Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Page 44 of 100 [ 1585 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 ... 100  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

30 Mar 2012, 7:09 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.



Lets some proof of YOUR claims. And no, your personal relationships with women and your feelings about them aren't proof of anything other than the fact that you like them because you get along well with them.


I do not proove such claims nor do I speak for women all I'm saying is gender equality is the main goal for women who are feminiist threw out history women have been told they are the weaker sex and are to be ruled by men this is true if you look at past empires from the Roman Persian Prussian and Ottoman empire they viewed women as subjects to men and not as people but more as second class citizens because they where women.



AspieRogue

30 Mar 2012, 7:15 pm

Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.



Lets some proof of YOUR claims. And no, your personal relationships with women and your feelings about them aren't proof of anything other than the fact that you like them because you get along well with them.


I do not proove such claims nor do I speak for women all I'm saying is gender equality is the main goal for women who are feminiist threw out history women have been told they are the weaker sex and are to be ruled by men this is true if you look at past empires from the Roman Persian Prussian and Ottoman empire they viewed women as subjects to men and not as people but more as second class citizens because they where women.


The empires you mentioned were created buy militaristic cultures, which tend to be staunchly patriarchal and treat women poorly. Women have fared far better in aristocratic cultures, and in some of them they have become socially dominant. The Etruscans were matriarchal; as were the Minoans and the Aegean greeks.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

30 Mar 2012, 7:19 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.



Lets some proof of YOUR claims. And no, your personal relationships with women and your feelings about them aren't proof of anything other than the fact that you like them because you get along well with them.


I do not proove such claims nor do I speak for women all I'm saying is gender equality is the main goal for women who are feminiist threw out history women have been told they are the weaker sex and are to be ruled by men this is true if you look at past empires from the Roman Persian Prussian and Ottoman empire they viewed women as subjects to men and not as people but more as second class citizens because they where women.


The empires you mentioned were created by militaristic cultures, which tend to be staunchly patriarchal and treat women poorly. Women have fared far better in aristocratic cultures, and in some of them they have become socially dominant. The Etruscans were matriarchal; as were the Minoans and the Aegean greeks.


This is true a aristocratic cultures treated women well but also do not for get in some way most of Europe and America still have their militaristic culture aspects still intact and that America was to be build as the second Roman Empire politcally most of our governing ideas come from the Roman empire.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Mar 2012, 8:23 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.



Lets some proof of YOUR claims. And no, your personal relationships with women and your feelings about them aren't proof of anything other than the fact that you like them because you get along well with them.


I do not proove such claims nor do I speak for women all I'm saying is gender equality is the main goal for women who are feminiist threw out history women have been told they are the weaker sex and are to be ruled by men this is true if you look at past empires from the Roman Persian Prussian and Ottoman empire they viewed women as subjects to men and not as people but more as second class citizens because they where women.


The empires you mentioned were created buy militaristic cultures, which tend to be staunchly patriarchal and treat women poorly. Women have fared far better in aristocratic cultures, and in some of them they have become socially dominant. The Etruscans were matriarchal; as were the Minoans and the Aegean greeks.

And how many places do we currently have soldiers stationed around the world ...?



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

30 Mar 2012, 8:27 pm

LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.



Lets some proof of YOUR claims. And no, your personal relationships with women and your feelings about them aren't proof of anything other than the fact that you like them because you get along well with them.


I do not proove such claims nor do I speak for women all I'm saying is gender equality is the main goal for women who are feminiist threw out history women have been told they are the weaker sex and are to be ruled by men this is true if you look at past empires from the Roman Persian Prussian and Ottoman empire they viewed women as subjects to men and not as people but more as second class citizens because they where women.


The empires you mentioned were created buy militaristic cultures, which tend to be staunchly patriarchal and treat women poorly. Women have fared far better in aristocratic cultures, and in some of them they have become socially dominant. The Etruscans were matriarchal; as were the Minoans and the Aegean greeks.

And how many places do we currently have soldiers stationed around the world ...?


Currently in Germany England Israel and every state in America has a military base also Japan.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Mar 2012, 8:27 pm

AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
^ not precisely true. In the socialist countries of Northern Europe, people make different amounts of money depending on the amount of, and need for, their work, but the taxation rate is so progressive that it's very difficult for someone to become filthy-rich, and the social services are so good that it's difficult for anyone to be in absolute, grinding poverty.

Where this touches on feminism is that they generally have socialized medical care, meaning that their rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, and infant morbidityand mortality, are extremely low compared to the US. Also they often have structures in place to help new parents: paid parental leave, extensive daycare options, and sometimes even help coming into the home. They do this, in part, as an effort to keep their birth rates up.



As far as keeping their birth rates up, it really does not seem to be working........Not at all. Poverty and organized religion seem to be much more effective and motivating people to breed.

Furthermore, even in liberal, socialist, scandanavia there STILL is a small, wealthy elite that is exempt from the taxation laws that the majority of citizens are subjected to. On the one hand they try to ensure that everyone's basic needs are met, but on the other hand they make it nearly impossible to move up the economic ladder to the top. Economic mobility is a double-edged sword: Anyone can get rich, yet anyone can fall through the cracks and sink into poverty(even homelessness) because there is no safety net.
You are incorrect. There is, in fact, more upward mobility in socialistic countries like Canada and areas like Scandanavia than there is in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-econ ... ted_States



Do you have any other *studies* suggesting that it's easier for someone who grows up without a lot of money to acquire wealth(not just money, but property and capital)in Scandanavia than in the US?

