Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

In response to the phrase I bolded: Or, simply because the hormonal makeup of most women (most, not all) makes them less bold than most men (most, not all), and therefore most women are less inclined to put themselves out there before the public as being promiscuous. You yourself are bolder than average in that respect, and I get that, and I don't think it's anomalous. I don't think there's something invalid about a woman being bold, aggressive, or assertive.

You often make the point that not all women are unable to equal or surpass "men" (which should be phrased "some men", in order to be consistent; men are no more monolithic than women) in this or that area of ability. I fully accept that, and always have understood it. Scientific conclusions are reductions of data into general principles, because conclusions are designed to wrap up tons of data into basic points. These conclusions are thus humanly-drawn, but they're drawn as scientifically and objectively as possible. General conclusions have specific exceptions -- we all accept that. They're still valid as general conclusions, even while they have exceptions. I had a liberal friend who said that every time you use "most" in a sentence and follow it with a people group, you're stereotyping. Which, if that were always the case, would mean that no sociological statement would ever be able to be made, and thus human communication would be impossible on the subject, due to us humans not having infinite time to convey each and every datum individually in a billion-word monologue. I mean, the sun would go up and down several times while the person was talking.



This I agree with, because the women I know have slept with more men than the men that I know have slept with women. (The women's numbers are usually double digits, and the men's are single digits -- this is just my experience.)

Seems like polygamy would be a step up in class/maturity for any hardcore player -- like King Solomon seems to have been. I mean, if you at least take care of your women and are there for them, you're not as scummy as the love-em-and-leave-em kind of man. Still, you can't really "be there for" 1,000 women, in Solomon's case. He seems to have been a good guy, he just really, really, really liked sex.

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 Apr 2012, 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Solomon preferred love.

As I said, feminism does not mean gender equality. I oppose feminism in the western world because it's against gender equality at the moment, with women given more rights at the expense of men.
If a set percentage of corporate executives have to be women, businesses are forced by law to discriminate against men who are more competent or suitable for that role.
That's not exactly gender equality to me - no law forbids women from being in those functions, but soon, a law will force businesses to hire only a certain percentage of men.

Now, I'd like to take a break from this argumentation in order to ask something. Why is it that, when I provide citations, examples or just logic, they're immediately dismissed as being false or too comprehensive? I'm not forcing anyone to respond to them, just asking in as friendly a way I can. Don't forget, also, that anyone has several weeks to respond to them for what I care - sometimes, I take several-day breaks from discussions as I'm simply too busy to respond.
So, I'll provide some of my viewpoints once more, with citations linked. Instead of immediately dismissing them, I urge everyone to think about them for a while, respond to them if necessary, and keep the discussion polite.

The European Union has plans to force companies to hire a set percentage of women for high-level jobs.
Note, though: not for any dangerous or physically intensive jobs, which are, relatively speaking, held even more often by men and, contrary to high-level jobs, often have actual problems finding suitable employees.

There is plenty of domestic violence against men, with some estimates saying it's an amount equal to that against women. However, the issue is refused research funding, male victims are openly ridiculed for being weak or hated for supposedly having driven their partners to violence, and female perpetrators are often seen as having mental health issues, or even as victims.
Note, though: if men use violence against women, even in response to those women's violence against them, they've suddenly turned into ruthless criminals in society's eyes.

If you want to know more about the reasons for the gender wage gap, and have time off from work (which is one of the reasons mentioned - part time generally pays less even in relation to the amount of hours), read this.

Acceptance through falsification of acceptance.

And that would make women happy, huh?

"You didn't do as good in our competence comparison as this man we're also interviewing, but good news -- you're a woman, so you're in!" Oh, wait, that's the definition of gender discrimination, and therefore a hollow victory for the woman and an insult to her -- like she rides the short bus because she's a woman, so she needs an extra helping hand in life. Proves the opposite of what feminism aims to prove.

You also need to add that when this is done and things happen such as female bank managers being more likely to lose your money than their male equivalents http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... isk-taking it reflects poorly on women. This story says "Women who were less qualified than their male colleagues on the same level took higher risk" which again makes forcing women into positions a poor idea in the workplace.

The qualifications should matter not gender. Who gives a crap if 50% of the board members or executives are female if they are less qualified than their male colleagues and thus wreck the performance of the company?

So then its not the fact that it is feminism that your against but western women gotcha.

I happen to know that parts of what TM is true but any gender regardless if it is male or female can lose your money at the bank NOT just women.

True. Less-qualified women lose more money than more-qualified men, and less-qualified men lose more money than more-qualified women. That's what he's saying. The fact that she is a female means zero.

Then we both can agree and yes the fact she is female does mean zero. Moral of the story anyone can lose of be bad with money.

What a feminist thing to say.

Ya know that is what one would say Blunnet very interesting choice of words for Ragtime.

Could one of you explain?

Well for the fact that you stated because she is a women means zero. Is in fact some what feminist theory and did sound that way.

True, it's one of the various facets of feminist theory which is mutually misaligned and contradictory to many of the others. Feminism is a freelance undertaking, which is defined in the moment, and has as its only consistent premise the notion that women rule. The notion I stated is actually not popular in feminism at all: that people's competence should be measured and the people treated accordingly. No, most feminists prefer advantages given to women.

True I agree but as of late it's more about being treated as a perosn not as a women their gender means nothing they are people just like us and deserve the same liberty.