PDA

View Full Version : Feminists?


TheHood
September 18th, 2016, 07:15 AM
Its probably obvious. But I'm a guy. And I'd like to talk about feminists from a guys point of view.

But before all you gals go on saying
"This guys such a douche. How did he even get onto this site"
Just chill and hear me out.

So honestly I don't dislike all the feminists in the world. You know. I'm all for equal pay and stuff. But however it is a known fact that biologically females can reproduce without male sperm. By using their bone marrow I think. But instantly the cuts off the need for men at all.

And so that brings in the topic of why do men even exist. Because logically thinking the entire reason for mans existence is to reproduce. And if the females can do that without the males then wouldn't that mean men don't need to be here? So at the moment. In today's society. Literally the only reason men are useful. Is they can make more money. And men see feminists trying for equal rights as woman trying to fully remove the males from the equation entirely.

So the reason I'm starting this thread is for everyone to talk about this topic freely. As it is a very touchy topic. And and so everyone reply in the thread. Can you please reframe from being abusive. As for most people this is a safe place. And I'd like to keep it that way

Oh and a little message for the mods. If this is in the wrong place. Or if its completely against the rules I am sincerely sorry for any inconvenience and keep up the good work

Cheers
~Hood

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 07:20 AM
I haven't heard about that bone marrow stuff, could you provide a link? Would the offspring be unique? I would imagine this would reduce the gene pool and be very bad for natural selection.

I am a man and I see feminists as trying to get equality, which I support. I personally identify as a feminist.

dxcxdzv
September 18th, 2016, 07:38 AM
But however it is a known fact that biologically females can reproduce without male sperm. By using their bone marrow I think. But instantly the cuts off the need for men at all.
wtf.

EDIT: You can use two same-sex gametes by modifying one so they can be compatible but it's not like you can do it just like that.

Mars
September 18th, 2016, 08:08 AM
Men exist because when we evolved, and when nearly all living organisms evolved from bacteria, there was a needed way to reproduce sexually and at the time there was nor the science, technology, or knowledge that we have today so that men could have died out. Also, so far it's been impossible to change the gender or traits of a gamete/zygote, so men can be born if there is XY chromosome set present.

The reason women are oppressed in third world/second world countries and societies is because of the long lasting belief that a woman is nothing without her husband, and that they're weak and unintelligent and cannot be independent. This belief has trickled down from centuries ago, and we still have yet to overcome it even though time and time again women have proven themselves not only equal, but in some cases better than males.

TheHood
September 18th, 2016, 09:43 AM
Okay for all of the guys that are correcting me on the who 'bone marrow' thingim sorry that I'm not a biologist. I'm just going off something's I've been told by some very reliable people who said they read it somewhere. So I know that I wasn't 100% correct hence why I said I think after bone marrow. However it is known the female s can reproduce without males. So thanks for clearing things up on how it happens. I feel smarter thanks to you guys input.

Oh! And here's some links.

http://m.slashdot.org/story/96820 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html

Double posts merged. Use the edit button. --Tom

The Byrd
September 18th, 2016, 11:50 AM
If feminists really want equality, why are they called FEMinists? Surely the more appropriate word would be "egalitarian".

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 11:55 AM
If feminists really want equality, why are they called FEMinists? Surely the more appropriate word would be "egalitarian".
I have heard this so much before xD It like saying black rights activists are racist because they have black in their title. Men do have their own equality issues but there are few and they are minor... women have been discriminated against for centuries and the word feminist first started ti be used at the end of the 19th century so I think it is fair women are the focus of the movement. Speak to 99% of feminists and they will say they want equality and also condemn the issues men are facing.

StoppingTom
September 18th, 2016, 11:55 AM
the reason men exist still is because woman is spelled with MAN and if there was no MAN they'd just be wo, and wo dude thats dumb

The Byrd
September 18th, 2016, 12:04 PM
I have heard this so much before xD It like saying black rights activists are racist because they have black in their title. Men do have their own equality issues but there are few and they are minor... women have been discriminated against for centuries and the word feminist first started ti be used at the end of the 19th century so I think it is fair women are the focus of the movement. Speak to 99% of feminists and they will say they want equality and also condemn the issues men are facing.

It appears that I speak to different feminists to you...

