Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 278

Thread: Calling All Feminists

  1. #41
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    No, what we really have is a Delta NF movement hostile to competition, overt passion and intensity, fixed commitments and roles.

  2. #42
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    female sexuality needs to be controlled.
    what a profound thought... female sexuality needs to be controlled from your assumptions.

    We should MAYBE want to control reproduction, not female sexuality, that is to me to say, we shouldn't even control that, they tried that in China and it turned out a massacre. Poor kids.

    But I get it, to you females= reproduction, which is just as biased as it seems.

  3. #43
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybris theory View Post
    what a profound thought... female sexuality needs to be controlled from your assumptions.

    We should MAYBE want to control reproduction, not female sexuality, that is to me to say, we shouldn't even control that, they tried that in China and it turned out a massacre. Poor kids.

    But I get it, to you females= reproduction, which is just as biased as it seems.
    You are so driven by indignant outrage, it's becoming a farce. Stop taking my posts out of context.

  4. #44
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    You are so driven by indignant outrage, it's becoming a farce. Stop taking my posts out of context.
    lol what, are you talking about yourself?

    You came in here professing how feminism is dangerous and whatnot, having in mind an idea of feminism that internet memes portray. Lol, ok how cool, what do you expect me to do? Agree with your biological non sequiturs? Sure, ok, you're right.
    Women screaming are not there because they're crazy, they're usually there with a cause, that you now take for granted because you can: thanks to the same women, because things changed a lot during the last 50 years, thanks to them. Or you we would be at the point where you'd just shup me up saying "you're a woman, you can't talk..", oh wait you just did that. -)

    There are many levels in which women are less advantaged in society, the reproductive deficit of the last years is even in the favour of the "same rights-not same at all" patriarchal laws. Many women can lose their jobs during pregnancy, but isn't that a woman's right too? Shouldn't she be granted both rights then? If we accept biological differences we can surely expect double standards, but this rule is true for everyone. Is a woman that will never have children less advantaged too? Apparently not, but the discourse of feminism doesn't stop to job dynamics. That's just a consequence and a fuel, well... there's the culture we live in, that's what feminism fundamentally is. The "women can't do that" mentality had to be changed, and it did slowly, but there's still the underlying feeling that "women are weaker than men", when the real problem is that they are probably different. Not for this weaker or to be protected, as if muscles force is all that matters. But this has nothing to do with the fact that women too can be promiscous as male, and not for this there would be a problem. You're talking out of context, what answers do you expect? lol

    Yeah feminism ain't a meme, it's the voice to all the injustice a group has to go through for belonging to it, it's not a case the system we live in is called patriarchal, it's revolving around male power, no wonder majority of world leaders are still all men, and that's just normal. We all agree we're different, this doesn't excuse any abuse situation though (oh right betas...)

  5. #45
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    this gives me an opportunity to state my somewhat peculiar objection to feminism - actually the continuing power structure is unfavorable not just towards women but also towards a great majority of men, so the real issue is not about sex but about clan-like violence, mobbing, disrespect towards other humans, and so on...
    All the problems that feminism and "men's rights" (I wish this term could go to a real thing, but they do bring up real issues at least) try to address come from colonialism. The British Empire spread around the world, and look at the social structures that existed then.
    The average Victorian book gives you a good sense of it, and you should know some Shakespeare too to get more of an idea of what a role-based society looks like. Between Shakespeare and the Romantic period, you have a shift from a role-based society (glorified in Medieval sagas and mocked in Titus Andronicus), in which people legitimately identify with other people, to an individualistic one.

    It's a sort of faux individualism that goes to people who are trying to get to the top of the pecking order in the colonial system though, "individuality for me because I'm good, stereotypes for you because you're not" ("intersectionality" in Tumblrspeak). This disadvantages women more visibly, because they are excluded from the public sphere, so their protests are public. But it also disadvantages men, because not all men want to do nothing but fight their way up to the top for money at the expense of everything else, and the private is private, so how can you protest there if you're losing custody of your children or whatever other issue? But on the other hand, that's decently compensated for through public power. And if you want to do something that has nothing to do with colonialism or even hurts it, you're screwed regardless of sex. Look at the really great world-changing people. There's a higher percentage of women there than there are CEOs that people always throw around as a statistic but no one can actually name. Marie Curie is the only person with two Nobel Prizes in science, and isn't science supposed to be so manly? There's also a lot of other weirdness that's not particularly relevant besides gender stuff, and most of these people are distinctly not from imperial England or its descendants.

    And the last point, which is why both "SJWs" and "anti-SJWs" annoy me to no end: you're both just these British colonial types vying for more money and power. SJWs are more traditionally disadvantaged in the public sphere in Anglo-Saxon society, and anti-SJWs are traditionally advantaged, but both of their ideologies are made up based on what would help them individually get more money and power, because they're in an about equal position. SJW-ism isn't really revolutionary, anti-SJW-ism isn't really traditional, and minorities and people in other countries don't believe those ideologies, even if they often have other herd ideologies that can look similar. Go talk to some, if you're not afraid of being contaminated or whatever, and be really honest with yourself. And really, SJWs and anti-SJWs: you wouldn't keep fighting if you really believed you were above it, just like how you don't say "at least I'm not homeless like you!" and blow raspberries when you see homeless people on the streets.

    If someone disagrees and wants to prove me wrong, I'd appreciate that. Standard rhetoric about "the patriarchy" (from either side) is not going to cut it. To me, this argument is so obvious if you read books and know cultural things and not just political rhetoric and groupthink, but I might've tried to condense what'd need to be at least a 20-page essay into one post and ruined it.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There have been oppression way before colonialism... I'd suppose women are more likely to be oppressed in more "war-like" and tribal societies, because "might makes right" and women have less might than men. It's also very easy to oppress women when the vast majority of the leaders are men.

