Does anyone else agree with feminism?

Post Reply New Topic

Oh yeah!?! Well men are bigger, taller, and stronger (I stick my tongue out at you)

You got me, Alex.
I concede.

~leaves to go put on a dress and little white gloves, eyes averted in submission~

Female Fascists? It's sure as hell a lot easier than seeing a valid comparison between giving birth and dying.



Hmm fair enough I did generalize a bit too much. From now on I'll use the expression "Female Fascistic Misandrists"



Is "gendered violence" more important than inter-gender violence? I actually don't have an issue with it, however you should as you claim to be a feminist and further that feminists are fighting for gender equality. If both genders are equal it follows that violence towards a member of any gender is equally bad.
So, you can pick your position, either violence is equally bad regardless of what gender it happens to, or violence is worse when it happens by one gender towards a member of another gender.

You are of course free to argue that the attack is an attack on a person's gender, but that's the case in both male on male rape (which society seems to find comical, female on female rape and female on male rape (which society seems to find comical). In the case of violence against a male it's an attack on his manhood and in the case of a woman on her womanhood.



How does that tinfoil hat fit?



I love this comparison, giving birth is equal to dying? Evil Knievel couldn't make that leap. I've never given birth, but I'd take an epidural and squeezing a baby out over DYING. If you asked 1000 people "What are your top 5 fears" I'm fairly confident, dare I say certain that "Dying" would get more votes than "Giving" birth. We can get some of the gun enthusiasts from that other thread in here and ask if they'd prefer getting kneecapped or shot in the head. I'm not saying it's a cake or death situation, more like a bun or death situation.




Not at all, just pointing out that a movement that favored gender equality should ultimately be the most concerned either with violence overall or the violence that affects the largest group. Furthermore, that when you know those numbers and http://www.wlp.givingto.vt.edu/wealth/index.html these numbers you look kind of silly with a female-centric focus. It's the same as in most fields, men tend to hold the top of the ladder, but they also stand at the bottom of it, while women have a higher average level. You also have to keep in mind that in the cases of those men who fill the top positions on wealth, they are all mostly married to a woman that statistically speaking will outlive them and thus inherit their fortune.




Hmm, have I been debating while drunk again and said things that I didn't say? Wasn't I pretty much the only person in here saying that any individual should have the right to decide their path in life? Yes, biology plays a huge part in who we are, however I never said that we were in fact slaves to it, just that it tends to influence us. To break with traditional gender roles takes a lot of courage and is a much harder path to follow than the one your biology and the large scale biologically formed society, is influencing you towards.

I always found profession statistics from liberal western countries interesting, because despite being able to choose any profession both genders tend to make traditional choices. Isn't this the state of affairs we want, who cares if people are being influenced by society or biology to pick a certain profession? Who is to say that men want to be nurses in overwhelming numbers or women want to be mechanics in huge numbers?



I don't believe in "thought-crime" either in the form of hate crime laws. Judge an act on what can be objectively established, namely the act not what was in a person's head.

Do the Fascist Feminists goose step around in high heels? That seems kind of indecent, since you would get a glimpse up their skirts

No, they're all sensible dudes, who wear sensible shoes and eat sensible foods. I did have one more joke, but I'll drop it since I'm probably on thin ice already.

Cum to think of it, I don't think that I've heard a whole lot about feminism in a long time. It may still be a phase through which college girls go, between campus orgies and working on their M.R.S. After college, the ladies generally use to their advantage their feminine wiles, coupled with veiled threats of harassment and discrimination complaints.

If one hears anything at all about feminism these days, it is generally cumming from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh and others of his ilk, and usually with a very negative spin to it.

It does seem interesting, though, that the Battle of the Sexes rages on here in Aspieville of all places.

Because so much evo-psych 'research' is objectively BS. There have been 'studies,' for instance, claiming that female marmosets like (human) baby dolls and male marmosets like model trucks and (human) toy soldiers. Their methodolgy is often questionable at best, and their interpretation of their own data is often laughable.

LOL at that sequence. Make up your mind- but whenever you decide on whether such people have your support, or are "fascists", at least acknowledge that it's not only women who care about issues of gender.

Great. You can start by stopping the allusions to ambiguous phantoms and tell us who, exactly, you mean by that, and which of their measures/goals constitute "fascism" and "misandry".

It's more relevant to people who study gender relations, by definition- that hardly makes it "more important".
Although, again, the male-on-male violence you refer to is an age-old gender role which you seem to feel is entirely natural, so why should we be bothered by even that, exactly?

It is. But male-on-female violence in a patriarchal world has different causes and effects than male-on-male violence (that's my opinion- there are compelling theories that the problem in both cases is the same: the definition of masculinity as dominant and aggressive, and the millenia-old struggle of males to live up to this paradigm).

There are a couple people in this thread who have made the latter assertion, actually, and they have done it by attacking and insulting groups attempting to end gendered violence, who are, like it or not, feminist groups by definition.
I've personally never implied anything but the former.

