Why should I be a feminist?

Post Reply New Topic

As opposed to dismissing another person's genuinely held views as ignorance, which is acceptable.

That would be context dependent. For example, you might express a belief that it is my desire to set fire to buckets full of oil-soaked kittens, absent my expressed desire to do so. It would be perfectly valid to dismiss your expressed belief as ignorant.

I think feminism is an academic construct. I think they have university departments to study it now. But I don't know too many feminists in the real world. Feminism and feminist are terms that have too many meanings.

This toxic masculinity business is a bit whiny. Men do have different priorities and methods. I think it's the testosterone. But that's how it is. Empowering women shouldn't involve changing men. But at the same time, I think men should be mindful of the differing nature of women and allow them space to be so.

I really don't think women make up the majority of the population. It's roughly 50/50.

There might be a tiny difference, like 51/49 but women are not a large majority. If boys and girls are being born at the same rate, then women's longer average life expectancy might account for the very slight majority of women in the population.

Anyway, I get what you're saying. Even if women are roughly half of the population, they do not make up half of the government. Why? Perhaps less women choose politics as a career. For the small number of women who do choose politics as a career, I have nothing against them. I voted for Australia's first female Prime Minister about 6 years ago.

I realize that America narrowly missed out on it's first female president. I heard a lot of the people who voted for Trump were women. I doubt those women objected to having a female president. Perhaps they objected to her for other reasons.

Anyway, if women want to see more women in government, they should be a part of the solution and run for office themselves. Gandhi said we should be the change we wish to see in the world.I certainly don't think they are. As I said, I voted for Australia's first female Prime Minister.

You could have had a woman for Republican candidate. You could have had Carly Fiorina. Though she wanted to outlaw abortion. I guess being anti-abortion isn't an exclusively male position.What is SBC's EMB theory?I do disagree with patriarchy inherently being bad. Patriarchy is rule by men, right? Some male leaders might be bad but not all of them. I don't think a male leader is inherently bad for women.

I'm not sure why feminists have a problem with it. Some feminists exhibit gender bias so perhaps they project their gender bias onto everyone else and assume the male politicians have a mirror image gender bias.

As I said, if they want more women in politics they're quite welcome to go into politics.Yes at my work we have women in all sorts of positions of power. I've had a female manager, a female supervisor and a female director. And a fine job they did too. Our last two CEOs have been women.You didn't? I guess I misunderstood you.Yeah, I guess it isn't.Maybe so but radical feminists can still get their radical ideas published in mainstream media. They have plenty of influence.Do you agree with this theory? Do you think that women are at an unfair disadvantage to men?

If yes, do you think this discrepancy should be counteracted by giving women advantages to compensate or do you think it would be be better to treat the source of the problem and remove the unfair disadvantages women have in the first place?





They may be a minority but often a minority can have a considerable amount of influence. The battle is not always won by superior numbers.

Are you living in America? This movement is stronger in the UK (and a little bit in Australia. I haven't heard of this idea from America.True. pricing doesn't scale linearly. Yet even at a higher cost per prisoner, I think it's justified for violent offenders. I don't think violent criminals should be out in public. Even if it's only a small fraction of female prisoners. Even if there was only a single violent criminal who was a female, it would still be justifiable to imprison her, even at a high cost.

Male prisons may be cheaper per prisoner due to economies of scale but I still think savings could be made by releasing some of the nonviolent male prisoners.Makes sense. Not going to reply to most comments on the prisons because I agree with most of it.[/quote]I'm glad we've found some common ground.If sexual inequality was ingrained so deeply in society, it would be very difficult to remove.The famous Nuremberg defense! Maybe obedience was the real reason or maybe the war criminals on trail just wanted an excuse to avoid prosecution.One day you might be one lolYeah, I've heard them use that group logic for other things too. When they talk about black people. Often the problems of black people are caused by poverty. They say things like 40% of white people go to college and only 10% of black people. Does that mean the college hates black people? No. It might be that in this town only 15% of white people are poor and 60% of black people are poor. Too poor to afford college.

So addressing this as a black people problem won't help. They might try black scholarships but it won't solve the problem at it's root. The 40% of black people who are not poor wouldn't need them. There might be the son of a black millionaire who doesn't need financial assistance. On the other hand, the 15% of white people who are poor may be small in number but they still need financial aid.

So it would make more sense to have a poor people scholarship instead of a black scholarship.They won't say it on those words but they use that kind of reasoningYes it is.Yes, when it comes to prosecuting criminals that should be left to the courts. The courts do have access to every individual.

