Feminism Has to Go...

Post Reply New Topic

Who owns the trade mark to Patriarchy?

Well if might be amusing to put the MRAs together with the WRAs in a "Thunderdome" type arena

Quite often I've witnessed cognitive dissonance when it comes to "treating women as people" includes accepting that women can represent the worst of humanity just as easily as the best of humanity. e.g. All sorts of excuses being used to excuse the behaviour of women criminals which wouldn't even be considered with men criminals.

The phrase is "equal pay for equal work."

On the other hand if you could pay women less, for the same work, why would you employ men?

Re YouTube Feminism Crash

This will go on forever. But feel the gratitude for living in a country where it's legal.

I'm serious - please tell me - who owns the trade mark on Patriarchy tm ? I've been searching. I find it in conversational material. I do not find anything in dictionaries or Wikipedia. If I look for, say, Colgate, the first thing Wikipedia gives is history of ownership and image of logo. Patriarch tm is invisible except for chats. Does it really exist? I'm not being contrary - I want to find out what it has to tell me.

Often political words acquire additional definitions which are the opposite of the original meaning, such as in the cases of liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism. Sometimes, this may happen in order to appropriate the positive feelings associated with a word. Or, to foster confusion.

Dropping the label entirely in response to other peoples misuse of the label, might confuse things further. It could make things clearer just to add modifiers.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 07 Feb 2016, 7:10 pm, edited 6 times in total.

It was a satirical point about a shift away from equality feminism towards identity feminism. This is reflected in feminist literature, "chauvinism" and "sexism" were more common terms before the obsession with this term.

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php ... patriarchy

The over use of the "Patriarchy" is similar to conspiracies like "New World Order" or any over simplistic all encompassing blanket explanation for all world's ills, rather than more nuanced and realistic theory of discrimination, which understands its dynamical and relativist nature.

Although reasonable feminists claim Patriarchy is meant to reflect just the power structures rather than all men, you don't have to search far to find it being equated to masculinity and maleness. It is a pretty obvious connection, and widely represented if you scratch beneath the surface.

These are not "radicals" either. These are fairly mainstream discussions, especially in universities.

Another common phrases are "white male privilege". This is despite the fact this group also includes a large number of poor, uneducated largely marginalised people, who you would need to reach if you want to do anything about bigotry and discrimination.

Nora Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. fought against segregation. Yet in the University of Missouri groups influenced minority protesters to push for ideas tantamount to segregation, apparently not seeing the irony. This was based feminist ideas, or a popular school of thought at the moment.

This is mainly becuase of the broad misuse of the concepts of "safe space" and "trigger warning". These are not recommended for the treatment of PTSD long term:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... -good.html
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavio ... arch-81946

Yet even if they were they are abusing these terms in a wider context to try and shut down discussion. This is happen within lecture room and they are trying to expand to whole campuses. There have even convinced student unions to vote for such undemocratic ideas in the UK

This is the kind of crap that has been going on for the past couple of years.

We can't pretend these type of groups don't have influence or are just fringe becuase they do have influence.

Yes some of these people are obviously radical like this person
viewtopic.php?t=305276

However the influence is broader than, that with well meaning but illiberal ideological folk.

Personally I don't really care about want is going on on Tumblr. I care about education policy, and the basic principle of rights being protected. The people with influence.

This whole debarckle has badly damaged the feminist moment in my eyes and a lot people. it has also alienated many women too.

Does that answer your question?

How about no? I never claimed that illegal activity doesn't occur. Why is it you in particular who always tries to twist my words? My point is that if it were unlawful, we would have heard about it. Now show me these cases.

An article which conveniently omits the actual quality of work involved. How about this;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

The most important thing to note;

"And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage."

So why don't they?

But you made some claims about the neurobiology of anger without citing your sources. Anger is an emotion that is experience by pretty much every human being as the capacity to feel anger IS hereditary. What makes you human and not a snake are you *genes*. Humans are not all genetically identical but we do share common genes that identify us as members of a biological taxon(species).
Cause an effect, my friend! You claim that blacks are hardwired to be more violent but all you have are crime statistics and you still haven't ruled out other explanations.

Other explanations you've yet to provide, of course.

I'm not interested in political correctness, sorry.

Well, the stronger women could pass the strength tests, but not the speed tests, and the slender women could pass the speed tests but not the strength ones, so they made them easier so women could pass. If feminism is something that goes to war with genetics, common sense and people's lives, then the title of this post is correct. They weren't "out-dated" rules, they were rules that were there to make sure the best of the best men were picked for the job.

Right, well in that case i'd say it's almost the best scenario in a bad situation. With that law in place, it's hard to say that pay shouldn't be equal. Still, I think a woman should be looking after the child for the first year, and then the choice be made after the first year, but then that adds further complications and questions. And where does that government agency get its money from?

Given local council offices get in s**t if they put up Christmas decorations without proper caution, the idea that UK Fire Brigade entrance requirements would be dangerously changed in the name of 'feminism' or 'equality' is risible.

"Equality" and "diversity" comes before anything else in the public services.

While i am flattered that apparently i have fantastic word twisting skills, the reality is that you repeatedly make egregious claims for which you provide not an ounce of empirical backing. E.g. it's a "fact" that black people are more aggressive than whites and they're biologically programed that way (that alone shows a serious lack of understanding of human biology) - quite a claim of "fact" without a shred of true evidence; history has no relevance and it's just pushed by left wingers..while you reference Orwell who ironically was Very much left; or here - you stated that it cannot/would not happen because it would be illegal. No "twisting" required - -that- is what you said. So i merely called you on the flaw in that conclusion as things that are illegal do happen.

So if i'm twisting your words, fine. Then what does If there were anything else involved, it would technically be unlawful. mean?

As for "proof"- you said it doesn't exist because illegal doesn't happen, not me. Thus the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, turning it to me would be asking to prove the negative - which by definition cannot be done. That is , even if i could find no cases, that still wouldn't mean it wasn't happening, it would only mean that i couldn't find cases. There also is the assumption that such cases would be easy to prove in court since david v goliath, in court, david always wins (/sarcasm).. or that women making $10/hr could afford to lose their job let alone higher a lawyer. You however are attempting to incorrectly find a lack of cases as further "proof" something doesn't exist.

Regardless, for fun and nothing more, the class action suit against walmart.

Last edited by 100000fireflies on 08 Feb 2016, 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.