By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Belgian man convicted for sexism, will be jailed if fine isn't paid, Under new law.

 

I find this...

Funny. 10 16.39%
 
Absurd. 20 32.79%
 
Scary. 16 26.23%
 
Sexist. 7 11.48%
 
Indifferent/comments... 8 13.11%
 
Total:61
super_etecoon on 18 March 2018
John2290 said:
Peh said:

We make our own reality.

The less muscles presented in the feminine body is not the issue here, at all. What else do you think makes us so distinctive from other living organism on this planet which are way stronger than we are? Our intelligence. What we can't solve with physics we use tools. A taser would suffice in such a situation. Too bad none of these women had one.  

Do you know where the term "right" origins from and what I am even implying? I don't think so. 

Also, a law will be made if there is a need to protect people from other ones. Otherwise, there is no reason for it. Seeing that Belgium went the mile in creating this one and seeing it being actually applied by your OP, shows what kind of mentally some people hold out there. It's actually really sad. 

You can't be series, are you denying women are less physically strong than men and that this can be made truth if we believe it. 

If there was a gang warfare going on in your neighbourhood that directly effected you and posed a real threat, big strong gang member with knuckle dusters attacking random people. Would you want a 75% women to 25% male police force or 75 % men to 25 % female? Women, deserve a place in law enforcement but like in the Army, not on the frontline. Physical strength is not redundant because we are able to build tools, it may well be in the far future but right now we still need police who have at least some ability to fight off an attacker and actually protect the public, not be placeholders to call for male backup when shit gets tough cause at that rate all they are doing is taking male jobs

The largest city near me (100,000), and the namesake of our county, is ran by a female police chief.  She does an amazing job and I certainly wouldn't take issue with her protecting me in a criminal situation.  She is very highly trained and has an assortment of tools to do her job, including a firearm, tazer, baton, pepper spray, handcuffs, and all of the support of her fellow officers, be they male or female.  Brute force is often not an important factor of police procedure and the size of an officer doesn't suggest to me their ability to perform their duties.  It is merely an aspect of the assets that make them prepared for their line of work. In addition to the strengths of this police chief that I mentioned before, she is also very active in the community and regularly attends community events to hear from the people she represents.

You are trying to justify chauvinism and I know you often wish for a simpler time when gender roles were more well defined and based on the thousands of years of oppression that women have had to endure at the hands of vicious men and societies.  I'm not man-shaming; I'm calling it like it is. The strength of the average male does put them in a greater level of power, but brute strength is one of the many attributes that has helped the human race become the super species it is.  In time we will continue to grow more and we will see gender roles become even more blurred as women don't deny themselves the right to achieve stereotypical male-centric roles, and men will do the same.

Finally, I'll leave you with these pictures of strong, powerful women that I would never desire to meet in a dark alley with bad intent.



Around the Network
forest-spirit on 18 March 2018
John2290 said:
Peh said:

We make our own reality.

The less muscles presented in the feminine body is not the issue here, at all. What else do you think makes us so distinctive from other living organism on this planet which are way stronger than we are? Our intelligence. What we can't solve with physics we use tools. A taser would suffice in such a situation. Too bad none of these women had one.  

Do you know where the term "right" origins from and what I am even implying? I don't think so. 

Also, a law will be made if there is a need to protect people from other ones. Otherwise, there is no reason for it. Seeing that Belgium went the mile in creating this one and seeing it being actually applied by your OP, shows what kind of mentally some people hold out there. It's actually really sad. 

You can't be series, are you denying women are less physically strong than men and that this can be made truth if we believe it. 

If there was a gang warfare going on in your neighbourhood that directly effected you and posed a real threat, big strong gang member with knuckle dusters attacking random people. Would you want a 75% women to 25% male police force or 75 % men to 25 % female? Women, deserve a place in law enforcement but like in the Army, not on the frontline. Physical strength is not redundant because we are able to build tools, it may well be in the far future but right now we still need police who have at least some ability to fight off an attacker and actually protect the public, not be placeholders to call for male backup when shit gets tough cause at that rate all they are doing is taking male jobs.

Aha, so that's the big issue here. Telling a police officer to shut up and calling her a whore should go unpunished because it's just freedom of speech. But women working as police officers, in the fields!? Now that's a serious offence! Can't have that, just look at that video of three female officers messing up. That was completely because of their gender and is fully representative of all policewomen.



Cobretti2 on 18 March 2018

How is that sexism?

He called her a dirty whore and was using other abusive language.

Isn't that considered slander (because it is false) and disturbing the public. You don't need to break down laws into micro laws when slander is generic enough to cover that guys verbal insults.