PlasmaHam
September 18th, 2016, 12:07 PM
As stated in the earlier thread, I do not see myself as a feminist. They have shown time and time again that they are more focused on giving women advantages over men that actually equality. I know that is not all, but that is typically the most vocal kind. And until the media and most liberals denounce the "know my pronoun" feminists as a female superiority cult, I will still refer to them as regular feminists.

Now, I believe that true equality can never really happen. As Mars said, women have certain advantages over men, and hopefully she also recognize that men have certain advantages over women. That is simple biology and psychology. Men are naturally stronger and more resilient than women, which is why I think women shouldn't be on the front lines in war. That isn't to say they are any lesser than men, but men are simply naturally better when it comes to beating each other up. But on the other hand, look at the car insurance rates in the USA. Women pay less than men in most cases, because studies have shown that women are ironically safer drivers. So it goes both ways.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 12:42 PM
I think women shouldn't be on the front lines in war. That isn't to say they are any lesser than men, but men are simply naturally better when it comes to beating each other up.
So if you were to get a women that met all the academic and physical requirements to enter Army training, you wouldn't want her?

Is this because you think men have an innate advantage to fighting? An advantage impossible to overcome for women?

Would you consider Joan of Arc and Boudicca decent soilders?

Why have countries like Canada, France and Austrailia not have had any problems with women on the front line?
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/01/women-in-militaries.jpg&w=1484
It appears that I speak to different feminists to you...
What did these feminists say? Why judge a whole movement just because of them?

PlasmaHam
September 18th, 2016, 07:28 PM
So if you were to get a women that met all the academic and physical requirements to enter Army training, you wouldn't want her?

Is this because you think men have an innate advantage to fighting? An advantage impossible to overcome for women?

Would you consider Joan of Arc and Boudicca decent soilders?

Why have countries like Canada, France and Austrailia not have had any problems with women on the front line?
image (https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/01/women-in-militaries.jpg&w=1484)


If there is a woman who can meet the standards set for men, and is as fully strong and resilient as your average military trained man, then I guess they can. But what percentage of women can actually meet that? And if women want to be on the front lines, then they should also logically be part of the draft.

I do think men have an innate superiority when it comes to physical combat and endurance, as do most scientists. It's called biology, I'm not sure if you have ever heard of it.

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 07:36 PM
If there is a woman who can meet the standards set for men, and is as fully strong and resilient as your average military trained man, then I guess they can. But what percentage of women can actually meet that? And if women want to be on the front lines, then they should also logically be part of the draft.
Yeah I agree buddy :) I don't like when they lower the requirements for women, if the job can be done with a lower fitness level then why not allow guys with that lower fitness level?

As for the draft, there should be no draft.


I do think men have an innate superiority when it comes to physical combat and endurance, as do most scientists. It's called biology, I'm not sure if you have ever heard of it.
I wasn't denying it buddy xD Yeahhh I heard of biology once or twice :P I was asking for specifics but we agree so there is no point :P

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 09:20 PM
Because I am sometimes selectively lazy, I'm pasting what I said in the Do you consider yourself a feminist? thread [ http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2030896&page=2 ] :

Feminism as I see it is a diverse array of views which collectively advocate for more rights for women (generally).

If feminism would to mean advocating for equality between females and males in all aspects of life that do not need to make unnecessary differences between them (most/all occupations, voting, etc), and if it also would mean resisting abuse / general harm specifically directed at females for implicit/explicit reason that they are female, then I'm a feminist. The only issue I'd have is equating the word 'feminism' with 'equality of the sexes', because it's clear that it says 'feminism'.

As I see it, this feminism I'd be a part of would do its thing and reach its goal in a finite time. At that point the feminism would be of more historical than practical value, and/or would change itself so that it maintains the goal it was previously building toward, which would need much less effort in theory. Its emphasis would wane, but it would still be there.

As analogy, we wouldn't be having LGBT+ pride parades as much at all if LGBT+ people were not at a disadvantage in life in general because of being LGBT+.


If feminists really want equality, why are they called FEMinists? Surely the more appropriate word would be "egalitarian".

I'm sympathetic with your view; "The only issue I'd have is equating the word 'feminism' with 'equality of the sexes', because it's clear that it says 'feminism'."


I do think men have an innate superiority when it comes to physical combat and endurance, as do most scientists. It's called biology, I'm not sure if you have ever heard of it.

It's a good thing then, that (at least currently in most of the human realm) physical combat and endurance is not essential or majorly important in living.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 11:59 AM
I will never understand why people are so afraid of equality. Well I do it is people wanting to retain the advantages they already have and it is a sad fact that there are so many selfish people like that.