    There will always be "Men's Rights Activists", "supremacists", nationalists etc. They will always be whining about how they're the victims of evil feminism even in the most sexist and non-feminist societies. They want to play the victim. Perhaps they're the unbeknownst defenders of current power structure and the status quo.

  7. #47
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,871
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yes. I'm feminist. Kill me now

  8. #48
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,404
    Mentioned
    244 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    In the post I linked you to earlier, I explained why all successful societies have a double standard with regards to sexual behaviour. In short, eggs are more valuable than sperm, so female sexuality needs to be controlled.

    Re the second part of your post, I have some questions:

    Do you usually pay for at least half of a date's meals?
    Do you perform social courtesies for men (like opening doors, and giving up seats to them)?
    Do you prefer to initiate sex?
    Would you have sex with a man who earns less money than you?
    Would you have sex with a brash, melodramatic and image-focused man?
    Would you have sex with a man who was periodically depressed and needs emotional support?

    Almost none of the women who actually do the things I've listed are Infantiles. They are typically Aggressors, and here's the irony: no female Aggressor I've ever talked to identifies as a feminist.
    The eggs are more valuable than sperm argument is complete utter bullshit. Women want sex as much as men do, but culture dictates otherwise.

  9. #49
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    In the post I linked you to earlier, I explained why all successful societies have a double standard with regards to sexual behaviour. In short, eggs are more valuable than sperm, so female sexuality needs to be controlled.
    I refuse to be reduced to biology. Women have sex drives just as men do (and can achieve orgasm for no purpose other than pleasure, unlike you). And not all women want children and should not have to feel obligated to have them.


    Do you usually pay for at least half of a date's meals? a) I pay my way b) we split in half c) whoever drives the longer way does not need to pay d) one of us pays with the understanding the other pays next time. You wouldn't believe how many men are profoundly uncomfortable when you move away from the script of him paying.
    Do you perform social courtesies for men (like opening doors, and giving up seats to them)? I do that for people regardless of gender.
    Do you prefer to initiate sex? I don't have a preference.
    Would you have sex with a man who earns less money than you? Yes. I have had relationships with men who earn less.
    Would you have sex with a brash, melodramatic and image-focused man? Not my type but if he is otherwise great.
    Would you have sex with a man who was periodically depressed and needs emotional support? Yes. My last longterm partner had PTSD, depression, and anxiety.

    How many women have you met and talked to in recent years? Who is your information pool?
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  10. #50
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    No, what we really have is a Delta NF movement hostile to competition, overt passion and intensity, fixed commitments and roles.
    Not hostile to competition, but hostile to the assumption that everyone starts from an equal playing field. I have to work harder than my male colleagues to be respected. It's a thing, believe me. It shouldn't be like this. There is a lot of passion and intensity in exposing yourself to the suffering of others and supporting them. Or in living as a trans woman who is trying not to get harassed and killed. Contemporary feminism is trying to be inclusive and since suffering is intersectional, there is a lot of passion, courage, and commitment in the movement. Just not along tired old 1950s gender roles. We want to be individuals, not by default mothers and housewives (that should be a choice).
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  11. #51
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    There have been oppression way before colonialism... I'd suppose women are more likely to be oppressed in more "war-like" and tribal societies, because "might makes right" and women have less might than men. It's also very easy to oppress women when the vast majority of the leaders are men.
    Not really. "War-like" societies actually had better "rights" for women because the men were away at war all the time, but you also seem to completely miss how the actual social structures work in other societies. But go ahead, add "rights for women" to things that'd take a literal miracle to achieve. You've already transferred your belief in miracles to plenty of other secular things (the singularity, for one), one more isn't going to fry your brain any more. I can pull out sources for all the things I said. Yes, there's always been some oppression in the world, but it takes different forms based on different times and places. The exact forms you see now are very, very modern.

    I also just pointed out the real causes of SJWism vs. anti-SJWism in Anglophone countries, but you ignored that. Russia is a bit of a different case, same with other countries. And I don't know what nationalism has to do with that, unless you mean white nationalism or something. Nationalism is better for human rights than globalism as long as it doesn't go into ethnic nationalism batshittery. It's not really possible for governments to work well for their citizens when they have to go fight everyone else's wars and give all their money to other people and swing around their military dick one day and kiss other countries' asses the next. Maybe if nation-states evolved into a different system it'd work though.

  12. #52
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,235
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't personally describe into any sort of submission dominance thingy they like to suggest there exist. Solutions tend to suggest usage of submission dominance thingy. Simpler solution: dump that thinking pattern as a whole and problems are gone.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  13. #53
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    sometimes it seem feminist is not far from racist. Dividing people from superficial things and trying to make one of the group more powerful. ;P

  14. #54

  15. #55
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,806
    Mentioned
    245 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Not hostile to competition, but hostile to the assumption that everyone starts from an equal playing field. I have to work harder than my male colleagues to be respected.
    And I have to work harder than some female colleagues to be respected, since I´m in a different line of work. I don´t believe it´s that easy.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  16. #56

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrd View Post
    Not really. "War-like" societies actually had better "rights" for women because the men were away at war all the time, but you also seem to completely miss how the actual social structures work in other societies.
    Well, that really depends. Perhaps in the Spartan society, women were expected to be strong and physically fit just as the men were, because they believed that strong women gave birth to strong children. They also had fairly equal rights as the men did. But that is really the exception, and not the rule. Usually, you'd have either a single warlord or a king, who would rule over all (not literally). The vast majority of them were men, not women. There may have been a few female warlords, Empresses, influential queens here and there, but they were rare. Also having them don't necessarily mean having more rights for women, just more rights for the rulers. In most cases, women had far less rights than men did, and having voting rights and wielding political power and influence were unheard of.

    Having more wars usually mean women are constrained to more "traditional" roles, such as housekeeping and childrearing. Women are also more vulnerable to pillaging and raping. They would also be more likely to be at mercy of their husbands for protection.