 

 

Seventizz on 18 March 2018
DarthMetalliCube said:
Seventizz said:
Canada will soon have anti islamaphobia laws aka blasphemy. It’ll get to the point that if we say anything negative about the religion, we’ll get fined and if you don’t pay your fine, you can go to jail.

Misgendering someone in Ontario is already against the law.

Liberals are hell bent on ruining society. Flirting is practically a crime today.

This shit isn't liberalism, it's Authoritarianism wrapped in phony "progressiveism" and virtue signaling. The modern form of far left Authoritarianism which has consumed most of the left these days.. I'm a liberal and I'm strongly opposed to these sorts of legislation.

If these guys go unopposed, it won't be long until we're all walking around like zombies, with complete fear of interacting with eachother, completely glued to out gadgets and divorced from almost any sort of humanity. No comradery, or real relationships, no one trusting or having companionship with one another. All just fending for themselves, completely reliant on the state. This is what the powers that be want, and I already see the early signs of it.. Thankfully I'll probably be dead in the 50-60 years I think it'll take to fully manifest but it's definitely the direction I see us heading little by little.

Actually, it is liberalism as it was our Liberal government, tabled by our feminist Prime Minister brought forth these motions.  You might want to check your political affiliations because this is what liberals are today.  Maybe you're a libertarian and don't even know it.



StarOcean on 18 March 2018
Louie said:
StarOcean said:

That’s literally all there is to being a feminist. If you think there’s more to it than that, you have problems, bud. And of course I’m a mens right activist. You know that spreading your legs in New York subways can get you fined or even pulled off a train? That law only applies to men. That’s an unfair law. I’m also very much pro-fair social system. And being for a fair social system hardly qualifies anyone as a Democrat. 

So you’re essentially saying it is a political view that women get equal rights to men? That’s not a political stance, that’s called being a sexist, still. If you are among the people who think feminist means dying your hair blue and cutting it short while advocating for the “some are more equal than others” approach -I had better not ever see any hypocrisy over how you feel about gun owners, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc that all have bad and extremists among them. Feminism and feminists are different things. Ones a concept which I highly doubt you don’t support. Feminists are people, many of them flawed and have warped ideas of what feminism truly is.   

Well, so we basically agree but argue over semantics then? That's fine with me. I still wouldn't call myself a feminist because modern day feminism goes way beyond arguing for equal rights, as you pointed out in your manspreading example. It's not people like me who dragged the word "feminism" through the mud, it's the radical people who will define feminism as equality between the sexes and then say we can only reach equality by making laws against manspreading (happened in Madrid and Berlin, too) and banning grid girls in Formula 1 (thus, taking away women's right to choose their job, based on a political opinion).

I get what you are saying about real feminism but when those radical people make the laws (and at least in Germany, are among the heads of three major political parties which constitute 40% of the parliament seats), maybe the dictionary needs to change its definition then. Or we should politely ask the radicals not to identify as feminists, but that won't be happening I think. 

And I absolutely think that "women should have the right to vote in a democracy" is a political view. It may be a well-established view that doesn't get debated anymore, but sure it is - it answers the question how our political system should work, after all. It also stems from the traditions of liberalism and social democracy (in Europe), which are two of the big political ideologies of the past few hundred years (besides conservatism).  Of course, I was actually talking about radical feminism and if you want I can change my argument to this: "Radical, third wave feminism is a political view and shouldn't be treated as gospel or taught in schools, just as we shouldn't teach social democracy or communism or nationalism as being 'correct' in schools." But again, now we are arguing over semantics and definitions. It's a fun discussion, nonetheless! 

When people argue with me they often find I agree with what they say, it’s mostly how it is said or presented that bothers me. I believe I’m more reasonable than most may assume.

I agree with radicals making laws. A right wing equivalent of the feminist would be the NRA. Their platform of hating any and all gun reform (that likely would not affect them) makes them tear down even the most reasonable of proposed gun regulation. Making many pro-gun handlers look bad -even when studies show many gun owners are more than okay with reasonable reform. The radicals should not be making law, left/right -period.

I may not necessarily buy that view but I can respect it. As for schools teaching 3rd wave feminism and similar ideas, I agree they shouldn’t. Unfortunately though, things such as communism, facism, nationalism, etc will always have a bias due to teachers all being flawed. Rationale and independent thinking needs to be encouraged so that people can make their own conclusions.



Around the Network
Aura7541 on 18 March 2018
Seventizz said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

This shit isn't liberalism, it's Authoritarianism wrapped in phony "progressiveism" and virtue signaling. The modern form of far left Authoritarianism which has consumed most of the left these days.. I'm a liberal and I'm strongly opposed to these sorts of legislation.