PlasmaHam
September 20th, 2016, 01:20 PM
I will never understand why people are so afraid of equality. Well I do it is people wanting to retain the advantages they already have and it is a sad fact that there are so many selfish people like that.

Ignoring the earlier comments, what real advantages do I inherently have as a man that is not open to women? The ability to be forced into combat and being morally obligated to basically do everything a woman asks for or even doesn't ask for? I'm not saying women don't have problems, but it's not like men get off scot free either.

A question for some feminists while I'm at it. What do you think of chivalry? For those who don't know, chivalry is basically the idea that men should be especially respectful towards women; doing things like holding doors, taking off your hat, give her the seat, etc. I wonder what y'all think, I've heard some who think it is entirely sexist, while others think it is simply respectful and courteous.

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 01:36 PM
What do you think of chivalry? For those who don't know, chivalry is basically the idea that men should be especially respectful towards women; doing things like holding doors, taking off your hat, give her the seat, etc. I wonder what y'all think, I've heard some who think it is entirely sexist, while others think it is simply respectful and courteous.
I'll admit I'm in a bit of a weird relationship where my girlfriend is respectful and courteous to me too.

I've never been sure what to make of the situation.

[...] what real advantages do I inherently have as a man that is not open to women?
You won't have the price of possible pregnancies prices into your employment contract.

You are likely to have a lot more in common with your boss and have an easier time building rapport.

You'll recieve the sort of socialisation that makes high paying careers more attainable.

Etc.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 01:40 PM
what real advantages do I inherently have as a man that is not open to women?
1. Less sexual harassment
2. Taken more seriously
3. No 'oh she's on her period' when you get mad
4. No slut shaming (you can sleep with loads of women and get called a lad whereas women will get called a slut)
5. You can fight on the front line
6. Paid more for same work
7. You can go topless
8. Expected to do womanly roles such as cooking and cleaning.

These are just the ones on the top of my head but even if there was none and women were 100% equal, I would still consider myself a feminist because I want that equality.

Feminists fight for men's problems too.
iwQBlNVqL-E
z6713bgsx64
XoABPi5wTI4
[QUOTE=PlasmaHam;3437378]
A question for some feminists while I'm at it. What do you think of chivalry? For those who don't know, chivalry is basically the idea that men should be especially respectful towards women; doing things like holding doors, taking off your hat, give her the seat, etc. I wonder what y'all think, I've heard some who think it is entirely sexist, while others think it is simply respectful and courteous.
You should be nice to everyone and hold out doors to everyone but I don't see the harm if you see it as traditional and like doing it. As long as the women is not offended etc etc.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 01:48 PM
It's rare that this is the case as a result of outright discrimination and most of the wage gap (>95%) can be explained when controlling for choices
I know, I am sceptical too but the only stats I can find are hardcore feminists claiming it and hardcore sexism-denyers trying to disprove it soooo I concluded the truth is somewhere in the middle, probably xD Still I think I had 6 or so other points and as I said, even if women were 100% equal, I would still be a feminist because I believe in equality.

Paraxiom
September 20th, 2016, 01:57 PM
[...] even if women were 100% equal, I would still be a feminist because I believe in equality.

In such a societal situation of relevant sex/gender invariance, would supporting feminism not imply that human psychology would tend the society 'back toward' one where women are at a disadvantage? Hope you get what I mean.

I would see feminism as of minimal maintenance value in such a society of sex/gender invariance; the problems that feminism were opposing are gone, and all it has to do now is be a calm but watchful guard of sorts.

I also take the relatively minor stand that 'feminism' does not itself imply equality (especially with the 'fem-' part), all it means is giving necessary extra attention to females to then gain equality. It's an indirect meaning.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 02:18 PM
In such a societal situation of relevant sex/gender invariance, would supporting feminism not imply that human psychology would tend the society 'back toward' one where women are at a disadvantage? Hope you get what I mean.
I get what you mean, no I don't think it would move back towards women being at the disadvantage:) Of course that is in dream world where gender is truly irrelevant, irl it would naturally fluctuate between 45-55% of women holding the power and so it would be ever men or women that pull it to their advantage. Same with anything tbh, race, religion, humans like oppressing :P

I wouldn't support feminism as in I donate money to their causes and wear the badges because there is no need, the goal has been accomplished but if someone asked me do I like that men and women are equal, I would say yeah and that is why I would identify as a feminist :)


I also take the relatively minor stand that 'feminism' does not itself imply equality (especially with the 'fem-' part), all it means is giving necessary extra attention to females to then gain equality. It's an indirect meaning.