Not sure what the snark is for. Higher income levels in Scandanavia are taxed progressively more, so it is easier for lots of people to be comfortable and more difficult for a few people to become insanely wealthy. Is that what you were asking?



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

30 Mar 2012, 8:30 pm

LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieRogue wrote:
LKL wrote:
^ not precisely true. In the socialist countries of Northern Europe, people make different amounts of money depending on the amount of, and need for, their work, but the taxation rate is so progressive that it's very difficult for someone to become filthy-rich, and the social services are so good that it's difficult for anyone to be in absolute, grinding poverty.

Where this touches on feminism is that they generally have socialized medical care, meaning that their rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, and infant morbidityand mortality, are extremely low compared to the US. Also they often have structures in place to help new parents: paid parental leave, extensive daycare options, and sometimes even help coming into the home. They do this, in part, as an effort to keep their birth rates up.



As far as keeping their birth rates up, it really does not seem to be working........Not at all. Poverty and organized religion seem to be much more effective and motivating people to breed.

Furthermore, even in liberal, socialist, scandanavia there STILL is a small, wealthy elite that is exempt from the taxation laws that the majority of citizens are subjected to. On the one hand they try to ensure that everyone's basic needs are met, but on the other hand they make it nearly impossible to move up the economic ladder to the top. Economic mobility is a double-edged sword: Anyone can get rich, yet anyone can fall through the cracks and sink into poverty(even homelessness) because there is no safety net.
You are incorrect. There is, in fact, more upward mobility in socialistic countries like Canada and areas like Scandanavia than there is in the U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-econ ... ted_States



Do you have any other *studies* suggesting that it's easier for someone who grows up without a lot of money to acquire wealth(not just money, but property and capital)in Scandanavia than in the US?

Not sure what the snark is for. Higher income levels in Scandanavia are taxed progressively more, so it is easier for lots of people to be comfortable and more difficult for a few people to become insanely wealthy. Is that what you were asking?


I am for tax increas on corperations that benefit from illegal immagration by them doing that its like stealing money from the us economy because none of their workers are american.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

30 Mar 2012, 8:51 pm

^ rather than increasing the corporate taxes on everyone, how about just fining companies that are found to have employeed illegal immigrants? Especially if they're found to have paid them less than the minimum wage, which is quite common (the workers, being illegal, can't exactly go to the authorities to complain).



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

30 Mar 2012, 8:56 pm

LKL wrote:
^ rather than increasing the corporate taxes on everyone, how about just fining companies that are found to have employeed illegal immigrants? Especially if they're found to have paid them less than the minimum wage, which is quite common (the workers, being illegal, can't exactly go to the authorities to complain).


No they can't but a increase on the Corpoarte world would help keep the us economy stable instead of just taxing every rich person their is that would harm us.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

31 Mar 2012, 2:23 am

I am confused what does Illegal Immigration have to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Feminism? That should be a whole different topic altogether.


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

31 Mar 2012, 2:34 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
I am confused what does Illegal Immigration have to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Feminism? That should be a whole different topic altogether.


It had to do with making the corporate business pay higher taxes due to their work force not being citizens of the state but I see your point it has nothing to do with it :lol:



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

31 Mar 2012, 6:25 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Leaders of the feminist movement state that woman are superior moral beings.

Source?


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

31 Mar 2012, 6:30 am

Joker wrote:
androbot2084 wrote:
Margaret Fuller considered the superior moral nature of a woman as a rational to allow women to vote.


That doesn't count as proof.


I've spent many an hour on this forum and others asking for a single citation of evidence of the supposed misandry of feminism,
from an organization or a single individual,
and have yet to be met with anything but disappointment.

On the other hand, the proponents of such hogwash are strangely-silent on the works and words of millions of feminists
engaged as they are in trench warfare against rape culture, FGM, honor killings, disparities in health care, or anything else.

The nature of the "discourse" is as follows:
"Feminism is MAN-HATE/MISANDRIST/GONE TOO FAR/HERP."
"How?"
"Urm. A lady...wrote a book once and ~insert quotemining and laughable analyses of a paragraph from said book devoid of any understanding of sociological theory~"
"Anything else?"
"She was fat/ugly/I did not find her sexually-desirable."
"..."
"Feminism is MAN-HATE/MISANDRIST/GONE TOO FAR/HERP."

At the end of the day, you have to conclude them to be either completely dissociative ideologues or outright trolls.
Guess which I'm leaning towards...


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Mar 2012, 8:31 am

Everyone knows that women are, in fact, superior to men. It would be offensive to postulate otherwise.



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

31 Mar 2012, 8:39 am

ArrantPariah wrote:
Everyone knows that women are, in fact, superior to men. It would be offensive to postulate otherwise.


Dunno that that's empirically-evidenced, "offensive" or not.
Although the fact that claiming such is your very first post on this site is certainly very interesting...


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 122
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

31 Mar 2012, 9:01 am

ValentineWiggin wrote:
ArrantPariah wrote:
Everyone knows that women are, in fact, superior to men. It would be offensive to postulate otherwise.


Dunno that that's empirically-evidenced, .


Of course it is. If the ladies wanted, they could exterminate most of the men, just keeping a few around as a source for sperm, and the world would be no worse off.

Traditionally, it has always been the men who went to war, to die in great numbers, while keeping the women safe at home. If men had any sense at all, don't you think that they would have thought this through, and sent as many women as men to the front lines?