If these guys go unopposed, it won't be long until we're all walking around like zombies, with complete fear of interacting with eachother, completely glued to out gadgets and divorced from almost any sort of humanity. No comradery, or real relationships, no one trusting or having companionship with one another. All just fending for themselves, completely reliant on the state. This is what the powers that be want, and I already see the early signs of it.. Thankfully I'll probably be dead in the 50-60 years I think it'll take to fully manifest but it's definitely the direction I see us heading little by little.

Actually, it is liberalism as it was our Liberal government, tabled by our feminist Prime Minister brought forth these motions.  You might want to check your political affiliations because this is what liberals are today.  Maybe you're a libertarian and don't even know it.

You're using "liberal" more as a label than as a descriptor, though. Authoritarianism opposes the concept of liberalism. Libertarianism and liberalism have some overlaps, but they are not one and the same. The philosophy of libertarianism has more to do with government interventionism. People who are hardcore libertarian greatly oppose the existence of government.



ironmanDX on 18 March 2018
CrazyGamer2017 said:

Oh shit I'm Belgian so I'd better be careful when talking to the ladies... Oh wait I don't talk to ladies or men or anyone in the streets as I always mind my own business.
Still, to avoid any confrontation that might be interpreted as sexist, I must totally ignore women just to be safe.

Ignore women like they don't exist or matter?

That sounds like a serious violation of another persons dignity because of their gender. Off to jail with thee.

 

That vague wording though.



xxbrothawizxx63 on 18 March 2018

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy for a reason. You shouldn't be able to insult someone in this manner without possible recourse.

He was wrong, and he got fined. Seems simple to me. This thought police crap is ridiculous even if I understand the concern.



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
John2290 said:
Peh said:

We make our own reality.

The less muscles presented in the feminine body is not the issue here, at all. What else do you think makes us so distinctive from other living organism on this planet which are way stronger than we are? Our intelligence. What we can't solve with physics we use tools. A taser would suffice in such a situation. Too bad none of these women had one.  

Do you know where the term "right" origins from and what I am even implying? I don't think so. 

Also, a law will be made if there is a need to protect people from other ones. Otherwise, there is no reason for it. Seeing that Belgium went the mile in creating this one and seeing it being actually applied by your OP, shows what kind of mentally some people hold out there. It's actually really sad. 

You can't be series, are you denying women are less physically strong than men and that this can be made truth if we believe it. 

If there was a gang warfare going on in your neighbourhood that directly effected you and posed a real threat, big strong gang member with knuckle dusters attacking random people. Would you want a 75% women to 25% male police force or 75 % men to 25 % female? Women, deserve a place in law enforcement but like in the Army, not on the frontline. Physical strength is not redundant because we are able to build tools, it may well be in the far future but right now we still need police who have at least some ability to fight off an attacker and actually protect the public, not be placeholders to call for male backup when shit gets tough cause at that rate all they are doing is taking male jobs.

 

"You can't be series, are you denying women are less physically strong than men"

if that's really the case how do you account for women like rhonda roussey? who blow your whole theory out of the water?



o_O.Q on 19 March 2018
StarOcean said:
Louie said:

Yeah, that's precisely the problem with this! A few months back I read an interview in a german newspaper with two leading female politicians from the social democratic party. They discussed in seriousness whether "a hand on the knee" should count as sexual assault and be punishable by law. I doubt the people who are in uproar about this want women naked and in the kitchen - but the boundaries are being pushed all the time. Just look at the stupid "consent" debate: First we had "no means no", then "yes means yes" and now we seriously have politicians (especially in frontrunner countries like Sweden) that think women should be able to retroactively withdraw consent and concept like "enthusiastic consent", just in case the woman said yes but didn't really mean it. It's a slippery slope argument and that's the problem with it - especially considering how quick things move in one direction. The question no one asks is: Why can't government just stay out of minor things? Do we really need the state to punish someone for using the "wrong" pronouns? And why do we ignore that feminism is a political view, like socialism or libertarianism? Would we jail people or fine them a hefty sum for "questioning libertarianism"? Would we try to teach our children to be social democrats? 

Lol “feminism is a political view”. Only if you actually are a sexist. It is defined as, “the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.” I don’t really care for anecdotal stories you have or similar such drivel. But that is what feminism is by it’s very definition. Do you not believe women should possess equal rights? That’s all it is. Other things are layers of garbage added by sexists by the left and right. I don’t see the equality of women as a political view though, more of a rational one 

what rights do women not possess?