    Anyway, it seems like there is evidence that early, more "primitive" societies have been more matrilineal. Those societies were probably more cooperative than combative, more egalitarian than not, which is probably why people like Marx, Engel and Rousseau idealized such "primitive Communist" societies. More patriarchal, vertical-line, top-down hierarchical societies seem to have only emerged when mostly men created clear hierarchies and militaristic order, which dominated everything else through power and brute force.

    In recent years, evolutionary biologists, geneticists and palaeoanthropologists have been reassessing the issues, many citing genetic and other evidence that early human kinship may have been matrilineal after all.[5][6][7][8] One crucial piece of indirect evidence has been genetic data suggesting that over thousands of years, women among sub-Saharan African hunter-gatherers have chosen to reside postmaritally not with their husbands' family but with their own mother and other natal kin.[9][10][11][12][13] Another line of argument is that when sisters and their mothers help each other with childcare, the descent line tends to be matrilineal rather than patrilineal.[14] Biological anthropologists are now widely agreed that cooperative childcare was a development crucial in making possible the evolution of the unusually large human brain and characteristically human psychology.[15] Putting these two findings together generally supports the idea that early human kinship was likely to have been matrilineal.

    I also just pointed out the real causes of SJWism vs. anti-SJWism in Anglophone countries, but you ignored that. Russia is a bit of a different case, same with other countries. And I don't know what nationalism has to do with that, unless you mean white nationalism or something. Nationalism is better for human rights than globalism as long as it doesn't go into ethnic nationalism batshittery. It's not really possible for governments to work well for their citizens when they have to go fight everyone else's wars and give all their money to other people and swing around their military dick one day and kiss other countries' asses the next. Maybe if nation-states evolved into a different system it'd work though.
    "SJW" is only a term created by more conservative people to mock and de-legitimize more liberal causes and movements (if there are "tumblr feminists" then there are also "tumblr misogynists"). The so-called "SJWs" are concerned with attaining social justice. The "anti-SJW" people want a world that is ruled by "law of the jungle", where "might makes right". They idolize such patriarchal, "strong", hierarchical and militaristic societies, even though perhaps they themselves would be on the bottom rung of such a society. Nonetheless, they idolize the "strong". You could perhaps say that the "SJWs" simply have a ressentiment against the strong, and they want to control them through Nietzschean slave-morality.

    Nationalism is only useful when say, a country wants to free itself from colonialism, such as the Indian independence. But normal nationalism is only harmful and dangerous, as it puts its own country above the rest. I don't think you would see that say, Chinese nationalism is a good thing. It's not as if an invention of the West and white people.

  17. #57
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    And I have to work harder than some female colleagues to be respected, since I´m in a different line of work. I don´t believe it´s that easy.
    Of course it does not apply everywhere, but I would still say women overall have a harder time "proving competence" and having their looks factor into equations (positive or negative).
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  18. #58
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well, that really depends. Perhaps in the Spartan society, women were expected to be strong and physically fit just as the men were, because they believed that strong women gave birth to strong children. They also had fairly equal rights as the men did. But that is really the exception, and not the rule.
    In World War I and World War II, you see the same pattern in America thousands of years later. This is the rule for warlike societies as far as I'm concerned.

    There may have been a few female warlords, Empresses, influential queens here and there, but they were rare. Also having them don't necessarily mean having more rights for women, just more rights for the rulers.
    Rulers in general are rare. In Egypt, most males would've been nameless slaves who get trampled under mules building the pyramids as well. The whole point is to have rights for individuals, not rights for women. I stand for the human spirit, ambitions, etc. not some sort of corporatist collectivist society where people are "women," "men," "blacks," "whites," etc.

    In most cases, women had far less rights than men did, and having voting rights and wielding political power and influence were unheard of.
    In most societies ever, no one had voting rights or much political power. Republicanism was a Greek experiment that was only resurrected two millenia later in America. Life just used to suck for most people and now it doesn't suck as much for most people.


    Anyway, it seems like there is evidence that early, more "primitive" societies have been more matrilineal. Those societies were probably more cooperative than combative, more egalitarian than not, which is probably why people like Marx, Engel and Rousseau idealized such "primitive Communist" societies. More patriarchal, vertical-line, top-down hierarchical societies seem to have only emerged when mostly men created clear hierarchies and militaristic order, which dominated everything else through power and brute force.
    This is pretty much a myth, and calling Rousseau a Communist should be enough for your entire argument to be invalidated. I don't even care about Rousseau but he was a Romantic, not a Communist, even if the Communists drew on him a lot.


    "SJW" is only a term created by more conservative people to mock and de-legitimize more liberal causes and movements (if there are "tumblr feminists" then there are also "tumblr misogynists"). The so-called "SJWs" are concerned with attaining social justice. The "anti-SJW" people want a world that is ruled by "law of the jungle", where "might makes right". They idolize such patriarchal, "strong", hierarchical and militaristic societies, even though perhaps they themselves would be on the bottom rung of such a society. Nonetheless, they idolize the "strong". You could perhaps say that the "SJWs" simply have a ressentiment against the strong, and they want to control them through Nietzschean slave-morality.
    I put the term in quotes the first time I used it, and I guess I should've, but these people don't care about legit social justice issues, just like the "anti-SJWs" don't care about legit "might makes right" morality. Aside from that, the rest of your paragraph is incomprehensible.

