Feminism Has to Go...

Post Reply New Topic

Pardon?

A woman could be given a choice

1 traditionally male role

The right to work
Eligible for military draft
No affirmative action policies
Or
2.
Housewife
Not eligible for military draft

Instead of forcing all women into a role which may or may not suit them.

Oh, ffs. Why? And would you offer the same thing to men?

Why not scrap the draft? I'm surprised you still have it.



A somewhat tongue-in-cheek response to JohnPowell's banalities. But also kind of true, at a 'social given' level.

Altering training requirements for women is silly. Real life situations can't be altered, that's why they trained for real life situations. There won't be a stool to help get over the wall in Iraq for example with the us army. Instead of lowering standards they should enhance their training style. The us arm pay did expire ends and found women could do most the same stuff as men they just had to do it differently. Different doesn't mean lower. Now I could be wrong but I think one example was loading shells into artility and they used more lower body strength instead of traditional upper body strength. They did find women had to spend more tim working out to build muscle to for example pull a wounded soldier, which I think is good. Women wanting such jobs should work to get In shape before trying for it. Year it'll be harder for them and take longer, but that's the reality if they want to compete with men who naturally are stronger. Plenty women do this already, lower standards isn an upfront to them. Hopefully the military realizes this and also allows women into combat roles finally.

More like decades. One of the side effects being the creation of so called "men's rights activists" which can tend to mirror radical feminists.


There are old school "equality feminists", but they are not that common and certainly nowhere near mainstream.


It's not uncommon for political groups to become to become radicalised. Often with moderate founders finding themselves expelled.
With the attendant issue that whilst the moderates tend want some kind of workable solution radicals may not. Indeed some of them end up looking more "part of the problem"...
Hence see hostility, blame and confrontation rather than negotiation and cooperation.

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.