Yeah I agree, the focus of the movement is women, but the goal is equality :)

Paraxiom
September 20th, 2016, 02:28 PM
I get what you mean, no I don't think it would move back towards women being at the disadvantage:) Of course that is in dream world where gender is truly irrelevant, irl it would naturally fluctuate between 45-55% of women holding the power and so it would be ever men or women that pull it to their advantage. Same with anything tbh, race, religion, humans like oppressing :P

Alright. I assume you're holding to a non-binary / etc view of gender too (from that transgenderism a disorder thread a long time ago), but I see your view.


I wouldn't support feminism as in I donate money to their causes and wear the badges because there is no need, the goal has been accomplished but if someone asked me do I like that men and women are equal, I would say yeah and that is why I would identify as a feminist :)

Alright, I'd be a gender/sex egalitarian though, for that etymology aspect.


Yeah I agree, the focus of the movement is women, but the goal is equality :)

If the motivator of feminism is the approaching toward the general goal of gender/sex egalitarianism, then how could feminism be practiced when the goal has already been reached?

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 02:36 PM
If the motivator of feminism is the approaching toward the general goal of gender/sex egalitarianism, then how could feminism be practiced when the goal has already been reached?
I was thinking more about today xD Maybe we'll come up with a new word, equalgenderism? Genderism? :') I dunno, lets get the equality first xD
Alright. I assume you're holding to a non-binary / etc view of gender too (from that transgenderism a disorder thread a long time ago), but I see your view.
Yeahhhh all genders should be equal, including trans people!!! Oddly enough non-binary rights are seen by many as a separate issue but yeah I see them as the same :)

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 02:43 PM
If the motivator of feminism is the approaching toward the general goal of gender/sex egalitarianism, then how could feminism be practiced when the goal has already been reached?
How does being a Democrat work, when one already lives in a Democracy?

Or a Republican, when one lives in a Republic?

Or a Communist when one lives under communism?

Etc.

I also take the relatively minor stand that 'feminism' does not itself imply equality (especially with the 'fem-' part), all it means is giving necessary extra attention to females to then gain equality.
The term 'feminism' is maintained in respect of the fact that it was primarily a women's struggle, regardless of what the centre of the struggle might be today.

Shifting to the use of Egalitarianism, or whatever, whitewashes this fact.

Paraxiom
September 20th, 2016, 02:54 PM
[I was thinking more about today xD Maybe we'll come up with a new word, equalgenderism? Genderism? :') I dunno, lets get the equality first xD

I was going with you saying that you'd be a feminist even if women had 100% equality.

I'm personally alright with gender egalitarianism, but I don't mean to stop anyone so by all means.


Yeahhhh all genders should be equal, including trans people!!! Oddly enough non-binary rights are seen by many as a separate issue but yeah I see them as the same :)

Noted.


How does being a Democrat work, when one already lives in a Democracy?

Or a Republican, when one lives in a Republic?

Or a Communist when one lives under communism?

Etc.

Maintaining the system, of course. I didn't ask Flapjack the question with implying that feminism couldn't happen anymore. Instead, I was wondering how he would see it work as a maintaining force rather than a constructing one, because it can't keep on constructing something that has already been constructed.

Maintenance needs less effort than construction, so I would expect feminism to still be a thing but with its resource needs and attention level reduced, when a gender-egalitarian society is reached as feminism's goal. It is not necessary for people keep going for it in such a society as they did before the society reached that state - I wouldn't keep campaigning for hypothetical abolition of fossil fuel usage, after that was reached (as crude example). Hope you understand my point.


The term 'feminism' is maintained in respect of the fact that it was primarily a women's struggle, regardless of what the centre of the struggle might be today.

I know, yes.


Shifting to the use of Egalitarianism, or whatever, whitewashes this fact.

I'm not intending to whitewash the past. I am saying that feminism would lose its effective meaning in a society where women, as women, have the same relevant standing as any other gender would.

