Calling All Feminists

[Singu]

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.

[Pallas]

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.

[Singu]

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.

[Pallas]

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.")

[idontgiveaf]

Yes. I'm feminist. Kill me now

[The Reality Denialist]

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.

[Tigerfadder]

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

[Tigerfadder]

[totalize]

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.

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.

[Kim]

[Milo]

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.

[Kim]

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?

[totalize]

book is a sobering true story of tragedy, suicide, and murder directly caused by feminism.

LOL

[ashlesha]

Feminists are so unreasonable and histrionic...

[yeves]

[wacey]

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.

[wasp]

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)

[Spermatozoa]

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.

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.

[ooo]

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.

[totalize]

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.

[Spermatozoa]

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.

My overwhelming experience is that feminists do not consider the implications of their ideology in practice.

Your first paragraph goes to the essence of what I am talking about. You simply cannot create an equal society without removing psychological sex differences in behaviour. However, the truth is that feminists don't really want to do that. Why? Well, the great majority of feminists (as this forum amply demonstrates) are IEE or EII. Infantile type women. Your typical feminist is highly anxious, emotionally reactive and reluctant to take any risks in life. Romantically, well...she is flighty and afraid of closure, seeing all the possibilities and none of the outcomes. Ti and Se PoLRs are common.

Imagine you are a woman attracted to stoic, emotionally reticent men - men who are solid, quiet, reliable and a bit goofy. Now I understand that women vary a lot in their preferences, but it makes little sense for a feminist to assail traditional gender roles, as a complex code of chivalry plus taboos on overt male sexuality suits the men they'd actually find attractive. I imagine some polite, serious but straightforward/earthy guy holding a bunch of flowers. By contrast, time after time I see feminists showing contempt for emotional dramatics in men. They absolutely hate brashness, intrigue and intensity - to be shocking or irreverent, as I am, is totally unacceptable. Walking up to a feminist, saying "So is it going to be beer or wine? Tell me what you drink, and I'll tell you who you are." isn't going to work haha. You will probably just be accused of sexual harassment.

I kind of pity the feminists in a way. They seem like a group of depressed, bitter chicks who just can't figure out how to be happy. However the truth is that they'd get more respect by changing themselves, rather than preaching to other people.

[Spermatozoa]

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?

[ooo]

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, and 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.

Let us be clear here. I am tired of the hypocrisy displayed by feminists whenever men's issues are mentioned. Your behaviour and actions suggest that you seek to promote the interests of one group, women, at the expense of all others. I understand this is probably the natural way of life, but in practice such an approach is similar to the Chamber of Commerce.

Women killing themselves is a problem. But men killing themselves is a problem as well. We need to stop this perverse race to the bottom where everyone competes for victim status.

No, YOU felt obligated to find a moral equivalence. I answered. Stop projecting.

No doubts there are inequalities in every aspect of life, injustice though is not in the disparity bond, I am of the idea that that's what has to be worked up. Reread my comment because in no way I promote the interest of a group in order to supress another, lol. That's you.

It was you to come in here throwing bias over a movement that you don't understand.

Have a consciousness analysis, aye.

[squark]

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.

Well, you can't have one without the other. Men choose to work in more dangerous jobs where they are more likely to be injured or killed in the workplace, but also receive higher wages for it. They also choose to work in positions requiring long stressful hours, and that stress takes a toll causing earlier deaths, but they also get paid more for doing so. As more women have entered the workplace and especially among those who take more stressful or dangerous jobs the life expectancy gap narrows along with the pay gap.

In other words there are trade-offs and it comes down in both cases to lifestyle choices.

[Spermatozoa]

Well, you can't have one without the other. Men choose to work in more dangerous jobs where they are more likely to be injured or killed in the workplace, but also receive higher wages for it. They also choose to work in positions requiring long stressful hours, and that stress takes a toll causing earlier deaths, but they also get paid more for doing so. As more women have entered the workplace and especially among those who take more stressful or dangerous jobs the life expectancy gap narrows along with the pay gap.

I agree with you that many men make lifestyle choices which are high risk / high reward. However, my point is that women, on average, are more likely to choose paths in life that are low risk / low reward and this explains why there is a gender pay gap. It also explains why more men die at work, among other things. I don't personally have an issue with this, and find it distasteful to see feminists shame the many women who are not interested in competing with men. In fact, a woman is more likely to be promoted by a man than she is by another woman. Basic evo psych: we see the other sex as mates and our own sex as rivals.

What pisses me off is the hypocrisy of feminists. Most of these chicks get a useless degree like gender studies (because engineering, finance and tech are like, soo boring, OMG) and then they blame the patriarchy, rather than themselves, for their low market value.

Talk about an entitlement complex.

In other words there are trade-offs and it comes down in both cases to lifestyle choices.

You and I seem to have a similar worldview, we're just articulating it differently. While I believe that we as a society should try to help everyone (feminists included) realize whatever potential they have, it is inevitable that we won't end up in the same place. Nobody would feel an impetus to create and innovate if we did.

[squark]

I agree with you that many men make lifestyle choices which are high risk / high reward. However, my point is that women, on average, are more likely to choose paths in life that are low risk / low reward and this explains why there is a gender pay gap. It also explains why more men die at work, among other things.

That's also what I was saying. It sounded like you were saying that the higher work-related deaths and shorter lifespans were unrelated to choices they made. But yes, the pay gap and life-expectancy gap move together. Men tend to be more willing to take on heavier workloads, more stress and more risk than women are and are rewarded for that, but also pay for it with their health. Women tend to look for a different set of rewards such as more time off or flexible schedules, etc. They also tend to be less assertive in asking for pay raises. (As a general trend, and just to point out to anyone with anecdotes to the contrary, a trend just means as a general whole and doesn't speak to specific cases where this won't apply. Wage gaps and life expectancy are also measured as trends of the whole population and won't apply to specific cases.)

I don't personally have an issue with this, and find it distasteful to see feminists shame the many women who are not interested in competing with men. In fact, a woman is more likely to be promoted by a man than she is by another woman. Basic evo psych: we see the other sex as mates and our own sex as rivals.

What pisses me off is the hypocrisy of feminists. Most of these chicks get a useless degree like gender studies (because engineering, finance and tech are like, soo boring, OMG) and then they blame the patriarchy, rather than themselves, for their low market value.

Talk about an entitlement complex.

You and I seem to have a similar worldview, we're just articulating it differently. While I believe that we as a society should try to help everyone (feminists included) realize whatever potential they have, it is inevitable that we won't end up in the same place. Nobody would feel an impetus to create and innovate if we did.

I'm often surprised by the very different experiences people have and approaches people take. Growing up I was often the only female in whatever I was doing as apparently I had interests that are more common among males. This never bothered me, it's just how it was and I was fine with it. But, there's a woman I know who I went to school with and is a facebook friend who is interestingly different. In college I went into the sciences and she went into tech at the same school. I didn't see any discrimination against women, and if anything saw more cases where things like affirmative action made things unequal in an opposite way (well-qualified men passed over in favor of less qualified women for example).

She was instead for the first time in her life in a field dominated by men, and she immediately reacted as though this was WRONG and needed to be corrected. So, she is constantly posting about how to get girls involved in tech and open up opportunities for them, and lots of ideas on gender equality, starting from the toys they play with and on and on. For her, society is holding girls and women back. But, I wonder then, if it's society, why are some of us immune? She reacted to a situation of being in the minority in a completely different way than I did. I'm not sure why this is. Is there more sexism in tech for some reason? Am I just oblivious? And why is it bad to be in the minority in a field? Why does everything have to be equal?

[wasp]

If you took that thread seriously the joke is on you lol.

Well, you're doing a poor job of clarifying that "joke" with all the degrading remarks you've made toward Kim and a few select others, mate.

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.

It's interesting how the men most vehemently opposed to feminism tend to be the men who display the least respect toward women, which invalidates their argument insofar that it makes their accusations of perceived injustice seem like a blatant form of projection rather than a well thought-out critique worthy of taking into consideration. So, where in this post can you outline constructive critiques which aren't based around statistical drivel and blanket statements driven purely by personal indignation at perceived mistreatment at the hands of a movement aimed to liberate, not hinder, humanity?

You only think most feminists live in a country where men and women are equal before the law because feminists that don't live in a country where men and women are equal before the law lack the necessary rights and/or resources to make their desire for equality publicly known, lest they be imprisoned or killed for operating against the law. You don't think pre-teen girls that are prostituted to old, abusive men in the Middle East desire equal rights, too?

You have a specific idea in mind of what a "feminist" is. You only acknowledge feminists that adhere to your personally contrived criteria - such as obnoxious misandrists - so feminists that don't adhere to your personally contrived criteria are caught in your blindside. You don't acknowledge them as feminists. Your arguments against feminism are targeted toward very specific demographic that doesn't resonate with the feminists of this forum.

In fact, most of your arguments against feminism don't even directly address feminism. "Men vs. Women - whose suffering is worse... in the West?"

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

This assumes that all feminists use twitter. #NotAllFeminists

I rest my case.

*beep* Try again.

Yeah and thank god most women arent stupid little snowflakes like you. Muh problems, must be opposite sexes fault. Jesus christ get a grip.

This would be a lot easier to take seriously if you didn't just agree with Cuivienen's stance against feminism which finds its roots in this exact mentality.

[Spermatozoa]

Well, you're doing a poor job of clarifying that "joke" with all the degrading remarks you've made toward Kim and a few select others, mate.

LOL, you make it sound like I have sadistically humiliated them or something. Put things in perspective.

It's interesting how the men most vehemently opposed to feminism tend to be the men who display the least respect toward women, which invalidates their argument insofar that it makes their accusations of perceived injustice seem like a blatant form of projection rather than a well thought-out critique worthy of taking into consideration. So, where in this post can you outline constructive critiques which aren't based around statistical drivel and blanket statements driven purely by personal indignation at perceived mistreatment at the hands of a movement aimed to liberate, not hinder, humanity?

I treat the individual women around me with respect, and my comments about a group you belong to are not an attack on you personally. You are overreacting and thus proving my points about feminists for me.

You only think most feminists live in a country where men and women are equal before the law because feminists that don't live in a country where men and women are equal before the law lack the necessary rights and/or resources to make their desire for equality publicly known, lest they be imprisoned or killed for operating against the law. You don't think pre-teen girls that are prostituted to old, abusive men in the Middle East desire equal rights, too?

Come now, you are being intolerant of cultural diversity. It would be racist to hold Muslims of all people to the same ethical standards that you expect of me.

You have a specific idea in mind of what a "feminist" is. You only acknowledge feminists that adhere to your personally contrived criteria - such as obnoxious misandrists - so feminists that don't adhere to your personally contrived criteria are caught in your blindside. You don't acknowledge them as feminists. Your arguments against feminism are targeted toward very specific demographic that doesn't resonate with the feminists of this forum.

I simply work backwards from the way feminists act/behave and thus discern their motivations. Feminism is no longer a movement driven by liberal impulses.

Fortunately for mankind, most of you just virtue signal online.

In fact, most of your arguments against feminism don't even directly address feminism. "Men vs. Women - whose suffering is worse... in the West?"

I framed my arguments deliberately to coax out your hypocrisy around social justice issues.

*beep*

Try again.

Be nice then. I am tempted to look elsewhere for fun.

[Hitta]

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.

[Adam Strange]

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.

[Hitta]

"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.

[wacey]

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.

[Hitta]

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

[Singu]

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.

[Adam Strange]

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.

[End]

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.

I agree with most everything you say @Adam Strange except for the part I quoted above. If, IF, you basically forbade most any form of inheritance you'd fuck over the entire incentive structure the working class operates best under. For instance, I'm a rural man at heart. Money? Comfort? Luxury? Bah! I LAUGH with unending scorn at those who desire such things. But I'll tell you this, when I finally get my few acres of farmland I dream of I will spend the remainder of my life upon attaining it making it as fertile, healthy, and productive as scientifically possible and I damn well better be at least able to pass THAT on to my (by my judgement) offspring that seems best able and most willing to do the same for his/her own offspring.

Take my money for all I care, tis the root of all evil anyway. But you better leave my grain silos, lands, and accumulated amounts of "seed corn" ALONE or else I'ma grab my rifle and make my last fucking stand. Besides, redistributing land never works out well. Look at what happened in Zimbabwe or in the Soviet Union. Yeah, depose the likes of me from our land and have fun starving to death. Karma's a bitch ain't it!

[Adam Strange]

I agree with most everything you say @Adam Strange except for the part I quoted above. If, IF, you basically forbade most any form of inheritance you'd fuck over the entire incentive structure the working class operates best under. For instance, I'm a rural man at heart. Money? Comfort? Luxury? Bah! I LAUGH with unending scorn at those who desire such things. But I'll tell you this, when I finally get my few acres of farmland I dream of I will spend the remainder of my life upon attaining it making it as fertile, healthy, and productive as scientifically possible and I damn well better be at least able to pass THAT on to my (by my judgement) offspring that seems best able and most willing to do the same for his/her own offspring.

Take my money for all I care, tis the root of all evil anyway. But you better leave my grain silos, lands, and accumulated amounts of "seed corn" ALONE or else I'ma grab my rifle and make my last fucking stand. Besides, redistributing land never works out well. Look at what happened in Zimbabwe or in the Soviet Union. Yeah, depose the likes of me from our land and have fun starving to death. Karma's a bitch ain't it!

@End, I can see where you are coming from. I, too, want to give my kid the advantage of a head start in this society. But I told him that he would never inherit the company I formed, for two reasons. One, he might not want it. Two, he might feel that he has no need to either work or find out what he himself is good at, and I don't want to cheat him of that.

A third reason for ending inheritance (aside from trying to create a meritocracy) is that when people inherit fortunes, they tend to abuse the power that comes with the wealth.

Also, the problem of inheritance creating an undemocratic society is real: http://robertreich.org/post/165403227390

We're not talking about you passing a few acres on to your kids. We're talking about a return to feudalism, where a few hundred families eventually own everything of any worth.

[End]

@End, I can see where you are coming from. I, too, want to give my kid the advantage of a head start in this society. But I told him that he would never inherit the company I formed, for two reasons. One, he might not want it. Two, he might feel that he has no need to either work or find out what he himself is good at, and I don't want to cheat him of that.

A third reason for ending inheritance (aside from trying to create a meritocracy) is that when people inherit fortunes, they tend to abuse the power that comes with the wealth.

Also, the problem of inheritance creating an undemocratic society is real: http://robertreich.org/post/165403227390

We're not talking about you passing a few acres on to your kids. We're talking about a return to feudalism, where a few hundred families eventually own everything of any worth.

I will say that the abuse of power by those who inherit vast resources truly boils down to (and you knew I'd reference this again) r/K selection. "Free"/inherited resources=r-selection. r-selection=radical left wing communism which equals death, atrocity, and tyranny if a society ever experiences the grave misfortune of having an r-selected ruling elite (FYI, we're currently living this worst case scenario).

See, I wouldn't just auto pass on my lands and wealth to my children and if none of them proved "worthy" of it and if none of them did I'd flat out donate it to a charity I found more worthy than the sad failures of my line. Fun note is that my own family always has very, VERY bitter disputes when one of ours dies. Always fighting over the inheritance for no good discernible (to me) butt-fucking reason! Trust me you don't have to sell me on the dark side of Inheritance bullshit. I've LIVED it and I hate with every last fiber of my being. That said, I understand why it is, was, and ever will be a thing at the forefront of the minds of anybody who manages to claw their way out of the fetid swamp that is the lowest dregs of society.

Also, Adam, I must tell you that there are ample arguments against "Democracy" being "good" in the sense you seem to think it is. I suggest you read "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He is one of the biggest influences in regards to my own political thought. Kings>Presidents all things considered and his case for that is VERY thorough. Just throwing that out there, always pays to read the works of those whom you are supposed to hate and all. I mean, if both sides of the political debate actually did that then we'd all be a lot more... respectful I'd think. We'd all at least be more able to "understand" the other's viewpoint. Understanding is the first step to humanization of the other, and once you do that, well, it's a LOT harder to pull the trigger and kill em' y'know .

[totalize]

@Cuivienen

Re-reading your claims in the posts in the last-page.

(1) Large chunks of your arguments are comprised of subject-experience with feminists. I'm not really impressed with this.

I simply work backwards from the way feminists act/behave

I framed my arguments deliberately to coax out your hypocrisy around social justice issues.

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 pisses me off is the hypocrisy of feminists. Most of these chicks get a useless degree like gender studies (because engineering, finance and tech are like, soo boring, OMG) and then they blame the patriarchy, rather than themselves, for their low market value.

By contrast, time after time I see feminists showing contempt for emotional dramatics in men. They absolutely hate brashness, intrigue and intensity - to be shocking or irreverent, as I am, is totally unacceptable. Walking up to a feminist, saying "So is it going to be beer or wine? Tell me what you drink, and I'll tell you who you are." isn't going to work haha. You will probably just be accused of sexual harassment.

I kind of pity the feminists in a way. They seem like a group of depressed, bitter chicks who just can't figure out how to be happy.

The problem here is that if your argument rests on your experience of feminists being humourless and poorly educated, then of course you will come to the argument that feminism sucks. This isn't my experience of feminism though. I know feminists who are chemical engineers, wealthy academics, useful public servants. They are not necessarily humourless - they just don't like being insulted.

It's possible to find women who believe in gender equality in political principles, and who also have a good sense of humour. Sometimes that humour is also dark and irreverent. I know because I know lots of them. My ex was like that. She's a feminist and makes a lot of money making politically incorrect jokes. I'm dating a woman like that now too. If you can't find women like this then that's bad, but it's not a good argument against feminism, and not a good basis for a political perspective. You get chumps everywhere.

(2) Yes, women tend towards low-pay qualifications rather than high-pay qualifications and to some extent this explains why men are better paid (by the way, anti-feminism needs to sort out if it thinks that men are better at work and therefore better earners, or if the wage gap just doesn't exist: these are mutually exclusive positions). But wealth and income are not the same thing and net wealth doesn't = income. People become prosperous from a combination of: skills & work & saving.

I'm not too bothered that there is a glass ceiling or whatever. I am not bothered about a lack of female chief executives or hedge fund managers or whatever. Nothing in society will improve if women constitute half, rather than 1% or whatever it is now, of the 99th wealth percentile. You could fill the 99th-percentile with transsexual womyn of colour or whatever, and they would still be bad.

But (my final point) across the world you see that there are some jobs that are confined to women, and some that are confined to men. At all levels of the income scale, there are plenty of jobs like that. You don't see any Filipinos leaving their families and going overseas to be maids for wealthy families in Singapore and Hong Kong. You don't see any male cleaning staff in hospitals in this country, who work 14 hour shifts for under the national minimum wage and look after kids at the same time. However, women are not (yet) conscripted for pointless wars, don't do a lot of the most physically dangerous and poorly compensated work, and also some more degrading types of work. These people can not build skills or savings, the other two most important factors in increasing wealth.

There are some things that only apply to women, and some things we need to do in society specifically for women who need assistance and who have been historically exploited, degraded, or oppressed. That's not mutually exclusive with helping men and there's no reason to pretend it is, or that if you support that thing, that you can't support the other.

I live in a very Delta-heavy society - you are meant to keep your head down, be happy, polite and not express anything dramatic or provocative. This is a problem because music is meant to shock, tease and entertain you, not just give you a peaceful easy free love feeling to soothe your anxieties.

Probably all the white dominions (and the mother country) are heavy delta. The problem with NZ is it doesn't have big enough cities. You could probably cross the strait and go to Sydney or Melbourne because even if a country is delta its major cities are almost certainly more alpha/beta.

[Hitta]

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.