I heartily agree- it's repugnant that any kind of rape is considered comical.
But let's not forget why it's perceived comical- because males as victims of rape is such a dramatic role reversal.


When either is resultant of being an individual of one biological sex vs. another, absolutely-
I don't know how you might assert these are resultant of gender roles.
(Maybe women tend to be more health-conscious and men are taught to "suck it up" and not get checked out unless it's dire? There's an idea.)

Yeah, Argumentum ad Populums aside, I never compared the gravity of giving birth to dying. I invoked the former to highlight that women have their own biology-based differences separate from gender roles.

A movement that favors gender equality should ultimately be most concerned with the types of violence which are gendered in nature.
That hardly precludes one from opposing other types of violence, any more than those who work on racial issues think other types of discrimination are a-okay. THAT'S a leap in logic, m'dear.

If a man stays out of jail, his chances of being raped in his lifetime are so low as to be statistically negligible.
Compare that to the rates of sexual violence against women.

Not when one realizes that those with the most education and wealth are the ones who determine the reality for the rest of society.
That link was NOT in your favor.
The "60%" of all wealth refers to HOUSEHOLD income, and to supposed control over it- meaning the wealth is not necessarily women-owned- and it doesn't represent the corporate finances which number in the billions of dollars, and the rest is not much to brag about. ("Women employ 27 million Americans?" Out of...several HUNDRED MILLION?) Not the best.


As often as not, the inheritance goes to the kids, not the trophy wife.


I don't think people are "able to choose any profession" they want at all. People are inundated from the beginning with what careers are acceptable or not for their sex. Observe how a male nurse versus a female nurse is perceived. I was told early on by classmates that "girls don't become scientists". I have no idea what world you live in. "Who cares if people are being influenced by society?" Because we know a little something about psychological programming from a neurological point of view, and we know the appropriate word is not "influenced" but DICTATED. The vast majority of people die believing in the same religious gobbledegook they were indoctrinated with as children, and gender roles are no different. Early psychological inundation appears in most cases irreversible.


So you want to develop a paradigm that...opposes oppression and violence without addressing the causes of it, whether those be distinctions of class, race, or anything else?

That's hilarious.

Hmm I find the misuse of the word fascist rather annoying

Since when do feminists hate men

I speak as a trained biologist whose main emphasis was on evolutionary biology: you are wrong. Increased reproductive opportunity is a large part of it, but in evolution it's whomever has the most surviving, fertile grandchildren and/or neices and nephews that wins, not whomever has the most sex. There are many, many places in the biosphere where limitless sex does not lead to furthering the reproduction of one's genes. To make a simplistic illustration, a donkey jack that chooses to hang out with a field full of mares rather than with a single jenny has a reproductive success of zero, despite copulating as much as he wants to.


Firstly, that humans are hard-wired to be social is not the same as saying all culture is hard-wired. All sociality means is that we like to hang out with other members of our own species, and in the case of humans, even members of other species that are also social. That we generally like the presence of other beings doesn't reflect at all on how that liking takes form in any context at all.
Secondly, you are incorrect about what selfish gene theory posits. As formulated by Dawkins, selfish gene theory has to do with the independent sorting with descrete genes over evolutionary time, not to do with sociality or with culture.


Ok, sure. Which gender roles? The ones where men put on makeup and dance every year in a competition to attract the attention of the women who are the best workers and providers? The ones where women work their buts off all day digging roots while men hunt for animal food? The ones where men and women both work their butts off on a farm? The wealthy victorian ones, where women sit around looking decorative and men go out and work? The ones where women and men both go to work in sweatshops all day? All of those have been or are formulations of gender roles in various places and at various times - several of them occurred within westen culture during the last few centuries. The idea that what is currently constructed by our culture as 'correct' gender roles is somehow THE hard-wired gender paradigm is naiive, short-sighted, and frankly laughable.


...Or, it would if humans weren't hard-wired to form pair-bonds lasting at least several years, often decades. Except that humans have formed such pair-bonds in the majority of cultures for the majority of recorded time, indicating that such a thing is probably an evolved trait.
Also, humans don't lay eggs and abandon them to take care of themselves; human offspring require a great deal of resources in order to grow properly, especially with these huge, fatty brains, and offspring without present, involved fathers are at a disadvantage compared to those with fathers.
In other words: the tribe's long-term reproductive success is going to be negatively impacted if it wastes its young men fighting with other tribes.


emphasis added for lulz.


It's (assuming you're still talking about 'The Red Queen' here) also far from tested, peer-reviewed science. Honestly, it's not that bad of a book, compared to some - it's not 'The Bell Curve,' for example. But the author is something of an expert at claiming to be an expert and throwing out theories that actual experts have some issues with.



?