PlasmaHam
September 20th, 2016, 03:57 PM
1. Less sexual harassment.
Who is more likely to be taken serious? A man who claimed he was raped, or a woman? Men are the victims in around 10% of rape, yet men are almost always claimed to be the guilty party. Sterotyping.
2. Taken more seriously
3. No 'oh she's on her period' when you get mad
That is a very broad generalization, and honestly I don't see any support for either. I have literally never heard someone blame a woman being angry on her period, besides you.
4. No slut shaming (you can sleep with loads of women and get called a lad whereas women will get called a slut)
That's an easy fix, don't go having sex with every other man, and people won't see you as a slut. Referring to earlier, which gender is more likely to be called rapists?
5. You can fight on the front line
Yes, being sent out by my country to die, that is a great advantage.
6. Paid more for same work
Really, the 77cents of every dollar thing? No one has every supported that, and it makes no sense practically. If companies could get by with paying women 77% of a man's wage, then why isn't every corporation filled with women when in reality it is the other way around?
7. You can go topless
Maybe if society and women stopped sexualizing their tops, then people would have differing opinions on that.

8. Expected to do womanly roles such as cooking and cleaning.
Each gender experiences generalizations. Men are expected to do manly roles such as working blue collar jobs and being the bread winners. To claim that women only experience that is plain wrong.

I'm not getting into this odd LGBTTQQIAAP etc rights debate here, because honestly they are contradictory to the point of ludicrousy. You want to make gender irrelevant, yet the policies you keep promoting are just doing the opposite. If you ever really study the ideologies by many of these groups, then you would realize that at a certain point the LGBT movement undermines itself.

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 04:02 PM
Men are the victims in around 10% of rape, yet men are almost always claimed to be the guilty party.
Even in cases where a man is the victim, men are disproportionately likely to have been the rapist in that instance too (like ~93% of man who were raped report a sole man perpetrator).

In regards to the first question, how our society treats all victims of rape is pretty horrific.

Each gender experiences generalizations.
Whilst wrong whoever it occurs to. The main issue is that the 'generalizations' that men have historically faced have placed them into a position of structural power.

StoppingTom
September 20th, 2016, 04:24 PM
I'll admit I'm in a bit of a weird relationship where my girlfriend is respectful and courteous to me too.

I've never been sure what to make of the situation.


I could be totally missing the mark on the Vlerchan™ brand sarcasm, but why is that weird?

PlasmaHam
September 20th, 2016, 04:26 PM
Even in cases where a man is the victim, men are disproportionately likely to have been the rapist in that instance too (like ~93% of man who were raped report a sole man perpetrator).

In regards to the first question, how our society treats all victims of rape is pretty horrific.

I know, that was sort of a rhetorical question. It just comes odd that negative stereotypes against men are fine, yet negative stereotypes against women are seen as sexist. I'm not against stereotyping when it comes to this sort of thing, but when someone who claims stereotypes against groups they support is wrong, yet constantly enforces stereotypes on groups they don't support. Yet my point still stands, men are constantly being stereotyped as rapists, to the point where just the word of a random woman can get a man fired from his job. When it comes to a man's word vs a woman's word in a rape situation, guess who is going to be taken more seriously.

I'm not saying this is you, you just happened to have pointed it out early.
Whilst wrong whoever it occurs to. The main issue is that the 'generalizations' that men have historically faced have placed them into a position of structural power.
How is that an issue today? I'm not denying that happened, but we have entirely equal power systems today. Are you suggesting that everyone is a secret sexist, since we keep voting men into power over women?

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 04:59 PM
I could be totally missing the mark on the Vlerchan™ brand sarcasm, but why is that weird?
I'm being sarcastic, don't worry.

Sometimes, just sometimes, the I'm too-serious-for-you persona, does slip.

[...] when someone who claims stereotypes against groups they support is wrong, yet constantly enforces stereotypes on groups they don't support.
The double-standard is something I certainly agree should be avoided.

I do wonder what proportion of this impression - and I figure it's quite a popular impression - is down to poor wording though. The view women tend to take (when I see this view invoked) is that men are all potential rapists and take measures to avoid that. We can certainly compare this to the statistical discrimination against blacks, though, and I am not sure if I have a defence of that.

Personally, if it reduces the number of rapes, and has no consequence for men other having to have this conversation from time-to-time, then I have zero issues with it.

[.,..] just the word of a random woman can get a man fired from his job
I am not so sure of this, and am quite reluctant to accept any sort of anecdotal evidence here. The big issue being cases where the men are fired tend to be a lot more noted than otherwise - cases where no action is taken against the men, we will never hear about.

