Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

The use sexual titilation to make men part with their money and fool plenty of desperate guys into thinking they're going to get sex, and even an actual relationship, when all they really don't get anything at all. The dancers however, can make hundreds, even thousands of dollars in one shift sometimes.

So you speak for all men then or just yourself.

The powerful people in any situation in a capitalist world are the people with money.
It's stupid to pretend otherwise,
and stupid to pretend people who ethically object to certain practices as representative of overall class-based inequalities should just shut up about it.

Good luck with that one.

At least we can agree on Feminisim yes that's true to say that strip clubs expolit men doesn't make any since.

Highlighted for comedic purposes.

So strip clubs, that is to say,
places where predominately women take their clothes off and dance for male sexual pleasure, and are paid with men's money to do so,
exploit men because the men are FORCED to participate in this interaction, and believe strippers are prostitutes?

Last edited by ValentineWiggin on 01 Apr 2012, 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I’m going to respond to you in one long post, because splitting things up bothers me. We can argue the semantics of evolution as much as you like, the fact is:
Increased reproductive chance = Increased spread of traits.

Social behavior is a function of genetics selfish gene theory makes this fairly clear. There are 2 schools; I belong to the one that places the majority of weight on natural evolution and biology as opposed to society. Caring for someone else is done because of reciprocal altruism, which is stronger the closer to your genetic material you judge a person to be.
Gender roles came to be due to what was practical and ensured the greatest chance of survival. We live in a “luxury” society, people can choose not to eat meat, and they can choose not to do the most practical thing.

It makes sense that risky business such as war would be undertaken by men, since you can lose 90% of the men in a group and gets an equal amount of offspring the next year; if you lose 90% of women you lose 90% of the next seasons children.

Fathers helping with caregiving make sense from an evolutionary perspective since it increases the child’s odds of living, hence why humans pair-bond. The men who had the pair-bonding gene outbred the ones that did not. I’m still not sure how the majority of communities ended up as male dominated, since if roles are mostly defined by society it should have come out roughly 50-50, yet it didn’t.
The book is far from androcentric and far from pseudoscience, I can write off every feminist writer ever as a source for subjective theories that hold little value but I don’t. Read the book, and then get back to me. I gave feminism the benefit of the doubt at first, then I moved on to saying “Everyone needs to work for what they want and stop whining about why everyone is against them.” I’d also suggest stepping out from your Simone de Beauvoir bubble and the joke that sociology is and read the research at Yerkes National Primate Research Center on gender roles in Rhesus monkeys.

The core problem with this discussion is that if I quote something, I’m quote mining or cherry picking, if I introduce statistics then they are influenced by the patriarchy, if I cite examples they are just evidence of how the patriarchy manifests itself. It’s like arguing with religious people.

That was the list I was talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists

Funnily enough, feminism is a movement which is worse than just about every "patriarchal" structure when it comes to having equal representation for both genders. If there was a corporation or political party that was as heavily tilted towards one gender in its membership numbers, feminists would go nuts.

To get back to the original questions of the thread:

Gender equality is an ideal to strive for.
Structural inequalities that disadvantage women still exist.

Gender equality in terms of the ability for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is an ideal to strive for, however each individual needs to fight, make hard choices and sacrifice in order to get there.

Structural inequalities that are biased in favor of one gender do exist, but they exist in favor of both genders, thus balance each other out. Aiming for perfect structural equality is not possible unless society is demolished and restarted from scratch.

This would make sense if gender roles weren't constantly in flux, extremely various by region, and didn't actually harm people.

You do know it's actually the poor who eat the least meat throughout the world?
It takes a vast amount of resources to produce a pound of flesh vs. several pounds of plant matter.
It will always be cheaper to eat lower on the food chain.

And since women are inferior weaklings who are incapable of combat. See some recent commentary on the issue by US Presidential candidates- women have EMOTIONS and can't hang, dawg.

Roles are mostly defined by society, and by that we mean to say the powerful of the society who exert control over the rest in a hierarchichal fashion.

First, let's pause for a moment and note that feminism is an ideology with subjective values like any other.





Let's take a secondary time-out to think about the social sciences,
such as the fact, indisputable to any social scientist, that the world is patriarchal in nature.






Now that that's out of the way, let's take another to observe that books on evolutionary psychology,
when cited as evidence of the supposed inherent nature of gender roles, are not being presented as subjective works.

Okay, good. Class, you're doing excellent.

How noble of you, to not immediately write off opposition to sexual and gender-based oppression.

Yes, in the same way black people should have stopped whining about being slaves or harassment and being discriminated against, or lynched.

So, tell me, the "gender role" that women are not supposed to experience sexual pleasure, and that doing so causes promiscuity, resultant in the horrific practice of holding a three year old down in the mud and digging her clitoris out with a broken bottle, often referred to as FGM, is that included in the "whining" people should cease, or is that an exceptional case? What about the deaths of thousands of women from ectopic pregnancies and TSS in central America in regions where abortion is illegal? How much "whining" is warranted in that case?


Ah, there we have it. Science is a joke.

Quite all right. I'm sure the monkeys in question have absolutely no gendered practices which result in the maiming, torture, and death of the group's members and I'm sure they don't have a mass media culture which from birth inundates them with dichotomous, sex-based ideologies..


