Racists Mad that Miss America is an Indian-American

Yeah it's sexist because this guy can't be a model. Affirmative action now!

Carl's Jr commercials are species-ist - they objectify animals by portraying them as tasty treats only to be fried and served up on a bun!

He needs to get acquainted with the definition of "sexist"

Sexist definition - prejudice or discrimination based on sex

The only way a person could claim that it's "sexist" is because it's for "women only" - but if someone wants to campaign for men to be able to enter "Mrs America", or campaign for women to be able to enter "Mr Universe" - then that's stupid - they should just go start their own competition instead of demanding affirmative action

 

They are valued on their skill, not strength, though strength helps. This is why most of your QBs are not giants. That is a competition, an actual competition, with a clear victor based on points gained by the rules of the game, traveling a ball into the end zone or kicked through the uprights. They are NOTHING alike. Try again.

 

Not really - a guy born with genes for a larger physic with is going to be better at football simply because of genetics.

The don't make "millions" because of their skill, they make it because that's what it's decided they're worth. Pro-athletes didn't used to make nearly as much as they do now.

It is actually - being "hot" generally requires being in good physical shape - ex. for a man, it might require bodybuilding and gain muscle mass or definition, while for a woman it might require strict dieting and exercising. People who let themselves get 200 lbs overweight are generally perceived as "less hot" - and that's their choice if they don't want to take care of their body.

Meeting the criteria for actually being on the show requires a lot of skill at self-discipline - a person who sits on their ass all day cramming down big macs and french fries, all the while whining and sniveling that they "aren't hot enough" to be on the show only has themselves to blame. Get off their ass, get on the treadmill, and hold off on the fast food and they might actually be "hot enough" - who knows?

I already did - I quoted you the actual definition of "sexism" - that alone debunked your entire premise - I'm just having fun now

 

Until these women are FORCED to compete, there is nothing sexist about it. They all choose to do it, so if they're not insulted by competing, no one else is ALLOWED to be insulted, since their opinions mean diddly squat. The only opinions that matter are the contestants. Everyone else can go complain to a mirror, because that's the only other person listening.

Now if women are forced to compete in these contests just to go to school for example, then the feminazis might have a point. Until men are physically dragging these women onto stages, just so they can transition into the next phase of their lives, complaints, to quote Big Bang Theory....are all hokum.

Life is sexist and unfair. Better looking, taller people generally have a MUCH easier life or at least, opportunities for it to be easier. Don't hate on them for using those advantages. Use whatever advantageous YOU have to out-do them....if you can=)

 

So again, football is sexist because because insists that men conform to sexually stereotyped gender roles regarding athleticism - a guy who's 90 lbs can't play football - why can't the little guys play football? yawn...

You demonstrated that you have no (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idea what you are talking about way more aptly than have, yeah

There's nothing more "beta male" than a guy, or at least an adult whining about "hot women" - I realized how "beta male" that sounded when I was a teenager - it just screams repression and envy

And yeah, you'll notice how none of these whiny guys ever sit and rail against football or pro sports being "sexist against men", for reinforcing stereotypical gender roles about male athleticism, and possibly making the "ittle guy who's not athletic feel bad - lmao

Hint, if it makes you feel bad - change the channel

 

I accept your apology for accusing me of "making up a definition" when in fact I use the defacto standard for the language.

That you do not understand that football is not sexual, might explain your world outlook on alpha and beta males a little better.

 

You actually did not, you quoted a secondary definition, rather than the primary.

sex·ism (skszm)
n.
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

The definition you're apparently using now (2) is a less common and more 'subjective definition than (1) - the actual defacto standard. You're incorrect

Now your equivocating between "sexist" and "sexual", lmao

Football is sexist by the own definition that you quoted - it reenforces and promotes stereotypes about men regarding athleticism, and potentially makes guys with smaller genes or who aren't athletic "feel bad" about themselves

And guess what, I'm not a super athletic guy (I take Taekwondo, but only weigh 130-140 lbs as an adult) and would never have been able to play college/pro football at that weight - and I don't care. I move on with my life, instead of crying and whining about how 'sexist' football is in favor of "bigger guys". If my weight bothered me that much, I'd hit the gym and bulk up instead of sitting around feeling sorry for myself.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Again... you wish to challenge the OED with some bull(*)(*)(*)(*) online dictionary. This is a fools errand. The OED is THE DEFACTO STANDARD on the English language. Do you really not understand the authority of the books? Do you really not get why you have to have a paid account to reference it online?