Nonetheless, on the flipside, woman are sexually-assaulted on a regular basis inside nightclubs and no-one takes that seriously at all. The most common refrain I hear there is, Lads will be lads, or something similar. So, certainly, this toxic view of men isn't ubiquitous in our culture and they get away with what is, frankly, a lot of shit.

When it comes to a man's word vs a woman's word in a rape situation, guess who is going to be taken more seriously.
The conviction rates for rape are pretty abysmal and the extent to which women are put on trial during criminal proceedings prompts my belief that people are more than willing to find an excuse to jump on the woman are her 'story'.

How is that an issue today? I'm not denying that happened, but we have entirely equal power systems today. Are you suggesting that everyone is a secret sexist, since we keep voting men into power over women?

Nothing of the sort. It's more than in a traditional arrangement where the man is the breadwinner and the woman the homemaker, the man is in a position of structural power. That is to claim, the man can generally control to finances, and other affairs of such importance, to the detriment of the woman, if desired (re: financial abuse).

Hyper
September 21st, 2016, 07:51 PM
Whilst wrong whoever it occurs to. The main issue is that the 'generalizations' that men have historically faced have placed them into a position of structural power.

As well as basically all positions that are related to mortal danger; war & every other dangerous occupation has historically, and continues to be till this day, been the domain of men.

Would you say there is a glass ceiling for women who wish to achieve a position of ''structural power'' and if yes could you elaborate on the nature of that ceiling.

Drewboyy
September 21st, 2016, 09:55 PM
Remember when all those women who failed the physical test to get into military nagged the higher-ups to lower the standards? That is what I see feminism as. There obviously was a problem with voting and such but nowadays, in first-world countries, there is nothing to complain about. They just lower the standards so everyone is at the same place instead of raising standards so the best can show that there really isn't a big equality problem.

Third-wave feminists and other "movement" groups are just useless. Middle-eastern countries where they slit vaginas in the middle of sandstorms is what we/they should be fighting for.

PlasmaHam
September 21st, 2016, 11:24 PM
Third-wave feminists and other "movement" groups are just useless. Middle-eastern countries where they slit vaginas in the middle of sandstorms is what we/they should be fighting for.

Exactly! They are so worried about waving around dildos and free birth control that they miss the real issue. We have gender equality in the West, how about you deal with the places without it?

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 01:09 PM
Who is more likely to be taken serious? A man who claimed he was raped, or a woman? Men are the victims in around 10% of rape, yet men are almost always claimed to be the guilty party. Sterotyping.

I said women have less sexual harassment and that is youur response...
1. There is a difference between sexual harassment and rape
2. Even if I was talking about rape.... 10% is still less so I would be right?

That is a very broad generalization, and honestly I don't see any support for either. I have literally never heard someone blame a woman being angry on her period, besides you.
Cough Donald Trump (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trumps-comments-periods-prove-why-we-desperately-need-talk-about-them) cough
I'll humour you, when did I dismiss a women's argument or anger because she was on her period?

That's an easy fix, don't go having sex with every other man, and people won't see you as a slut. Referring to earlier, which gender is more likely to be called rapists?
I said slut shaming was a problem and that was your response... proving slut shaming is a problem. Btw women are also shamed for how they dress and act, not just how many guys they sleep with however a women should be able to sleep with 100 guys a day if she wants without the social stigma, it is more outrageous when men are rewarded for it.

Yes, being sent out by my country to die, that is a great advantage.

Aside from the fact that the US currently has a volunteer army.... along with the rest of the world.

Besides I never said it was an advantage, I said it was sexist. It is also an advantage
Maybe if society and women stopped sexualizing their tops, then people would have differing opinions on that.
Well yeah... that is the point of the free the nipple movement.
We have gender equality in the West
Well now a guy said there is no sexism against women we can all go home and relax! -_-

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2016, 02:03 PM
Well now a guy said there is no sexism against women we can all go home and relax! -_-
Yep! Or we can listen to the guy that says there is sexism against women. You really should think this out earlier. Would you rather me have my sister come and write this? She has the exact same opinions, but apparently you are so sexist that a guy's opinion is automatically worse than a womans.

Leprous
September 22nd, 2016, 02:09 PM
Yep! Or we can listen to the guy that says there is sexism against women. You really should think this out earlier. Would you rather me have my sister come and write this? She has the exact same opinions, but apparently you are so sexist that a guy's opinion is automatically worse than a womans.