    Nationalism is only useful when say, a country wants to free itself from colonialism, such as the Indian independence. But normal nationalism is only harmful and dangerous, as it puts its own country above the rest. I don't think you would see that say, Chinese nationalism is a good thing. It's not as if an invention of the West and white people.
    Well, "nationalism" is often used to mean this sort of violent ethnic nationalism, but in actual practice, there are a lot of nationalist policies and ideas that most people are fine with and just aren't called that. "Nationalist" is probably an unreclaimable word for a useful idea, much like "feminist." A country should put itself above the rest, because that's how countries are built to work. If you have some money and you're literally starving, do you feed yourself, or do you give it to someone else and let yourself die? Countries should work the same way. You shouldn't blow all your money on foreign aid and fight everyone else's wars because democracy or whatever. You also should like your country better than other countries, or your country and/or you just really suck (unless you just hate countries in general, which is a valid ideal, but if you like countries, you shouldn't be like "my country is worse than China and I stick around anyways, I hate myself, yay.")

  19. #59
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't really like calling myself a feminist and almost never do it (because let's be clear, there's not a lot more cringeworthy than a man who is enthusiastically feminist) but since I am a communist you sort of have to be a feminist if you're going to be honest. To answer the OP's question a left-wing feminist (because there are right-wing or liberal people who call themselves feminist) believes that capitalism is bad for both men and women in different ways and when looking for alternatives to capitalism considers these differences, and how these differences might be born again in a new society. I hope that answered the question.

    There are also liberal feminist who are mostly focused around how few female CEOs there are or why female actors in films are sexualised and stuff and that doesn't interest me much (and doesn't really speak very much to a class-conscious type of feminism either) but I guess it's a major trend in feminism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    Profile of the modern left:

    Ideology is Marxist conflict theory applied to gender, race and religion.
    Agreed (unfortunately) but you are not supposed to apply Marxist conflict theory that way. It's why most of the modern left can't participate in debate or discussion and is just a bit shouty - their ideology has a weak ideological and practical support framework.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  20. #60
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  21. #61
    Milo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    443
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Newly published book. If anyone purchases and reads it let us know what you think.


    Feminist ideology has seeped into every aspect of our society. This book is a sobering true story of tragedy, suicide, and murder directly caused by feminism. It not only chronicles true stories that show feminism's discrimination against men, it's backed by peer-reviewed research. Additionally, it includes investigative journalism that proves feminism was never about equality. The reality is that feminism doesn't just victimize men. It also victimizes women, children, families, and communities.

    I was really surprised, this is not a woman bashing book. The author gives examples of how modern feminism uses fear tactics to hold women in perpetual victimhood and encourages girls to engage in a lifestyle they will likely regret once they mature beyond clubbing and hook-up culture. He makes a compelling case using original quotes, peer-reviewed studies, legal cases, and first-person narratives. I’ve come away with a broader understanding of how rights and privileges for women evolved in the US. The author clearly cares about women and men and wants a society in which both can be happy together. I would recommend this book to Moms, Dads, and kids older than 16.



  22. #62
    yeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    TIM
    Si 6 spsx
    Posts
    1,359
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default


  23. #63
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo View Post
    Newly published book. If anyone purchases and reads it let us know what you think.


    Feminist ideology has seeped into every aspect of our society. This book is a sobering true story of tragedy, suicide, and murder directly caused by feminism. It not only chronicles true stories that show feminism's discrimination against men, it's backed by peer-reviewed research. Additionally, it includes investigative journalism that proves feminism was never about equality. The reality is that feminism doesn't just victimize men. It also victimizes women, children, families, and communities.

    I was really surprised, this is not a woman bashing book. The author gives examples of how modern feminism uses fear tactics to hold women in perpetual victimhood and encourages girls to engage in a lifestyle they will likely regret once they mature beyond clubbing and hook-up culture. He makes a compelling case using original quotes, peer-reviewed studies, legal cases, and first-person narratives. I’ve come away with a broader understanding of how rights and privileges for women evolved in the US. The author clearly cares about women and men and wants a society in which both can be happy together. I would recommend this book to Moms, Dads, and kids older than 16.

    ]
    So what does he suggest?
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  24. #64
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Milo View Post
    book is a sobering true story of tragedy, suicide, and murder directly caused by feminism.
    LOL
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  25. #65
    c esi-se 6w7 spsx ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    the center of the universe
    Posts
    15,833
    Mentioned
    912 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Feminists are so unreasonable and histrionic...

  26. #66
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know that shower scene in Starship Troopers? Men and women just washing together, ain't no thang. Sky Marshal is both a female or male character. Dizzy makes squadron Chief. That's feminism to me: where ultimately its the merit of a individual that allows their place in life, not their sex.

    I think every effort nowadays holds that shower scene as the ideal future.


  27. #67
    wasp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    TIM
    ZGM
    Posts
    1,578
    Mentioned
    132 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Cuivienen, you just posted a thread seeking a sugar baby/daddy arrangement the other day. c'mon

    If you want to understand feminism, I highly recommend checking out "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". The entire trilogy, if possible. If not that then "A Thousand Splendid Suns". There's probably no better way to gain a firm understanding of the movement - in its sophisticated form, not the loud minority you mistake for the whole - than to read realistic novels written by intelligent men who were privy to the unfair treatment of women in their respective countries. Feminism isn't "tits out for harambe" - you can focus on that part if it drives your misled narrative along, but that's not what feminism is about. It's about equal rights for men and women, legally speaking, at least. The reason we use the prefix "fem-" isn't because it's solely about women.

    It's because the term originated back when women had about as many rights as couch cushions do today. If you want to know why we continue referring to the movement as "feminism", it's probably because - to everyone's surprise, apparently - the world doesn't revolve around North America. To this day, there are still countries out there where women are mistreated and abused in any which way society deems fit. Based solely on their gender. Are there still countries out there where men are mistreated and abused? Of course there are. In many cases, feminism tries to account for social issues pertaining to males as well, but it's not as high of a priority in countries where women are stoned to death for perceived infidelity as it may be in North America.

    I don't think many feminists would deny that sexual dimorphism exists. That's not the brand of equality they're seeking. Nobody wants to miraculously grow balls. It's true that there are biological differences between men and women, but it's precisely due to these biological differences that some aspects of the movement may not make sense to men. It's one of those things you may not even understand until [incoming cliche] you have a daughter.