I just think that there are so many statistics that it's too easy to cherrypick the ones you want. This could be done intentionally or unintentionally (as confirmation bias). Many who cherrypick the date aren't even aware that they're doing it.He did? I must have missed it. I'm so tired haha.You're right. The second to last paragraph does say that.

But if that's Mirko's goal why not just cut to the chase and not lock up nonviolent criminals. I still think that dealing with this as a gender issue is the wrong approachEven if a higher proportion of women suffer, since the male prison population is 12 times greater, that would mean the total number of males who suffer in prison is greater than the total number of females who suffer in prison. Remember I said

"The British prison population is roughly 90,000. Of these, about 92% are men and about 8% are women. That's about 82,800 male prisoners and 7,200 female prisoners. If 65% of those 7,200 women are depressed, that would be 4,680 women. If 37% of those men are depressed that would be 30,636 men."

But even that is the wrong approach. Because even if the total number was smaller, it would still be a serious problem for that small number of men.

I would not dismiss the suffering of a minority, no matter how small that minority is in proportion to the general population.And how much is this actually a thing? This is a crime, so there should be statistics about it. Men also do the same thing a lot.[/quote]Which statistics do they use? The statistics on domestic violence show that a much smaller number of women have killed their partners compared to the number of men who have killed their partners. If a woman gets her male friend/brother/father to kill her partner, she may be charged with conspiracy to murder but this would not be counted in the domestic violence statistics as violence committed by women against men because it would not be an act of violence committed directly by a woman.

If a woman gets the police to legally beat and kidnap (imprison) her partner based on false allegations, she may be charged with submitting a false police report but this would not be counted in the domestic violence statistics as violence committed by women against men because it would not be an act of violence committed directly by a woman.Some of them? All of them? If only a handful of violent women have to be confined, where should they be held. Could this small facility be described as a prison?

What about in America? America has a larger population so perhaps even if only one in 100,000 American women are violent criminals, that would still be enough to fill one modestly sized prison of 3,000 inmates.Yes but I think prison also has a deterrent value.

I'll bet compared to the number of actual criminals, a much larger number of people have thought about committing crimes but decided not to when they thought about how they'd be put in prison. This deterrent value would be true even for those who wouldn't reoffend. In fact, the deterrent value may be higher for those who have been in prison once. There is no deterrent value without an actual prison. The threat of inprisonment has to be carried out, regardless of likelyhood the criminal will reoffend, or we lose the deterrent.

It's both an academic construct and the foundation of an ideology. As I've said many times, my interest lies primarily with results in the real world. Whatever motives lie behind the actions of modern feminists, they all too frequently impact people and communities in very real, very negative ways.



Whereas I believe that most men and women are already perfectly capable of accommodating one another, regardless of differences. The notion that we need to cooperate in order to thrive as a society is at least as old as our species. I'm also of the opinion that empowerment is best achieved by the individual.

As for neuro-chemical factors in male behaviour, research into testosterone seems to indicate that its presence is an effect rather than a cause of competitive behaviour. So, for example, winning at chess can cause an increase in your testosterone level, whilst becoming a father can reduce it. If you're interested at all, I suggest checking out the research of anthropologist Peter Gray.

It seems to be more academic than it used to be.

But you would agree a neurodiverse movement shouldn't consist ENTIRELY of neurotypicals?

I did nothing of that sort. I didn't call you a troll for having different opinions, but for being sophist and purposely misconstructing the definations of words, and purposely distorting both what I said and what you said previously.

I'm glad we've found some common ground.If sexual inequality was ingrained so deeply in society, it would be very difficult to remove.The famous Nuremberg defense! Maybe obedience was the real reason or maybe the war criminals on trail just wanted an excuse to avoid prosecution.One day you might be one lolYeah, I've heard them use that group logic for other things too. When they talk about black people. Often the problems of black people are caused by poverty. They say things like 40% of white people go to college and only 10% of black people. Does that mean the college hates black people? No. It might be that in this town only 15% of white people are poor and 60% of black people are poor. Too poor to afford college.

So addressing this as a black people problem won't help. They might try black scholarships but it won't solve the problem at it's root. The 40% of black people who are not poor wouldn't need them. There might be the son of a black millionaire who doesn't need financial assistance. On the other hand, the 15% of white people who are poor may be small in number but they still need financial aid.

So it would make more sense to have a poor people scholarship instead of a black scholarship.They won't say it on those words but they use that kind of reasoningYes it is.Yes, when it comes to prosecuting criminals that should be left to the courts. The courts do have access to every individual.

I just think that there are so many statistics that it's too easy to cherrypick the ones you want. This could be done intentionally or unintentionally (as confirmation bias). Many who cherrypick the date aren't even aware that they're doing it.He did? I must have missed it. I'm so tired haha.You're right. The second to last paragraph does say that.