I have defined the word by the Authority on the language. Any and all attempts to call it "wrong" because dictionary.com or whatever segregates the definition into different clauses... is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. Continuing to try to do so, is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. All of this, being shown you don't know what you are talking about, from YOUR argument... is that somehow alternate definitions are not applicable when using English... is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. You begin, by telling me I don't know what the word means. I defined the word for you... and you found a different definition that is also applicable, but not the FIRST most common usage... and somehow therefore not a reasonable use of the word... is profoundly stupid. Stop arguing with the OED. It defines your world.

The word sexist is implicit of sex, and sexuality. That you do not grasp the concept of treating women like objects is sexist does not exactly surprise me... but your bellicose ramblings in opposition to facts does.

Sexuality is a component of sexism. This seems to be at the root of your inability to understand that competitions of skill, are not equivalent to competitions of beauty. We have GOT to move beyond this stumbling block for your education to continue.

 

The definition you quoted was secondary, that is a fact - in the own image you posted - the first definition was "discrimination based on sex".

But my definition was the FIRST most common usage - yours wasn't. Even in the image you posted, my definition came first - from your image:

(Behavior, language, etc) reflecting the assumption that one sex esp. the female is inferior to the other

This is the most common definition for sexism - quit arguing here.

Um, not it's not.

Disallowing women from voting is a "sexist" law, but it has nothing to do with anything "sexual"

"Sexist" and "sexual" are not the same

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULTS<<<

Not remotely so - what does women's suffrage have to do with "sexuality"? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Skill (aka self-discipline in diet, exercise, etc) is a prerequisite for entering the competition. There's more skill required than there is to become a member of MENSA or a high-IQ society, since the only prerequisite is being born with a high IQ (IQ is not equivalent to knowledge/education).

Not to mention, many other 'competitions' (ex. professional poker, custom car competitions, cooking competitions etc) aren't particularily based on "skill" either.ex. poker is based primarily on luck, and who's to judge whether guy A's ride is more "pimped" than guy B's, or whether guy A's chili is "tastier" than guy B's

So your focus on pageants screams mysogeny, not any serious concern for women, who seem to you to be mindless objects to be held to a lower standard of personal capability than men.


>>>MOD EDIT: INSULTS<<<

 

It's one sentence, but it's divided by a ; mark - indicating that the other definition is secondary and separate

Quit insulting my English when you claimed your definition was the de facto standard, when it's not. The de facto standard definition for "sexist" is "discrimination based on sex".

Bottom line is that you can't explain why a "pageant" is any more "sexist" than football are pro sports are (ex. by objectifying/reinforcing stereotypes about men/women) - and while you single out pagneants for "lack of skill" required, you don't have anything to say about other forms of competitions which aren't skill-based, such as high IQ, professional gambling, cooking contests, custom car shows, etc. You're just obsessed with pageants and with women, and think that two different standards should apply to each sex, that's what it boils down to. So if you're worried about "sexism" - you should start with yourself before moving onto anything else.

I'll be back later to continue this if necessary.

 

Hey CTRL - here's a pageant that you might like better Miss Moral Beauty 2013

 

I can spin volumes explaining why your ignorant grasp of concepts are based in your ignorant grasp of the words which address them in English.

It is A SINGLE SENTENCE which DEFINES the word sexism. Separate definitions are MARKED with NUMBERS or LETTERS. They have been at this a while. They understand how it works. Your unwillingness to understand, or accept being wrong when there is a *******ned image showing you makes it truly pointless to continue with that. If you cannot concede this error, then you are simply a time vampire. Anything further, when you are already so clearly wrong, is a waste of my time. All of this conditional on your belief that a word cannot be appropriately used in context outside of the first definition... want to see how many definitions of "race" there are? In your world, referring to genetic lineage would be "wrong" because the first definition concerns running and competing. I would post a picture, but as you are seemingly illiterate, or do not understand how to use a dictionary, I don't see the point.