    @Milo I'll check out that book, but only if you promise to check out one of the two aforementioned novels.

    Real talk for a minute - how has feminism driven people to suicide and homicide? I'd like to know. Is it, like... they see the word "feminism" written in a magazine and they seppuku? Or is it like the Ashley Madison incident where people killed themselves after being exposed as cheaters? (I'm half joking)

  28. #68
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Does some forms of sexism exist in society? Sure. Do I think it is a ridiculous notion to pay women less than men for the same job? Sure.

    Do I think that the pay is as out of balance as quite a few feminists tend to make it out to be? Nope. Do I think it is logically sound to point the finger only at men for women's misfortunes in society? Nope. Do I believe that government regulations are required in order to fix the imbalance? Nope.

    The sad truth is the reason the imbalances exist is not just because of men, but women as well. The whole society has supported the notion that men are the ones that go out and get the jobs, and the women are the ones that stay home and take care of the children for some time. Western civilization has been grounded in this paradigm for some period of time, and has been quite unrelenting as far as flexibility is concerned. A big cause of this has been the wide scale religious principles being indoctrinated in society as a whole. Instead of staying at home and birthing 10 children, women should have been out attempting to break the mold. Women should have started more small businesses, gain more market power, engaged in more competitive economic practices as a whole.. instead people have willingly fell into the cliches of what a man is supposed to be and what a woman is supposed to be. It has become very apparent to me that society has not learned from its past mistakes. Instead of bitching at every person that doesn't follow their pristine moral code, women(and men) should go on campaigns in order to encourage more female entrepreneurs. That is what real feminism is to me is about...encouraging female individualism. What they are doing now isn't going to do shit, and really just pisses people off more than anything. It will probably solve itself on its own eventually, but it's going to take far longer than it should.

    If over 70% of the people that run businesses in the US are men, you really think there isn't going to be some degree of prejudice? Do you really think if enough people go around bitching about it or smacking people over the heads then all of a sudden the problems will be solved? Women make up over 50% of the population. The idea they couldn't push forward and change the framework of the economic system is just silly.
    Last edited by Hitta; 09-09-2017 at 05:02 PM.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  29. #69
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,228
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    Does some forms of sexism exist in society? Sure. Do I think it is a ridiculous notion to pay women less than men for the same job? Sure.

    Do I think that the pay is as out of balance as quite a few feminists tend to make it out to be? Nope. Do I think it is logically sound to point the finger only at men for women's misfortunes in society? Nope. Do I believe that government regulations are requited in order to fix the imbalance? Nope.

    The sad truth is the reason the imbalances exist is not just because of men, but women as well. The whole society has supported the notion that men are the ones that go out and get the jobs, and the women are the ones that stay home and take care of the children for some time. Western civilization has been grounded in this paradigm for some period of time, and has been quite unrelenting as far as flexibility is concerned. A big cause of this has been the wide scale religious principles being indoctrinated in society as a whole. Instead of staying at home and birthing 10 children, women should have been out attempting to break the mold. Women should have started more small businesses, gain more market power, engaged in more competitive economic practices as a whole.. instead people have willingly fell into the cliches of what a man is supposed to be and what a woman is supposed to be. It has become very apparent to me that society has not learned from its past mistakes. Instead of bitching at every person that doesn't follow their pristine moral code, women(and men) should go on campaigns in order to encourage more female entrepreneurs. That is what real feminism is to me is about...encouraging female individualism. What they are doing now isn't going to do shit, and really just pisses people off more than anything. It will probably solve itself on its own eventually, but it's going to take far longer than it should.

    If over 70% of the people that run businesses in the US are men, you really think there isn't going to be some degree of prejudice? Do you really think if enough people go around bitching about it or smacking people over the heads then all of a sudden the problems will be solved? Women make up over 50% of the population. The idea they couldn't push forward and change the framework of the economic system is just silly.
    "Some people are by nature slaves and will always be so." - Rousas John Rushdoony

    ...and a wordier argument follows, but just as wrong:

    "If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled. And of this we straightway find an indication in connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form. Hence the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does, are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: “ Silence gives grace to woman—
    ” though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the slave's virtue also is in relation to the master.And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice. (But the question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a partner in his master's life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much of virtue falls to his share as of slavery."


    -Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944.


    Maybe these guys were talking about people who don't create their own factories or homesteads from unoccupied land, or who rely on their families or the the government for support and so don't have to work.

    Every asshole who is born rich or advantaged thinks he got where he is all by himself from his natural talent, and loudly asserts that people who don't have his advantages are fundamentally flawed and nothing can be done about that, it is the Natural Order of things.
    I say, drop these guys into Somalia with a bag lunch and let the Natural Order play out.

  30. #70

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,605
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some countries already have the quarter system, where you are required by law to have 25%-40% of the board as women. I think such societies are doing pretty well.

  31. #71
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by super mbti user View Post
    Cuivienen, you just posted a thread seeking a sugar baby/daddy arrangement the other day. c'mon
    If you took that thread seriously the joke is on you lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by super mbti user View Post
    If you want to understand feminism, I highly recommend checking out "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo". The entire trilogy, if possible. If not that then "A Thousand Splendid Suns". There's probably no better way to gain a firm understanding of the movement - in its sophisticated form, not the loud minority you mistake for the whole - than to read realistic novels written by intelligent men who were privy to the unfair treatment of women in their respective countries. Feminism isn't "tits out for harambe" - you can focus on that part if it drives your misled narrative along, but that's not what feminism is about. It's about equal rights for men and women, legally speaking, at least. The reason we use the prefix "fem-" isn't because it's solely about women.

