Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    None of the signs shown made sense, the celibrity speeches (Ashley Judd and Madonna in particular) were dreadful.

    These women don't reflect the thoughts of all women in the US. 50% of women in the US are pro-life, and are more certainly distributed across the political board - most are DNC than GOP, I suspect.

    It was just really confusing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclePath)
    None of the signs shown made sense, the celibrity speeches (Ashley Judd and Madonna in particular) were dreadful.

    These women don't reflect the thoughts of all women in the US. 50% of women in the US are pro-life, and are more certainly distributed across the political board - most are DNC than GOP, I suspect.

    It was just really confusing.
    It's not exactly rocket science, to be fair. What about it didn't you get?

    Want to show some examples of signs and we can help you figure out what they mean?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclePath)
    None of the signs shown made sense, the celibrity speeches (Ashley Judd and Madonna in particular) were dreadful.

    These women don't reflect the thoughts of all women in the US. 50% of women in the US are pro-life, and are more certainly distributed across the political board - most are DNC than GOP, I suspect.

    It was just really confusing.
    And the 'Million man march' didn't reflect all men in the US either, doesn't mean they couldn't say what affected them.
    I'm puzzled by your puzzlement.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, the radbid marching feminists are no more than a far-left, extremist fringe group. Thankfully most women are actually sensible and support Trump.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Len Goodman)
    Yes, the radbid marching feminists are no more than a far-left, extremist fringe group. Thankfully most women are actually sensible and support Trump.
    Most women supported Clinton.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...r_demographics
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There are enough claims with video proof to reasonably claim that (unless for some weird reason you are one his stooges) he values women for their superficial character.

    When you have this kind of a sexist ballbag as your president you should **** yourself for wondering why some women have an issue with his new found power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Thankfully most women are actually sensible and support Trump.[/QUOTE]

    Sensible? What sensible person would support a man who says that he'd date his own daughter
    Spoiler:
    Show

    i quoted this wrong oops
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    It's not exactly rocket science, to be fair. What about it didn't you get?

    Want to show some examples of signs and we can help you figure out what they mean?
    I'd first like you to explain to me Ashley Judd's "Nasty women" speech.

    I'd also like you to explain this sign:



    I'm assuming "they" are men... but we pay for our razors lol


    It just seems to me that the march wasn't really about women's rights that may be under threat from Trump's administration, it was just a very large number of women with "pussy hats" walking around shouting "pussy".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGoodPharaoh)
    Thankfully most women are actually sensible and support Trump.
    Sensible? What sensible person would support a man who says that he'd date his own daughter
    Spoiler:
    Show


    i quoted this wrong oops


    [/QUOTE]

    Can you explain why 50% of white women voted Trump?

    Are they delusional?

    Or, maybe, do they just have a different opinion - one that didn't resonate with Clinton?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There is no law in the first world that separates men from women. I'd love for them to come to Saudi Arabia (Hillary's best money grounds) etc
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclePath)
    I'd first like you to explain to me Ashley Judd's "Nasty women" speech.

    I'd also like you to explain this sign:



    I'm assuming "they" are men... but we pay for our razors lol


    It just seems to me that the march wasn't really about women's rights that may be under threat from Trump's administration, it was just a very large number of women with "pussy hats" walking around shouting "pussy".
    In many US drugstores items for women are often charged at a higher price that those for men, with no justification as to why. A typical example of this is men's razors being sold for cheaper than the equivalent razors for men.

    Whilst tampons are bizarrely not classed as essentials and so are taxed as if they are luxury items.

    Not rocket science.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    In many US drugstores items for women are often charged at a higher price that those for men, with no justification as to why. A typical example of this is men's razors being sold for cheaper than the equivalent razors for men.

    Whilst tampons are bizarrely not classed as essentials and so are taxed as if they are luxury items.

    Not rocket science.

    No mention of tax on the sign.

    We pay for razors.

    Maybe tampons are more expensive to make?

    Also, why haven't you bothered to explain the speech to me?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclePath)
    No mention of tax on the sign.
    Umm. It's a sign.

    We pay for razors.
    But you believe razors for women should be more expensive simply because they are for women?

    Or are you still wanting a full paragraph on the sign to full explain the meaning?

    Maybe tampons are more expensive to make?
    And that has what to do with tax exactly?

    Also, why haven't you bothered to explain the speech to me?
    Because I haven't listened to it or read it. And also because you aren't confused about the speech.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    In many US drugstores items for women are often charged at a higher price that those for men, with no justification as to why. A typical example of this is men's razors being sold for cheaper than the equivalent razors for men.
    Just did a quick search on the Tesco website to see if this was true. Prices vary depending on brand, and it's hard to find a direct equivalent. That said:

    The cheapest razors were gender neutral
    The second cheapest razor was female specific
    The most expensive was male specific

    So I'm afraid what you've said just isn't' true.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    Whilst tampons are bizarrely not classed as essentials and so are taxed as if they are luxury items.
    I imagine you are aware toilet paper is also taxed as a luxury item?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Trump is evil ! He says nasty things ! He hates women !

    Meanwhile we remain friends with China, Saudi Arabia, Israel etc

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farm_Ecology)
    Just did a quick search on the Tesco website to see if this was true. Prices vary depending on brand, and it's hard to find a direct equivalent. That said:

    The cheapest razors were gender neutral
    The second cheapest razor was female specific
    The most expensive was male specific

    So I'm afraid what you've said just isn't' true.
    This is the kind of idiotic, anecdotal reasoning that results in people defending the health implications of smoking by pointing out that their grandma smoked 40 a day and lived until she was 96.


    I imagine you are aware toilet paper is also taxed as a luxury item?
    I am, and I agree that the point is a complex one. Taxing an item that is necessary and yet only needed by one gender is potentially penalising women, which is the point of the sign, yet what it really does is penalise the poor.

    Toilet paper is used by both genders, though women typically use more, and so could be seen as cancelling out, whilst still essentially penalising the poor.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by offhegoes)
    This is the kind of idiotic, anecdotal reasoning that results in people defending the health implications of smoking by pointing out that their grandma smoked 40 a day and lived until she was 96.
    Do you have any statistics on the different gender-specific razors? I'm curious how they compare them.

    I disagree that it's idiotic or anecdotal. The cheapest razors are clearly gender neutral.

    (Original post by offhegoes)
    I am, and I agree that the point is a complex one. Taxing an item that is necessary and yet only needed by one gender is potentially penalising women, which is the point of the sign, yet what it really does is penalise the poor.

    Toilet paper is used by both genders, though women typically use more, and so could be seen as cancelling out, whilst still essentially penalising the poor.
    But the point is that tampons aren't an exception, and present it as such is disingenuous: hygiene products in general are taxed as luxury items. Granted, its a strange issue to tackle, because there is the glaring difference of biology. It might be unfair that women have periods, but there's not a lot the government can do about that.

    To be, the obvious answer is public restrooms having feminine hygiene products alongside toiletpaper, but that ultimately is up to individual business or whoever manages regulations on public restroom standards.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.