If someone who can both read and write would care to take his place in the debate, I am happy to have it.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you think the Burka is sexist?

 

has there BEEN a lot of INDIAN Jihadist activity that Ive MISSED???

was there ever a Jihad Jeraldine* for that matter???

*....sister fo Jihad Johnny aka John Walker Lindh!

 

Yes I believe the Burka is sexist IF AND ONLY IF Women are forced to wear it.

Otherwise who am I to judge what people wear. Have you seen the hipster crowd in LA?

Man if you want to change something please, by all means, change those people.

 

Sorry Ctrl, I have respect for you because usually you post some good stuff to at least consider.

I really can't see what life experiences you have had to say that these patents harm women.

In my opinion, it gives women another outlet to be competitive, aggressive, hard working and driven. This is something out entire country needs badly.

If you want to be a garbage man, be the best damn trash pickerupper you can!

If you want to be a finance expert, make that paper yo!

Professional sports player, win that title!

DJ or rapper, aim for the top of the charts baby!

This is no different, another profession with certain aspects that draw people to it, like physical beauty.

K, I'm done. Good stuff though Ctrl appreciate others opinions.

 

I am not calling for change. I just call a spade a spade.

It is rooted in repressive religious social stereotyping. Women are second class citizens in these parts of the world. They cannot be educated, or tasked with demanding tasks like driving... they are implicit of a society in which marriages are arranged... sex cannot be denied, and infidelity of a woman is met with stoning... or even an accusation. It symbolizes the lack of basic human rights of women. Someone brought up suffrage... the application is the same. Women transitioned from being property, to people... long after black men. It has to do with physical prowess, and subjugation. Throughout most of our history, there was no such thing as rape between a husband and wife... or a woman deemed provocative... it is an overall belief in the worth of a person and their views, beyond their appearance and implicit "value" as a sexual object.

The burka is iconic, because it is believed by the wearer to demonstrate humility before the Almighty, and before His representatives on Earth... men... the God of women. It is all rooted in sexuality. There is a reason the term sex is taxonomically correct, and gender is not. No different than the Bible mind you... which is why suffrage took so long.

It is not only sexist if you are forced to wear it... it is sexist most especially when it is chosen of a womans free will... as it indicates her acceptance of her role of subjugation. The women in these pageants celebrate their objectification... that is what makes these displays of sexism, where they are judged by men on their overall hotness... the saddest displays of it.

The woman in the center of a gangbang is the tragedy... not that guys want to (*)(*)(*)(*) her. That is what we are programmed for. That she participates in the degradation for money makes me sad.

 

We don't have to always agree... and I am a damn fine looking man, who comes from long lines of damn fine looking women, in Texas. I am related to more beauty queens than enter a Miss America pageant. Love them dearly... still find it sexist and degrading.

 

Yes, we are done here, since, instead of acknowledging my point you decided to be literal, ignoring my point.

Would you feel better if I changed it to:

More grits are sold in the South than the North

???

 

Check out this link - it's really good: http://www.hmss.com/films/memory/

This is also good: http://www.jamesbondwiki.com/page/Timothy+Dalton

 

So different means "inferior" The dumbed down leftist way of thinking is sad.

 

We're not discussing the content of the girl's speeh: We are discussing the faulty analogy you drew between her voluntary position and the new girl's involuntary skin color.

 

What's the problem again? I see no issue.

 

Your point was that it would not be prejudice to say that more pickup trucks are sold in the South--as a logical extension to Montoya's position that "there are more racists in the South." You engaged in stereotyping. That is, you made an assumption with no data to back up your claim. If having a factual debate as opposed to repeating commonly-held stereotypes constitutes "going literal," then I'm guilty.

I'd feel better if you offered some factual evidence to support your claims.