    It's because the term originated back when women had about as many rights as couch cushions do today. If you want to know why we continue referring to the movement as "feminism", it's probably because - to everyone's surprise, apparently - the world doesn't revolve around North America. To this day, there are still countries out there where women are mistreated and abused in any which way society deems fit. Based solely on their gender. Are there still countries out there where men are mistreated and abused? Of course there are. In many cases, feminism tries to account for social issues pertaining to males as well, but it's not as high of a priority in countries where women are stoned to death for perceived infidelity as it may be in North America.

    I don't think many feminists would deny that sexual dimorphism exists. That's not the brand of equality they're seeking. Nobody wants to miraculously grow balls. It's true that there are biological differences between men and women, but it's precisely due to these biological differences that some aspects of the movement may not make sense to men. It's one of those things you may not even understand until [incoming cliche] you have a daughter.

    @Milo I'll check out that book, but only if you promise to check out one of the two aforementioned novels.

    Real talk for a minute - how has feminism driven people to suicide and homicide? I'd like to know. Is it, like... they see the word "feminism" written in a magazine and they seppuku? Or is it like the Ashley Madison incident where people killed themselves after being exposed as cheaters? (I'm half joking)
    Most feminists already live in a country where men and women are equal before the law, so I do not believe for a moment that feminists desire equal rights. Why would you, when you already have them.

    Why do you think so many feminists have become hostile to biology, if they don't consider the existence of sex differences to be a problem?

    Why do you think so many feminists have become hostile to motherhood, if they don't consider the existence of families to be a problem?

    I stand by my earlier definition of feminism. It is Marxist conflict theory applied to gender issues. The purpose of conflict theory is very simple; to sow division and mistrust in Western society.

    If you want another reason to dislike feminists, look at the way they view the inequalities in society that negatively affect men. Here are some examples: men account for over 70% of suicide victims, and over 90% of workplace deaths in the U.S.. We also have a significantly lower life expectancy than women. Unlike the "gender pay gap", which is entirely due to different lifestyle choices between men and women, these inequalities are real, and they kill.

    What do feminists have to say? #IBatheInMaleTears. #SmashThePatriarchy. #IHateWhiteMen.

    I rest my case.

  32. #72
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    "Some people are by nature slaves and will always be so." - Rousas John Rushdoony

    ...and a wordier argument follows, but just as wrong:

    "If intemperate and cowardly he will not perform any of the duties of his position. It is evident therefore that both must possess virtue, but that there are differences in their virtue (as also there are differences between those who are by nature ruled. And of this we straightway find an indication in connection with the soul; for the soul by nature contains a part that rules and a part that is ruled, to which we assign different virtues, that is, the virtue of the rational and that of the irrational. It is clear then that the case is the same also with the other instances of ruler and ruled. Hence there are by nature various classes of rulers and ruled. For the free rules the slave, the male the female, and the man the child in a different way. And all possess the various parts of the soul, but possess them in different ways; for the slave has not got the deliberative part at all, and the female has it, but without full authority, while the child has it, but in an undeveloped form. Hence the ruler must possess intellectual virtue in completeness (for any work, taken absolutely, belongs to the master-craftsman, and rational principle is a master-craftsman); while each of the other parties must have that share of this virtue which is appropriate to them. We must suppose therefore that the same necessarily holds good of the moral virtues: all must partake of them, but not in the same way, but in such measure as is proper to each in relation to his own function. Hence it is manifest that all the persons mentioned have a moral virtue of their own, and that the temperance of a woman and that of a man are not the same, nor their courage and justice, as Socrates thought, but the one is the courage of command, and the other that of subordination, and the case is similar with the other virtues. And this is also clear when we examine the matter more in detail, for it is misleading to give a general definition of virtue, as some do, who say that virtue is being in good condition as regards the soul or acting uprightly or the like; those who enumerate the virtues of different persons separately, as Gorgias does, are much more correct than those who define virtue in that way. Hence we must hold that all of these persons have their appropriate virtues, as the poet said of woman: “ Silence gives grace to woman—
    ” though that is not the case likewise with a man. Also the child is not completely developed, so that manifestly his virtue also is not personal to himself, but relative to the fully developed being, that is, the person in authority over him. And similarly the slave's virtue also is in relation to the master.And we laid it down that the slave is serviceable for the mere necessaries of life, so that clearly he needs only a small amount of virtue, in fact just enough to prevent him from failing in his tasks owing to intemperance and cowardice. (But the question might be raised, supposing that what has just been said is true, will artisans also need to have virtue? for they frequently fall short in their tasks owing to intemperance. Or is their case entirely different? For the slave is a partner in his master's life, but the artisan is more remote, and only so much of virtue falls to his share as of slavery."


    -Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1944.


    Maybe these guys were talking about people who don't create their own factories or homesteads from unoccupied land, or who rely on their families or the the government for support and so don't have to work.

    Every asshole who is born rich or advantaged thinks he got where he is all by himself from his natural talent, and loudly asserts that people who don't have his advantages are fundamentally flawed and nothing can be done about that, it is the Natural Order of things.
    I say, drop these guys into Somalia with a bag lunch and let the Natural Order play out.

    Eh, I really hate the Somalia argument. Those that use it lack knowledge of the history of Somalia. Somalia has been a shit hole for quite a bit of time. In 1991 when Siad Barre was ousted, the country was in rather poor condition and quite chaotic. Removing regulations isn't some magical fix that's going to suddenly fix every economic or tribal problem that arises. Somalia has actually done quite well in comparison to the neighboring countries in the region in recent times. Business has picked up, Somalia is actually one of the hottest business zones in the region currently. Many corporations that are fearful of moving into places like Kenya or Ethiopia find the business climate in Somalia to be quite satisfactory. A lot of the chaos and violence has declined quite a bit, and it's actually becoming quite peaceful there. The conditions in Somalia were far worse when there were authoritarian rulers there.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  33. #73
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,512
    Mentioned
    140 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    Eh, I really hate the Somalia argument. Those that use it lack knowledge of the history of Somalia. Somalia has been a shit hole for quite a bit of time. In 1991 when Siad Barre was ousted, the country was in rather poor condition and quite chaotic. Removing regulations isn't some magical fix that's going to suddenly fix every economic or tribal problem that arises. Somalia has actually done quite well in comparison to the neighboring countries in the region in recent times. Business has picked up, Somalia is actually one of the hottest business zones in the region currently. Many corporations that are fearful of moving into places like Kenya or Ethiopia find the business climate in Somalia to be quite satisfactory. A lot of the chaos and violence has declined quite a bit, and it's actually becoming quite peaceful there. The conditions in Somalia were far worse when there were authoritarian rulers there.
    thanks adamruinseverything lol. The sentence somalia is the hottest business zone in the region makes me laugh. It just sounds humerous.

