women. The power balance. Which is what the article is about. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but there is an endless litany of horrific acts committed against women simply because they are women. Those women may well hate men..but in the end, they don't have the power. The women are not the ones listed in this thread committing these violent acts.

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

Also, funny those 'ironic' misandrists but is that really going to get more guys on the side of Feminism (and yeah, you need guys as allies or feminists if you want change)? Or does that just makes things easier for MRA's and people who are on the fence to decide that Feminists really do just hate men.

lol..I think you missed the point of the article.

If misogyny is so embedded in society, why does it matter what women do? Men will hurt us either way.

In the end, men need to start policing themselves and other men. Or should all the women who've been victimised (as shown again and again in this thread) cry "please like us, please don't hurt us"? Because that is clearly really effective.

When you don't have power it doesn't matter what you do. The end result is the same.

That is the point of the article.

---

Reality Internet Personality

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

Playing DA a little bit here (and I admit I have not read the article yet)... what if women did have the power to act upon those feelings? Would hating men still be OK? If yes, why? If no, then why is it OK for them to hate men without power? Either way it looks like hate begets hate and is no solution to the problem.

It was International Women's Day (IWD) on March 8.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women%27s_Day

“Thinking of March 8, it is more important than ever to stand up for women human rights defenders, our femdefenders, all over the world.” "Kvinna till Kvinna’s" (Woman to Woman) Secretary General Lena Ag writes about the backlash for women’s rights and her hopes when leaving for the upcoming UN Commission on the Status of Women.
http://kvinnatillkvinna.se/en/

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

Playing DA a little bit here (and I admit I have not read the article yet)... what if women did have the power to act upon those feelings? Would hating men still be OK? If yes, why? If no, then why is it OK for them to hate men without power? Either way it looks like hate begets hate and is no solution to the problem.

The article doesn't endorse hating anyone. It just points out that there is no threat from misandry the way there is a threat from misogyny. So it doesn't make a difference.

---

Reality Internet Personality

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

Playing DA a little bit here (and I admit I have not read the article yet)... what if women did have the power to act upon those feelings? Would hating men still be OK? If yes, why? If no, then why is it OK for them to hate men without power? Either way it looks like hate begets hate and is no solution to the problem.

Why didn't you read the article before replying? It is quite short and I thought rather gentle.

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

Playing DA a little bit here (and I admit I have not read the article yet)... what if women did have the power to act upon those feelings? Would hating men still be OK? If yes, why? If no, then why is it OK for them to hate men without power? Either way it looks like hate begets hate and is no solution to the problem.

Why didn't you read the article before replying? It is quite short and I thought rather gentle.

Because I was at work when replying.

Mohammed, 11, wanted a residence permit from Santa Claus - now he is going to be expelled
There was no residence permit for Mohammed that he wanted for Christmas. Although he was born and raised in Sweden he has to go to a completely foreign country.
Daniel Johansson, Head of the Migration Board's management process unit, explained earlier for the Metro that you do not have the right to reside in Sweden just for being born here.
- In general, if you look from the child's perspective, you have created a more life here as you become older. When you are little you relate mostly to the parents. Thus, the adaptation rate is less when you are little.

http://www.metro.se/nyheter/mohammed-11-onskade-sig-uppehallstillstand-i-julklapp-nu-ska-han-utvisas/EVHock!tz6vO3TOYyVM/

They should be deported to Lebanon which is now not even longer able to accept refugees from Syria!!!

If one lived and worked in Sweden a decade and several of the children were born in Sweden why the helvete would not they get a residence permit and Swedish citizenship.
No, keep all ISIS supporters and criminals who faces prison in there home country just to feel sorry for them.
Out with those who behave. What a jävla idiocy.

Deport Daniel Johansson to Russia!!!
Daniel Johansson. Take some lessons in Russia. You will need it.
Даниэль Йоханссон хуйло

You are missing out on the fundamental difference between men and women. The power balance. Which is what the article is about. I don't know if you've been reading this thread, but there is an endless litany of horrific acts committed against women simply because they are women. Those women may well hate men..but in the end, they don't have the power. The women are not the ones listed in this thread committing these violent acts.

Well obviously they are not listed here because this thread is specifically about horrifying acts against women.

There is the thought and then there is the deed. Women's love of men or women's hatred of men is immaterial to what is happening. Women's feelings about what happens to them is immaterial because they do not wield the power that can enable to act on those feelings in the same way a man can. That is the point of the article.

I disagree. Yes, there is a power difference, but that power difference is at its most minimal on the individual level. Everyone can grab a knife, bat or gun and use it against another person. If a women wants to, she can just as easily go on a shooting spree as a guy. And on the individual level its even possible that the women holds more power over the man than the other way around. Domestic violence perpetrated by women is a real thing. So lets not pretend that women are incapable of violence against men, because that is just not true.

lol..I think you missed the point of the article.

If misogyny is so embedded in society, why does it matter what women do? Men will hurt us either way.

In the end, men need to start policing themselves and other men. Or should all the women who've been victimised (as shown again and again in this thread) cry "please like us, please don't hurt us"? Because that is clearly really effective.

It matters what Feminists do. They are much like the civil rights movement, an attack on the status quo, they seek to dismantle century old power structures and those that now profit from those power structures will seek to keep Feminists down. And if you go around 'ironically' hating men, you are literally handing those in power tools to keep Feminists out. If Feminists want to actually create a society where men and women are treated as equals, they will need to be beyond reproach. They must not give anyone at the top any easy excuse to marginalize or ignore Feminists. Sure, they will try so either way, but why the hell would we make it easier for them?

When you don't have power it doesn't matter what you do. The end result is the same.

That is the point of the article.

It matters what you do when you want change.