But if that's Mirko's goal why not just cut to the chase and not lock up nonviolent criminals. I still think that dealing with this as a gender issue is the wrong approachEven if a higher proportion of women suffer, since the male prison population is 12 times greater, that would mean the total number of males who suffer in prison is greater than the total number of females who suffer in prison. Remember I said

"The British prison population is roughly 90,000. Of these, about 92% are men and about 8% are women. That's about 82,800 male prisoners and 7,200 female prisoners. If 65% of those 7,200 women are depressed, that would be 4,680 women. If 37% of those men are depressed that would be 30,636 men."

But even that is the wrong approach. Because even if the total number was smaller, it would still be a serious problem for that small number of men.

I would not dismiss the suffering of a minority, no matter how small that minority is in proportion to the general population.And how much is this actually a thing? This is a crime, so there should be statistics about it. Men also do the same thing a lot.[/quote]Which statistics do they use? The statistics on domestic violence show that a much smaller number of women have killed their partners compared to the number of men who have killed their partners. If a woman gets her male friend/brother/father to kill her partner, she may be charged with conspiracy to murder but this would not be counted in the domestic violence statistics as violence committed by women against men because it would not be an act of violence committed directly by a woman.

If a woman gets the police to legally beat and kidnap (imprison) her partner based on false allegations, she may be charged with submitting a false police report but this would not be counted in the domestic violence statistics as violence committed by women against men because it would not be an act of violence committed directly by a woman.Some of them? All of them? If only a handful of violent women have to be confined, where should they be held. Could this small facility be described as a prison?

What about in America? America has a larger population so perhaps even if only one in 100,000 American women are violent criminals, that would still be enough to fill one modestly sized prison of 3,000 inmates.Yes but I think prison also has a deterrent value.

I'll bet compared to the number of actual criminals, a much larger number of people have thought about committing crimes but decided not to when they thought about how they'd be put in prison. This deterrent value would be true even for those who wouldn't reoffend. In fact, the deterrent value may be higher for those who have been in prison once. There is no deterrent value without an actual prison. The threat of inprisonment has to be carried out, regardless of likelyhood the criminal will reoffend, or we lose the deterrent.[/quote]

For the global population there is more men than women due to gynocide in countries like China and India, but in Western countries there is slightly more women because men tend to die younger.

The question of why there is less women in government than men is complicated, and the radical feminist explanation is that it's because there is some social pressure which is keeping them out, and that social pressure could be remedied.

SBC's EMB theory is that autism is the extreme male brain. It's popular among some circles, but it has a lot of opposition in others, and the theory has some obvious problems as there are many autistic people who demonstrably don't have an extreme male brain when you actually looked at the neuro-anatomy.

Maybe this will better explain the problems feminists have with patriarchy: https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.co ... %E2%80%9D/
Then just move from visual art to society at large.

Your corporation might be an exception.

Yes, I agree that there are areas where women are at a disadvantage to men, so I identify as a feminist. However, I also believe there are areas where men are at a disadvantage to women, and I believe the solution should be a pragmatic approach focused on identifying and remedying specific problems. Sometimes gender is just an important factor in the problem.

Yes, sexism is very hard to remove. That's why the radical feminists often propose radical solutions, which is where they get the reputation for hating men because their solutions get misunderstood (though a few actually do hate men, but they are an extreme minority).

We've done the experiments, the Nuremberg "excuse" holds. It's still no real excuse, but it's a valid psychological explanation.

I will NEVER be a fratboy. Hrrphm.

That's a valid explanation for a lack of black people in college, but again, it's more complicated than that. The sociology people have been studying this much longer than you have and they are aware of more of the nuances.

Agree with everything else up to this point: "Which statistics do they use? The statistics on domestic violence show that a much smaller number of women have killed their partners compared to the number of men who have killed their partners. If a woman gets her male friend/brother/father to kill her partner, she may be charged with conspiracy to murder but this would not be counted in the domestic violence statistics as violence committed by women against men because it would not be an act of violence committed directly by a woman."

You don't use just the statistics on domestic violence, you look at the statistics on conspiracy to murder. If women don't conspire to murder more often then men, then the women who use conspiracy to commit domestic violence are a group which statistically matter as then they can be accounted for in the same manner as men who do the same.

I don't want his argument is for about where the female prisoners who should be imprisoned should be held, again I fundamentally don't agree with him.

There are other ways to deter people besides prisons.

Yes. I just said that.

I believe there should be no Autism rights movement specifically, but a Neurodiverse movement, that contains both those that are ND and N.T.

So you would agree that both men and women ought to be represented in government?

This topic has run its course.