  34. #74
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wacey View Post
    thanks adamruinseverything lol. The sentence somalia is the hottest business zone in the region makes me laugh. It just sounds humerous.
    Well it is an odd thing to say lol. Somalia isn't the greatest area to live on the planet...I will admit that. Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia aren't the greatest places to live either. The region is behind modern civilization by a large margin. The whole shtick though that people throw out often about "this is what happens when you have anarchy" and point to Somalia just doesn't hold any weight. I don't think that pure anarchy is the most optimal state, and am not prescribing that as the route that countries should take to achieve utopia. Anarchy though hasn't been that bad for Somalia though. There are many things in Somalia that the other countries in the region are not privy to, and the violence rates are actually low for the region.

    Also Somalia is hot as hell
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  35. #75
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,228
    Mentioned
    1553 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I used Somalia as an example of a place without the structure of a formal government, to illustrate the fact that most people who find themselves in a privileged position in society would be hard-pressed to attain that position in a different society. This happens to CEO's all the time. A guy gets lucky with his company, his team, the economic times, and suddenly he's a genius who can fix any other company. He moves to another company for a much higher benefits package, and guess what? Mediocre performance. This is the rule, not the exception.

    Individual talent does matter as to where a person ends up in society, but it is not the primary determining factor. What matters most is the culture of the society. The culture provides the opportunities (or doesn't) which a talented and lucky individual can take advantage of. Change the culture, and you change the people on top.

    Consider the fact that immigrant groups which have been considered to be "losers" or genetically deficient have repeatedly come to the US and have succeeded in this culture. When people immigrate, we only ask that they pledge allegiance to the culture.

    Regarding the question of an individual's potential for natural performance in a culture, there was this study: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/...12690208099871.

    "White Men Can't Jump", Race, Gender, and Natural Athleticism.

    Unfortunately, the article is behind a paywall, but if you have university access, you can probably read it. The article's point can also be understood to apply to woman's position in society.
    Women, like Blacks, won't be in a disadvantaged position when you wouldn't mind being born as one, or trading places with one right now. (I'm directing this at the members of the dominant social position in this country.)

    Personally, my ideal culture is one where a person's opportunities don't depend on who they are or where they were born.
    To that end, I'd eliminate local funding of schools through property taxes (where rich districts have well-off schools and poor districts have underfunded schools) and have the Federal government pay for schools, and I would have a 100% tax on inheritance. If you can't pass on wealth to your kids, you'd want to make damn sure that they got a good education and that you live in a society which provided people with opportunities where hard work and talent can lead to success. I'd also provide a minimum income because, while people are incredibly rare and complex producers, like a production line, they can only perform well with a support structure in place.

  36. #76
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    On the nature of talent, I think it is an impossible topic to study properly. It would require one to really delve deep into the semantics of the word talent and what it really means. For example, there are different forms of intelligence, and the relativistic nature of the intelligence is almost impossible to completely isolate. For example, an individual may suck at chess... but be a master strategist when it comes to war all because of the familiarity of the symbolic representations of certain core principles. There are also factors such as relate-ability. One may be a genius economist but be unable to present their ideas properly to the public as they have a problem integrating with society as a whole. Or there are also issues such as being a genius on one side of the knowledge base of a subject and being terrible at the others. One could be a genius economist but have no knowledge of the hidden workings of society and how the interactions will take place in order to properly plan. There definitely is a cultural component as well.

    The argument you are making on Somalia is non-nonsensical. OF course the individuals in Somalia would not be successful in another civilization. They wouldn't exist in another civilization. They have been adapted from the natural workings of the Somalian system. Now a better question would be, if all of the Somalians had somehow grown up in another era of technological advancement for the region, would the same people have evolved differently in order to properly succeed in the new Somalian identity. I believe the answer to this is somewhere in-between. I believe that some skill sets are more momentary, while other natural skill sets have a much more transcendental/balanced quality. I feel like you'd still see some of the same people at the top though. It is a weird question to ask though, as with higher technology there is higher education, different reasoning patterns. I do believe in innate talent though that is reactive to whatever is thrown at it.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  37. #77
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta View Post
    I do believe in innate talent though that is reactive to whatever is thrown at it.
    I'd just call that drive, desire, will. There's no actual skill that's good in one situation that wouldn't be a detriment in another. There is a consciously thinking and feeling person who can decide to adapt.

  38. #78
    ooo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    the bootie
    Posts
    4,052
    Mentioned
    300 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post

    If you want another reason to dislike feminists, look at the way they view the inequalities in society that negatively affect men. Here are some examples: men account for over 70% of suicide victims, and over 90% of workplace deaths in the U.S.. We also have a significantly lower life expectancy than women. Unlike the "gender pay gap", which is entirely due to different lifestyle choices between men and women, these inequalities are real, and they kill.

    What do feminists have to say? #IBatheInMaleTears. #SmashThePatriarchy. #IHateWhiteMen.