...cause humans are just like Rhesus Monkeys. Or Gorillas. Or Chimpanzees. Or Bonobos. Oh, wait! We can't be like bonobos! (/sarcasm)


Darling, feminism is a political movement, not a corporation. Its opposite analog is more like the anti-abortion movement. As far as gender representation, look at the GOP right now: yes, there are female GOP members, and yes, there are male feminists.

*snort*
Ah, the smoke machine has run out of grass.

Sexual violence against women is reported more frequently in armed conflicts, and is overtly used as a tool of genocide; Prison rape is terrible regardless of the gender it happens to; girls are kidnapped into armed conflicts to be sex slaves at the same time the boys are kidnapped to be soldiers; and feminists care about, and rail against, all of these things - as you would know if you actually frequented any feminist circles, rather than getting your info on feminism from Glen Beck. Women committ suicide in ways that 'won't leave a mess' but are less effective, whereas men don't seem to give a damn about what it will do to their children/spouse to find their father hanging in the garage.


We also know that the female death rate is catching up, that male circumcision only correlates to the most mild and least-practiced version of female circumcision, that men are victims of violence from other men, and that, while women do committ 'domestic violence' at roughly equal rates, their smaller size and decreased likeliness in effecient violence means that female victims of domestic violence are vastly more likely to end up hospitalized or dead.


*snort*
Self-aware, mutch?

With equal rights should come equal responsibilities. No gender-based privileges, like affirmative action. It's very, very upsetting to see companies forced to hire women for high-level roles in order to meet a government-set number of women in large businesses, even if these women are the epitome of incompetence. And really, that's where all previous sympathies I might have had for them ceased to exist.

Although it seems to be ignored by self-proclaimed feminists, the interview with Warren Farrell, freely available on YouTube, perfectly summarises the fields in which men are systematically put behind women, even by those who supposedly strive for equality, and expected to conform to that role. To be honest, after listening to cringeworthy rants by feminists for a day, this interview was really relaxing.
During a lecture I attended a few days ago, the obviously-feminist lecturer spoke about domestic violence. She seemed to put intentional effort into assuring us only women were the victims of domestic violence, and only men were guilty of committing any kind of violent crime. These things annoy me, as men are victims in most crime, yet they're ignored or laughed at. Some of the things said at that lecture:

"As for domestic violence - who here wants a bet - right now, here in the Netherlands, a lot of women are being physically abused." - emphasis put on 'women'.
"Sometimes, they'd file a complaint, but withdraw it later, claiming it's not such a big deal and that they've worked out the issues with their husbands."

Feminists, as they seem to call themselves, really love verbally victimizing themselves - despite usually being from relatively trouble-free white families - in order to emotionally blackmail everyone into submission.

Evidence, please, that this actually has ever happened anywhere in the western world, much less that it's happening now?


Ahhhh, Warren Farrell. Well, that explains a lot.

...which is almost always committed by men.

(cough)Trayvon (cough)Martin(cough, cough)
Women are mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, etc and none of us like to see our male relatives injured or killed, regardless of whom the perpetrator is.


And your problem with that having been said is...?


emphasis added for lulz.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Sojourner Truth
Jessica Yee
Samhita Mukhopadhyay
to name just the ones I've read recently.
...oh, did you mean, 'the only feminists I've ever paid attention to are from relatively trouble-free white families...'? 'Cause that makes a lot more sense.
And since when was 'pointing out a problem' equal to 'emotional blackmail'?

Yes the old male chauvinist argument that females living in the United States have all of the advantages therefore they have no right to complain.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/02 ... index.html
It's a shame, really. I've read all about it in newspapers in my local language.



I have yet to find something he says that does not make sense or that can't be argued for.



Whether or not crime is, in most cases, committed by men is irrelevant to the fact that, while women are often pictured as victims, men are in fact much more likely to be victims.
The Trayvor Martin incident, I think, was mostly blown out of proportion because he was black, and people had to make assumptions of racism.



Yet they have no problem when men are sent to war against their will instead of them.



Instead of addressing the general issue of domestic abuse, which also occurs on a widespread scale against men, on a scientific level - and this was a university - she specifically talked about women.



Which brings us to another reason for me to strongly dislike feminism.
Awful, misplaced rhetoric. It's pathetic, really. That remark was meant to indicate that I don't think all feminists think like that, but I'm strongly starting to doubt that.





As you questioned my sources, I'll question yours. Ayaan Hirsi Ali happened to be a politician working only a few miles from my then-school.
She wasn't quite popular, to say the least. Everyone I spoke to about her seemed to be on the side of populist politicians calling for her passport to be taken.
See, one afternoon, I was on my way home when I heard a lot of commotion on the radio. Turns out she had lied, put a lot of drama into her story in order to be granted a passport, and had pressured a coalition party into lying about it for her. Such are, apparently, methods deemed appropriate by modern-day feminists.

She then quietly vanished into the night. Well, not the night - the United States, where she was put in a heavily-subsidized think tank.



I'll admit that I've never heard of these. However, 'generally' does not imply that my argument can be deemed false through just a few examples, one of which is a notorious liar.