If you attempt to equivocate the work of millions of people for the betterment of millions more with a paragraph written by this-or-that first world writer, yes, you're quote mining. If you have some other quote, then by all means.

Statistics on what? Increasing numbers of maternal deaths following the illegalization of contraception in the third world? Rates of homophobic violence in Africa in the past decade? The legal disenfranchisement and cultural code of silence surrounding the abuse of Saudi women by their fathers and husbands? Which statistics?

Quite the contrary.
If you can provide evidence that somehow refutes the statistics on gender and sex-based violence and oppression the world over,
those being what feminism seeks to address,
I'll gladly check myself into a mental institution, for such a hallucination of a global dynamic surely places I and those who oppose it in a category of psychosis.

Wiki's list of famous feminists is female-dominated, therefore feminism is made up of only women? Pft.


That fact is more tragic than I think you give thought to.

You can't force men to oppose sexism. One would hope they'd do it on their own. But then feminism would be only an ideology, and have no need of activism.

Right, and yet women who want the ability to DO just that are "whiners".

What on earth are you talking about?

Uh. Yeah.

You know what Valentine, I'm done with you and your strawman arguments and red herrings. This is like discussing with a neo-nazi or a religious fundamentalist in that regardless of what I say and how I say it, as long as you disagree with it you answer it with rhetorical domination techniques. Sarcasm, hostility, constant belittling, I mean if I spoke to you the same way you and your sisters speak to anyone who tries to argue with you, we'd be warned by half the mods on here.

Females in the Western world have the exact same opportunities as men, if they earn less they need to negotiate better, if they do not get into schools they need to work harder, if they do not get into management they need to be more aggressive about it. Equating women in the western world with slaves prior to the civil war simply disgusts me and it shows how screwed up the ideology really is.

Gender equality all day but may every feminist end up in Saudi Arabia.

Last edited by TM on 01 Apr 2012, 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stylish tin foil hat you're rocking. Sale down at the bunker?

I don't have any sisters, sir.

The fact that you can't refute any published statistics on global gendered violence and disenfranchisement or offer a credible reason as to why ANYONE would oppose fighting the horrors feminist groups fight the world over is a stupid reason to "hate feminists", if I do say so- more of a reason to declare yourself one.

People hate men that are feminists and often view them as gender traders as a man I feel more as a woman then I do my own sex in a lot of ways.

I support the females who are fighting the Middle East, In Africa and so on, I just can't stand the entitlement feminists in the west. I never talked about Africa or the Middle east in my criticism of feminism and I still find that the UN, Amnesty and similar organizations are better suited for intervention in those countries than feminist organizations.

There are no world statistics on males as victims of violence, sexual violence against men has been reported in a number of armed conflicts, there is prison rape in the US, there are the countless boys who are kidnapped into guerrilla bands in Africa, but nobody cares because its all about how bad women have it. Men commit suicide more often, I mean women try more but men are just better at killing themselves. I suspect having to deal with women like you is a big causal reason.

We know men die younger, more males are circumcised than females, males are more likely to be the victims of random violent attacks in the western world. We know that domestic violence against men is just as common as domestic violence against females http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/01/30/ ... ing-probl/

Why did I go off about this? Because feminism is a self-centered movement that divides the genders into two camps, rather than unite us as one camp against injustice and violence. I'm sure we agree on a lot of issues in regards to violence against both men and women in the world and how it can be rectified, however feminism drives a wedge between us ensuring that the genders are fighting each other instead of fighting a**holes of both genders.

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/ ... html#_1_48
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy
http://menshealth.about.com/od/lifestyl ... ictims.htm

It is my life's mission to avoid people like her at all costs.

The same as it would be for women to be able to avoid women-haters.

I have nothing against ValentineWiggin I admire her passion she is very inteligent to.

Say it with me, TM:

f-e-m-i-n-i-s-t-s.

It isn't hard.




You did talk about those groups and efforts when you spoke of FEMINISM, full stop. This is an example of cherry picking.

No, because "gendered violence" refers to a specific type of violence, and male-on-male violence (which you shouldn't really have a problem with, being that male competitiveness and domination is very much one of those "gender roles" you seem to think entirely natural-and-therefore-ethical) is by definition resultant of other hierarchies.


My, how mature we are.

And women have to give birth. If you have suggestions for ending biological differences, I'd love to hear them- might solve the reproductive rights "debate".

CONGRATULATIONS! You're RAILING AGAINST GENDERED VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION. Or...as you called it..."whining".

It's hard to be "united in one camp against injustice and violence" when so much injustice and violence is gendered in nature.
If ADDRESSING divisions means DIVIDING, then you're apparently in favor of division. Again, to speak of "uniting" men and women as one camp while singing the praises of dichotomous, sex-based roles being forced on both is a tightrope I'd be scared to attempt to walk.

So we both agree that violence is wrong, yet we don't both agree that violence on the basis of sex is doubly-wrong, and it's causes and affects must be addressed differently than the rest.
Interesting.

Quite the contrary- if I avoided women haters, and people who hate women by proxy through opposing efforts to end their oppression,
I'd have to resign myself to never leaving the house.