    I rest my case.
    Oh nice, these data are actually interesting, but not comprehensive of the states of things. We know in most countries males suicide more than females, and that's linked to the killing method they chose, men opt for more effective methods and die, women opt for less extreme methods and can get rescued, but there's no study to prove the number of people who get rescued.
    As for the psychology, it's said that it's still women to have the more suicidal thoughts. It would be interesting to find out WHY all these people want to kill themselves, and probably the cause then will get to be linked again to a gender disparity. It not only creates division, but even a lot of expectations that many people can't follow, and then comes depression.

    As for males dying in the workplace, that's definitely horrible. A thought to all of them. Let's not forget as well all the girls who get abused daily and bought to become sexworkers, and all the ones who get killed just to satisfy a man.

    The Femen movement, where girls were shaking their breasts freely around Europe, was indeed born with this intent, to make people aware of the kind of tourism that some countries receive, it's only sexual. Girls are the product to buy, when not children.

  39. #79
    it's ok, everything will be fine totalize's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Great Britain
    TIM
    NAPOLEON
    Posts
    662
    Mentioned
    98 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default IMO:

    So:

    A critical part of making men and women equal is by balancing the sexual-social rights/duties of both sexes. The harsh truth is that if you want to live in equality - and some people do not - you need to address imbalances that you might think are otherwise natural. As they say: the law gives both the rich and the poor man the freedom to sleep under a bridge. Adapt it for feminism: the law gives both man and woman the freedom to give birth to a child. Our society imposes demands on women that it simply doesn't impose on men. A socialist feminist approach has the practical and intellectual muscle that liberal feminism doesn't to overcome these demands.*

    Constructing equality comes in two parts:

    The first, and easiest, is to provide for women the same freedom that men have - the freedom to ignore the immediate biological demands of life. Cheap tampons (or whatever you people put to stop it bleeding, idk), free and easily available birth control, et cetera et cetera. This is kind of why it's frustrating when people post pictures of the "female equivalent of a male product that is exactly the same but more expensive." Cosmetics aren't a biological demand. The tampon tax is a good example of a sexist and obviously wrong policy that we could stop tomorrow. Our society needs to stop obsessing about what women do with their sexual lives. Part of living a fulfilling and satisfying social life is your sexual life. Men's sexual lives are almost entirely unregulated and women should have the same freedom too.

    So that's all well and good, but it gets more complicated from there - most young-generation males probably already believe the above anyway. The other aspect is work, and that's where liberal feminism falls flat and marxist feminism has real answers, because of their differing perspectives on work. Liberalism has a narrow-approach to defining what work is - selling labour in exchange for money from an employer. But on top of all the hours worked in a week at a workplace, there's also work at home - housework - and work with children. It's impossible to compensate people for this because it can't be recorded, but it is obviously a form of labour. The answer is to communalise work that is traditionally unpaid for women.

    Free communal launderettes, subsidised communal canteens or food courts, free or near-free childcare facilities and programs. One success of the left-wing government in this country was the free childcare program that allowed single mothers to send their kids to childcare so that they could go to work, have an economic life, and generally free themselves of the biological demands of being a woman (i.e. child-rearing.) Obviously the right-wing government defunded this program as soon as they got into office (tfw when Conservatives love "the family" but children are always the first target of their fiscal cuts )

    A socialist society in which the working class collectively own the means of production offers actual equality. Women and men can share the economic and social decision making processes at a local level. Liberal feminism on the other hand makes no sense: just watch as you vote a woman into office who will then go and defund your health services, slash the regulations that force your employer to treat you like a human, and send your sons and daughters to die on foreign soil for the sake of a pipeline.

    * Society also imposes some demands on men that it doesn't on women, and those should be equalised too.

    That's my problem with intersectional-liberal feminism. By focusing on the experiences of granularised groups, attention is drawn away from the structures which cause inequality and exploitation, and towards the subject demands of the people who experience it. But that inequality and exploitation will remain until the structure is torn down.
    CETERUM AUTEM CENSEO WASHINGTON D.C. ESSE DELENDAM

  40. #80
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,972
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hybris theory View Post
    Oh nice, these data are actually interesting, but not comprehensive of the states of things. We know in most countries males suicide more than females, and that's linked to the killing method they chose, men opt for more effective methods and die, women opt for less extreme methods and can get rescued, but there's no study to prove the number of people who get rescued.
    As for the psychology, it's said that it's still women to have the more suicidal thoughts. It would be interesting to find out WHY all these people want to kill themselves, and probably the cause then will get to be linked again to a gender disparity. It not only creates division, but even a lot of expectations that many people can't follow, and then comes depression.

    As for males dying in the workplace, that's definitely horrible. A thought to all of them. Let's not forget as well all the girls who get abused daily and bought to become sexworkers, and all the ones who get killed just to satisfy a man.

    The Femen movement, where girls were shaking their breasts freely around Europe, was indeed born with this intent, to make people aware of the kind of tourism that some countries receive, it's only sexual. Girls are the product to buy, when not children.
    You feel obligated to find some kind of moral equivalence. Why won't you just accept the reality of what I am talking about? There are inequalities in society that affect men as well. I accept that some of them are inevitable because of the work that men tend to do, or the lifestyle choices men tend to make. However, unlike feminists I am not expecting the government to forcibly redress unequal outcomes in life in my favour, thus making a bad situation even worse.

    We need to stop this perverse race to the bottom where everyone competes for victim status. Yes, the number of women killing themselves is a problem for society. However the number of men killing ourselves is a problem as well, and I somehow get the impression that this particular gender inequality doesn't concern you.

    Let us be clear here. The behaviour, the actions taken by feminists suggest that they seek to promote the interests of a particular group of people in society - women who sign up to a particular ideology. Now in principle, this is fine; I have nothing against lobbyists. However, feminists like you should stop using empty rhetoric to mislead impressionable young women about your true objectives.

    What separates you from any other group of Democrats?
    Last edited by Spermatozoa; 09-11-2017 at 11:43 PM.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •