Potjeh wrote:Yeah, fuck women! With their consent, ofc.
go away potjeh and stop derailing. This is a serious discussion.
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by overtyped » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:28 pm
go away potjeh and stop derailing. This is a serious discussion.
Early world exploit: Put your hearthfire inside a cave, then hold shift to position a claim right in front of a cave. After 8 hours the claim will be unbreakable. Since your hearthfire is inside the cave, you can still get back inside, and leave, but nobody will be able to enter, effectively making you unraidable for the first 3-7 days. Enjoy
-
overtyped - Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:09 am
- Location: Quaran book burning festival
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by Potjeh » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:30 pm
But that is my honest position on women. Or under women, if I'm feeling a bit tired.
-
Potjeh - Posts: 11811
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 4:03 pm
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by Kaios » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:41 pm
overtyped wrote:This is a serious discussion.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
-
Kaios - Posts: 9171
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:14 am
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by Dzedajus » Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:45 pm
Batshit insane feminists? Troll them into oblivion and laugh even harder when they try to spout their extremist bullshit.
Feminism? Men and women are different and there is no way to reach so called gender equality as nooby said you can only get equal human rights.
Feminism? Men and women are different and there is no way to reach so called gender equality as nooby said you can only get equal human rights.
-
Dzedajus - Posts: 1099
- Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:08 pm
Re: Sides drawn, are you for or against feminism?
by nyaiee » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:01 pm
Edit: Sorry for the giant wall of text, also I pressed submit rather than preview so I'm probably going to edit this a little
I'm taking the OP as satire.
With that in mind, I'm very much against feminism as a word and for the most part as a movement.
The word feminism:
The actual definition of feminism isn't equality, it's advocating women's rights. However a majority of people, including people who label themselves as feminists claim it as gender quality - in my experience, it's (social) definition as a movement or ideology that seeks gender equality is used to defend people who are either intentionally being sexist or, worse yet, defending their opinions and ideals that are based on minimal research or peer pressure.
Your average feminist:
There are unarguably a number of intellectuals who call themselves feminists, who spend their life perusing knowledge and in all cases assess every argument with its due respect before drawing their own conclusions and suggesting solutions.
With that out of the way, I'd also point out that "equality" is entirely subjective, meaning the preserved definition of feminism(equality) is entirely subjective, the type of person referred to in the OP definitely exist. Though they're a minority of the feminist community, they're exactly as entitled as anybody else to call themselves feminists, as any man who beats the poop out of his wife is since by his subjective logic that action may be called equality (she had the exact same opportunity as him to beat him up, equality at work).
The population of America (316.1 million) is roughly %19.5 feminist (61.6 million).
With the above in mind, how many of those 61600000 people are formally educated? How many of them know enough about law, politics, economics, biology, psychology to have any meaningful opinions on equality? How many of them spend a large enough portion of their time assessing the combined arguments of people who know enough about one of two of the subjects, while still being able to objectively assess the arguments against it?
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome
It's unarguable they the genders and sexes are different (weather it be due to biology or society), and treat each other differently.
Thus far been near impossible to prove which behaviors are socially constructed and which are biological.
With the above in mind, equality of outcome is almost impossibly unlikely to exist in most areas if equality of opportunity exists - a large portion of the arguments that I've observed have been based on one sex/gender or another having higher status or likelihood to succeed or partake in one activity or another. An example of this is the fact that a vast minority of the programming students in America are female, which could be explained by:
A) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged socially (That girl knows C++, what a whore)
B) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged by existing systems in the education system (Boys get free maxi-pads if they enroll in programming!)
C) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged economically (23% of our applicants are female, but we need 50% to achieve multiculturalism - better either pay women more or lower our standards)
D) Females are disinterested by comparison to males due to biology
B) Other
Your equality/morality vs. my equality/morality
It's exceedingly unlikely that we'll ever have a consensus on which of the above causes the disparity in outcome - but it's significantly more unlikely we'll have a consensus on if it's sexist/a problem, and again it's even more unlikely there will be a consensus on how the problem could be fixed in a fair way, if there indeed is one.
This is an inherent problem with movements based on a subjective ideology because every movement that employees a significant number of people needs leaders, in this case intellectuals who know enough about any given subject and confirm problems and suggest reasonable solutions, which generally isn't a problem, excluding the (subjective) problem that it is giving a majority power to a minority. The problem is that the basis of Feminism is subjective, one Feminist leader may see pornography as women being brutally raped and dehumanized (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPX0q96y2c). Another may see it as being a result of the free-market, and being an industry that mainly employees/needs women, as favoring women over men. Another may see it as being a result of an unregulated market in which women can be exploited for money, and lastly another could see it as being liberating/empowering to women, the prospect of taking it away or discouraging it being sexist.
The point of the above, is that the majority cannot be successfully led by a number of individuals who so frequently overlap and contradict each other so heavily. Somebody who doesn't dedicate their life to a specific subject that could require advanced knowledge of several fields cannot meaningfully decide upon their own subjective morality based on evidence they don't have, or worse yet, assumed evidence.
Bullying and manipulation in Feminism
There are many other examples I could give (http://youtu.be/dddgkEg2XSA?t=15s), but the easiest example of this is the phrase "if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot." By definition, this is technically true, but it's not used in this way. Too often do I see feminist propaganda seemingly targeted at those who don't have enough time, or are simply unwilling to put in the effort required to understand a given subject and therefore give a valid opinion on it. Another way in which Feminism can/has been defined is agreeing with the core feminist theories (TL;DR patriarchy exists, patriarchy is bad), most of which can easily be phrased in a way that will make it seem deplorable to an ignorant (a majority, I don't mean retards, I mean people who don't know everything about a given subject) person that some action is being taken, when in all likelihood even the person screaming bloody murder likely doesn't understand the topic enough to know if it's sexist, if it's hurting anybody, if it can be stopped, or even why it's happening.
Fair vs. Better
We don't and cannot live in a perfect world where everybody's rights, happiness or well-being can be achieved. It just can't, life is inherently unfair.
With that in mind, there are very, very, very few ways in which society could change to be better in a fair or equal way, especially if you start your reasoning regarding how to do this with the pragmatic assertion that the overall happiness and well-being of the people affected matters above all else. It's been my experience, that a majority of Feminists want what it fair, over what is best.
This is a fairly unrelated example, but I believe it fits in this case. There is an extremely large precedence of countries having a lower unemployment rate, a higher income for median families, a significant lower number of people living in poverty and higher income for the government if most forms of tax on the rich are lower. Personally, I can't confirm if this precedence is due to some unrelated action, but one of my personal heroes economist Thomas Sowell claims that is the case and, I, along with a seeming majority of the academic world hold him in exceedingly high regard, so I'd trust his judgement regarding this. Even though this is the case, most people have come to the conclusion, completely without research that it's right to basically tax the poop out of the rich, giving tax break to the poor and I can't argue it's less fair to do so, but it's definitely not the way to help your lower class, or have your nation be rich.
Getting back on topic, there are a staggeringly large number of parallels that could be run between the above economic argument, and the arguments Feminists have and continue to use regarding what's socially fairness vs. freedoms.
Equality, but women first
Short point I'd like to make about probably the biggest reason I personally dislike the Feminist Movement: it's unarguable women are disadvantaged in ways, but it's also unarguable that men are too. It would be exceedingly difficult to come to the conclusion as to who is more discriminated against, or more held back in life on average, however, the Feminist movement, the movement that defines its every action as being to achieve equality only ever does anything that benefits women. I'll definitely agree men are occasionally mentioned, especially by the academic elite, but this is by far not the majority. Even if I were to be exceedingly generous with my assumed allocation of feminist resources, claiming %95 went to women/other and %5 to men, this implies that women are subject to %90 of the injustices in any given location, and men are subject to no more than 10% in the same location. Personally, unless you're so uninformed as to believe men have every opportunity and been given every advantage women have I see this as being almost inherently sexist.
My conclusion
Having spent a significant amount of time researching the subject, I've come to the (still uneducated) conclusion that a vast majority of Feminists are either bullied into their position, are sexist or simply following the crowd. Feminism as a movement arguably cannot be attributed any significant progression or education about human rights that wouldn't of happened. In fact, I'd argue Feminism has only led to misinform a people, especially youth causing negative political pressure.
I'm taking the OP as satire.
With that in mind, I'm very much against feminism as a word and for the most part as a movement.
The word feminism:
The actual definition of feminism isn't equality, it's advocating women's rights. However a majority of people, including people who label themselves as feminists claim it as gender quality - in my experience, it's (social) definition as a movement or ideology that seeks gender equality is used to defend people who are either intentionally being sexist or, worse yet, defending their opinions and ideals that are based on minimal research or peer pressure.
Your average feminist:
There are unarguably a number of intellectuals who call themselves feminists, who spend their life perusing knowledge and in all cases assess every argument with its due respect before drawing their own conclusions and suggesting solutions.
With that out of the way, I'd also point out that "equality" is entirely subjective, meaning the preserved definition of feminism(equality) is entirely subjective, the type of person referred to in the OP definitely exist. Though they're a minority of the feminist community, they're exactly as entitled as anybody else to call themselves feminists, as any man who beats the poop out of his wife is since by his subjective logic that action may be called equality (she had the exact same opportunity as him to beat him up, equality at work).
The population of America (316.1 million) is roughly %19.5 feminist (61.6 million).
With the above in mind, how many of those 61600000 people are formally educated? How many of them know enough about law, politics, economics, biology, psychology to have any meaningful opinions on equality? How many of them spend a large enough portion of their time assessing the combined arguments of people who know enough about one of two of the subjects, while still being able to objectively assess the arguments against it?
Equality of opportunity vs. equality of outcome
It's unarguable they the genders and sexes are different (weather it be due to biology or society), and treat each other differently.
Thus far been near impossible to prove which behaviors are socially constructed and which are biological.
With the above in mind, equality of outcome is almost impossibly unlikely to exist in most areas if equality of opportunity exists - a large portion of the arguments that I've observed have been based on one sex/gender or another having higher status or likelihood to succeed or partake in one activity or another. An example of this is the fact that a vast minority of the programming students in America are female, which could be explained by:
A) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged socially (That girl knows C++, what a whore)
B) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged by existing systems in the education system (Boys get free maxi-pads if they enroll in programming!)
C) Females and males being encouraged or discouraged economically (23% of our applicants are female, but we need 50% to achieve multiculturalism - better either pay women more or lower our standards)
D) Females are disinterested by comparison to males due to biology
B) Other
Your equality/morality vs. my equality/morality
It's exceedingly unlikely that we'll ever have a consensus on which of the above causes the disparity in outcome - but it's significantly more unlikely we'll have a consensus on if it's sexist/a problem, and again it's even more unlikely there will be a consensus on how the problem could be fixed in a fair way, if there indeed is one.
This is an inherent problem with movements based on a subjective ideology because every movement that employees a significant number of people needs leaders, in this case intellectuals who know enough about any given subject and confirm problems and suggest reasonable solutions, which generally isn't a problem, excluding the (subjective) problem that it is giving a majority power to a minority. The problem is that the basis of Feminism is subjective, one Feminist leader may see pornography as women being brutally raped and dehumanized (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnPX0q96y2c). Another may see it as being a result of the free-market, and being an industry that mainly employees/needs women, as favoring women over men. Another may see it as being a result of an unregulated market in which women can be exploited for money, and lastly another could see it as being liberating/empowering to women, the prospect of taking it away or discouraging it being sexist.
The point of the above, is that the majority cannot be successfully led by a number of individuals who so frequently overlap and contradict each other so heavily. Somebody who doesn't dedicate their life to a specific subject that could require advanced knowledge of several fields cannot meaningfully decide upon their own subjective morality based on evidence they don't have, or worse yet, assumed evidence.
Bullying and manipulation in Feminism
There are many other examples I could give (http://youtu.be/dddgkEg2XSA?t=15s), but the easiest example of this is the phrase "if you're not a feminist, you're a bigot." By definition, this is technically true, but it's not used in this way. Too often do I see feminist propaganda seemingly targeted at those who don't have enough time, or are simply unwilling to put in the effort required to understand a given subject and therefore give a valid opinion on it. Another way in which Feminism can/has been defined is agreeing with the core feminist theories (TL;DR patriarchy exists, patriarchy is bad), most of which can easily be phrased in a way that will make it seem deplorable to an ignorant (a majority, I don't mean retards, I mean people who don't know everything about a given subject) person that some action is being taken, when in all likelihood even the person screaming bloody murder likely doesn't understand the topic enough to know if it's sexist, if it's hurting anybody, if it can be stopped, or even why it's happening.
Fair vs. Better
We don't and cannot live in a perfect world where everybody's rights, happiness or well-being can be achieved. It just can't, life is inherently unfair.
With that in mind, there are very, very, very few ways in which society could change to be better in a fair or equal way, especially if you start your reasoning regarding how to do this with the pragmatic assertion that the overall happiness and well-being of the people affected matters above all else. It's been my experience, that a majority of Feminists want what it fair, over what is best.
This is a fairly unrelated example, but I believe it fits in this case. There is an extremely large precedence of countries having a lower unemployment rate, a higher income for median families, a significant lower number of people living in poverty and higher income for the government if most forms of tax on the rich are lower. Personally, I can't confirm if this precedence is due to some unrelated action, but one of my personal heroes economist Thomas Sowell claims that is the case and, I, along with a seeming majority of the academic world hold him in exceedingly high regard, so I'd trust his judgement regarding this. Even though this is the case, most people have come to the conclusion, completely without research that it's right to basically tax the poop out of the rich, giving tax break to the poor and I can't argue it's less fair to do so, but it's definitely not the way to help your lower class, or have your nation be rich.
Getting back on topic, there are a staggeringly large number of parallels that could be run between the above economic argument, and the arguments Feminists have and continue to use regarding what's socially fairness vs. freedoms.
Equality, but women first
Short point I'd like to make about probably the biggest reason I personally dislike the Feminist Movement: it's unarguable women are disadvantaged in ways, but it's also unarguable that men are too. It would be exceedingly difficult to come to the conclusion as to who is more discriminated against, or more held back in life on average, however, the Feminist movement, the movement that defines its every action as being to achieve equality only ever does anything that benefits women. I'll definitely agree men are occasionally mentioned, especially by the academic elite, but this is by far not the majority. Even if I were to be exceedingly generous with my assumed allocation of feminist resources, claiming %95 went to women/other and %5 to men, this implies that women are subject to %90 of the injustices in any given location, and men are subject to no more than 10% in the same location. Personally, unless you're so uninformed as to believe men have every opportunity and been given every advantage women have I see this as being almost inherently sexist.
My conclusion
Having spent a significant amount of time researching the subject, I've come to the (still uneducated) conclusion that a vast majority of Feminists are either bullied into their position, are sexist or simply following the crowd. Feminism as a movement arguably cannot be attributed any significant progression or education about human rights that wouldn't of happened. In fact, I'd argue Feminism has only led to misinform a people, especially youth causing negative political pressure.
Last edited by nyaiee on Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
nyaiee - Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by Kaios » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:55 pm
damn girl you rocked that shit, keep doing you boo.
-
Kaios - Posts: 9171
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 2:14 am
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by DDDsDD999 » Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:41 pm
Dzedajus wrote:Batshit insane feminists? Troll them into oblivion and laugh even harder when they try to spout their extremist bullshit.
-
DDDsDD999 - Posts: 5669
- Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:31 am
Re: For or against feminism
by borka » Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:44 pm
Another great piece of writing at TheOnion 
more
http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclus ... 0-y,36936/
I'm happy to be a part of a community with so many awesome self-confident female members!
more
http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclus ... 0-y,36936/
I'm happy to be a part of a community with so many awesome self-confident female members!
Last edited by borka on Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
borka - Posts: 9965
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 7:47 pm
- Location: World of Sprucecap
Re: For or against feminism(Flames gender revealed and more!
by overtyped » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:00 am
borka wrote:Another great piece of writing at TheOnion
more
http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclus ... 0-y,36936/
I'm happy to be a part of a community with so many awesome self-confident female members!
uhm actually god did write a new book, and it's called Mormonism. Get with the program.
Early world exploit: Put your hearthfire inside a cave, then hold shift to position a claim right in front of a cave. After 8 hours the claim will be unbreakable. Since your hearthfire is inside the cave, you can still get back inside, and leave, but nobody will be able to enter, effectively making you unraidable for the first 3-7 days. Enjoy
-
overtyped - Posts: 3906
- Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 2:09 am
- Location: Quaran book burning festival
Re: For or against feminism
by Xcom » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:01 am
borka wrote:Another great piece of writing at TheOnion
more
http://www.theonion.com/articles/reclus ... 0-y,36936/
I'm happy to be a part of a community with so many awesome self-confident female members!
Cant stop laughing.
Best post. Thanks for that borka.
-
Xcom - Posts: 1105
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:43 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot] and 1 guest
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group