There's this thing called sarcasm...

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 02:11 PM
Yep! Or we can listen to the guy that says there is sexism against women. You really should think this out earlier. Would you rather me have my sister come and write this? She has the exact same opinions, but apparently you are so sexist that a guy's opinion is automatically worse than a womans.
10/10!! I write a nice long post, disproving everything you say and you respond to that xD

But because I am sure you just missed it all, I'll post it again.

Who is more likely to be taken serious? A man who claimed he was raped, or a woman? Men are the victims in around 10% of rape, yet men are almost always claimed to be the guilty party. Sterotyping.

I said women have less sexual harassment and that is youur response...
1. There is a difference between sexual harassment and rape
2. Even if I was talking about rape.... 10% is still less so I would be right?

That is a very broad generalization, and honestly I don't see any support for either. I have literally never heard someone blame a woman being angry on her period, besides you.
Cough Donald Trump (http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/donald-trumps-comments-periods-prove-why-we-desperately-need-talk-about-them) cough
I'll humour you, when did I dismiss a women's argument or anger because she was on her period?

That's an easy fix, don't go having sex with every other man, and people won't see you as a slut. Referring to earlier, which gender is more likely to be called rapists?
I said slut shaming was a problem and that was your response... proving slut shaming is a problem. Btw women are also shamed for how they dress and act, not just how many guys they sleep with however a women should be able to sleep with 100 guys a day if she wants without the social stigma, it is more outrageous when men are rewarded for it.

Yes, being sent out by my country to die, that is a great advantage.

Aside from the fact that the US currently has a volunteer army.... along with the rest of the world.

Besides I never said it was an advantage, I said it was sexist. It is also an advantage
Maybe if society and women stopped sexualizing their tops, then people would have differing opinions on that.
Well yeah... that is the point of the free the nipple movement.
We have gender equality in the West
Well now a guy said there is no sexism against women we can all go home and relax! -_-

Vlerchan
September 23rd, 2016, 02:42 PM
As well as basically all positions that are related to mortal danger; war & every other dangerous occupation has historically, and continues to be till this day, been the domain of men.
In historical terms, men dominated in jobs that put them at greater risk because men dominated in jobs, period. That men could access these jobs, dangerous or not, of course put them in a position of structural advantage as these men possessed the independent living capabilities that women did not. That it is maintained to the present is a good example of glass walls promoting the gendered divide of labour: men and women are still socialised into different attitudes about labour and work and of course I agree with your position that this is wrong.

It's frankly bizarre to discuss historical divisions of labour vis-á-vis military combat within the frame of contemporary opinion on military service, as you seem to be doing. In the last number of decades there has been a complete devalorisation of warfare - and one can see it best recognised it the diminished treatment and status of our veteran men and women. It's been the historical case that military service granted social privileges to participants - and in a number of societies: legal privileges, and thus the opportunity to advance socially was, of course, a boon for men. So, in historical terms, without a doubt, yes. That women don't participate at the same rates currently is broadly down to [1] them not being socialised into militaryesque values to the same extent, [2] being disproportionately less fit, physically, for combat roles.

Of course that women didn't shed blood like men doesn't undermine the argument that women are structurally disadvantages vis-á-vis men. Not at all.

Would you say there is a glass ceiling for women who wish to achieve a position of ''structural power'' and if yes could you elaborate on the nature of that ceiling.
It seems clear that women are socialised into a set of values that makes it more likely for them to avoid certain preoccupations - i.e. there's glass walls - but I'm sceptical we can claim there is specific glass ceilings - most management professionals are women and without the data for the career progression of this cohort (which won't be available for another 20 - 30 years) I wouldn't feel comfortable making specific claims about glass ceilings.

Bob billy
December 21st, 2016, 01:00 PM
Wouldn't that be biologically impossible? Yoou would be impregnating yourself with your own genetic material.
Feminism is no longer about equality. It has become a radicalized movement about female superiority. It is something I laugh at now because of its rapid decline in intelligence and logic.

Amethyst Rose
December 21st, 2016, 01:55 PM
Wouldn't that be biologically impossible? Yoou would be impregnating yourself with your own genetic material.
Feminism is no longer about equality. It has become a radicalized movement about female superiority. It is something I laugh at now because of its rapid decline in intelligence and logic.

Please don't post in threads with 2 or more months of inactivity :locked: