Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

ValentineWiggin a fellow feminist is the only one making since and so Is Vigilans but that doens't shock me at all they usally do.

you are misquoting them they where talking about the views of diffrent cultures good try though you almost made sense.

Joker, if you don't have anything to add, I'm sure both Vigilans and Valentine can manage to hold their own without their resident cheerleader.

Use punctuation. You were almost making sense.

The definition of "culturalization" according to dictionary.com is "to expose or subject to the influence of culture." It doesn't involve observing changes in behavior after the incident. Commercials, TV-Shows etc, all appeal to our base biology. Hence why Sex sells.

Female genitial mutilation serves the purpose of preventing cuckoldry, which is something that is extremely destructive in a low resource situation. For a male who thinks he's passing on his genes (which is the sole purpose of his existence) to be in fact ensuring the survival of another man's child is a costly process which has no reward for the cuckold on a biological level. In this context, it makes sense to prevent women from having sex with males other than the one that will be the father of her children. We see this in a few species of Apes where a new male will murder the previous male's children in order to ensure that only his own remain alive and thus get a higher survival chance.

Infanticide exists in a wide variety of species, usually in connection with the the choice being "Mother" or "Child" lives. For instance, it makes perfect sense for a mother to smother her child in order to save herself provided that she is able to have more children from a selfish gene perspective. It's a risk analysis of sorts, "What are the odds of this child surviving without its mother?" Zero, "What are the odds of the mother surviving without the child and can then produce a new child?" Greater than zero. Perfect logic.

In the case of female infanticide, it makes sense if seen within a paradigm with limited resources where a male child will bring greater benefits then a female child. In essence, if the value represented by the female child, plus the cost already incurred by having the female child is smaller than the value represented by having another child, with the risk that it too could be female, then it makes perfect sense to kill off the female child and have a do-over.

I don't ignore entire fields on study based on what they say, I ignore them based on their merit. Sociology is the scientific equivalent of eugenics, it's not objective, bases itself on non-objective methods that can easily be manipulated and serves as a field for people who cannot hack it in real science like mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry and so on. In other fields of science, people can be proven wrong, in sociology its always a matter of debate because nothing can be objectively proven as true. Sociology is the kind of science where one can state that "In the 100 societies that were part of this study, 95 were male dominated, however this has nothing to do with biology, this is all due to culture." and not be laughed out of the room.

Assuming that the argument is going to be the same now as it has been for 80 pages, it goes something like this: "We cannot establish how much of behavior is nature and how much is learned, so we're going to go with that a majority of it is related to culture without having any evidence for it, while requiring anyone else that has a different view present evidence to back it up." As in "The women who are now picking what to study and then entering the workforce who have never experienced sexism are making the same choices as their mothers to an even greater degree, so we're going to assume this has to do with culture telling them to do so, rather than perhaps conceding that biology may play a huge part."

I haven't read this thread, so it's not obvious for me.

Maybe we should have single sex bathrooms too. I wonder when the brick and mortar stores are going to warm up the public to this idea to cut down the cost of having two bathrooms.

The child living does make sense you bringing up the fact that the child was saved and the partens died is irrelivant because the parents got to live their life.

Many people try to claim that a woman's job is in the home, taking care of the house, children, and their husband's needs far beyond their own. And while it is true that they should have a part in all of this (as should a husband), a lot of women choose to or must work outside of the home to help provide for their families. Less than a hundred years ago women had barely any rights, and now we are closer to the same level as men. This is a huge advancement that you should be proud of. Women also have needs, too. When they have had a hard day at work or are feeling down, they should be able to guiltlessly enjoy themselves and have "me" time.

Women are easily controlled and manipulated. They are emotionally based creatures who's thought process governs what they feel.

Men are stronger and more logical. They can use there strength to over power a women.

A good man will use his strength to protect a women and his logic to care and maintain her life and there children.

Bad men abuse that power because men naturally see women as beautiful and something they must have and use there strength and power for lust.

So I believe that it is biological.

I'm happy in my life. Whats wrong with that?

I have plenty to add and I am no cheerleader either say what you want but why are you all so afriad of strong independent women and against womens rights in America and not just third world countries cheri.

I'm all for strong, independent women, but Western Feminists rarely are, they spend too much time complaining about how they are unable to do things because of the suppression they feel from a societal structure, which somehow generates a state of passive repression, all the while actual strong, independent, women are out doing all the things the Western Feminists complain about not being able to do. Funnily enough, and this is a personal observation, I deal with people from all over the world on a daily basis in my job, men and women. I've rarely met a feminist amongst the women who have gone far up the ranks of the corporate world, yet if I step onto a Campus anywhere in the Western World, you'd think that I'd made up the story about all those women who succeed in business.

I'm also all for equal rights, no exceptions. I'm even for equal pay for equal work, experience, competence and so on. I'm the actual gender equality advocate here, I'm for literal equality in every single respect, which means that a person should be treated as gender neutral in every respect. My main issue with "Western Feminism" is the preoccupation with a societal structure that supposedly represses them. This is a bit strange of a concept for me, since it requires a person to assume that a system can be innately repressive, even when laws dictate that that very repression is illegal. It becomes a bit like the government handing out automatic rifles after a full on weapons ban has been put in effect.

Overall, there is just a tendency to ascribe certain things to a bias against women before ruling out every other option. There is the obsessing with "gender-based" violence, when the focus should be on violence period. Furthermore, this has a way of drawing focus away from the men of the country, out of whom quite a few have it worse than the majority of women. It's one of those statistics things, where women tend to gather around the middle, whereas men are more spread out along the spectrum. I don't think there should exist anything like "Women's rights", there should just be "rights".

I suspect that what you refer to as "Strong, independent women" are in fact the type that I think of as "Martyrs".

The women in my family do not fit into your views of western women also my mother had the same job as my father and was payed more because she worked harder then my dad.

Also my cousin emily is a volentire firefighter and can run the course faster then the out of shape men she works with.

My sister is a cop and makes more arrests then most men do at her work.

Also are you american? If not how come you view all western women as any diffrent then women from thrid world countries.

I didn't say "Western Women" I said "Western Feminists", not all feminists are women and not all women are feminists. Your mother was paid more, because she worked more, if she had worked the exact same hours as him, would she have been paid the same money, because that's what equality means. It should also include being paid based on quality of work more than anything else. Does your cousin have to carry the same pack as the male firefighters? Furthermore, is making arrests the sole way to measure a cop's work? For all I know she could be putting hundreds of kids in Maximum Security prisons for smoking pot. I don't know, because you are telling a story according to your own subjective perception without fleshing out details.



Because women in third world countries are fighting to get their HUMAN rights, women in the western world are generally fighting for "WOMEN'S" rights. I don't view all women from the western world as one and the same, they are individuals. I just tend to side with the individuals that put in the time needed to reach their goal, rather than complain to have that goal made easier for them. To use your story about the firewoman and policewoman, in the country where I live, your firewoman cousin would carry a much lighter pack than her male counterparts and has a longer time to complete the course. Your cop sister, would get less strenuous physical tests than her male counterparts, meaning that she doesn't have to fill the same physical requirements to speed, conditioning and strength as her male colleagues.