Why are poeple on this site so obessed with feminists?

Post Reply New Topic

You are worse off if you are a minority with the same mental disorder, especially if you are dark-skinned hispanic or black; you are worse off if you have the same mental disorder, dark skin, and a family in poverty.


You are not correct.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomp ... sect01.pdf

I don't understand feminists.. I don't advocate anything except equality of every human. Regardless of race, gender, sexuality, religion, class, etc.. I despise when people label themselves and formulate an ego/ define who they are because it limits themselves from the bigger picture instead of bridging with the people who are different. It's not us vs them, but some people still formulate that mentality.

You know what, I'll just be succinct and honest; feminists are often annoying, end of story.

The US is miles behind the rest of the western world in terms of societal progress, but whatever floats your boat.

How about figures for:
% of all people that have been President
% of all people that are or have been SCOTUS justices
% of all people that sit on the Senate
% of all people that make up/have made up the House
% of eligible voters in USA that are female/male



Let's add to that the fact that 93% of all workplace deaths are males, and it becomes apparent that it's statistically far more dangerous to be a man than a woman in the US. Every one of these victims is important, yet the focus appears to be on a fraction of a fraction.



Suicide attempt statistics are notoriously inaccurate and rely almost exclusively on reports of those who have been admitted to hospital and where simple self-harm has not necessarily been ruled out.



The children are statistically insignificant to this discussion.



Why do you think it appropriate to trivialise such an important issue when it isn't one which affects women?



Likewise women are still seen (along with children) as more worthy of protection. Where do you stand on the subject of chivalric behaviour, where a man who requires protection relinquishes his masculinity but a woman retains her feminine identity?



I'm genuinely impressed that you took the time to dig up some data, and gratified that you found the time to do so in response to me. Essentially though, the statistics prove only that X% of people have it better than other people. There should be far greater onus on the privilege of inheritance over the privileges of gender.



This one I will need to see some evidence for. I've been told about this silent majority of feminists before, but they're seemingly so silent as to be anonymous. Gender privilege remains a deeply flawed concept as it is impossible to quantify the benefits of sexual identity across such broad lines. Linking back to the first part of your post, and in line with your protest, the majority of men are not Presidents, Senators, Justices, Representatives, etc. The degree of privilege offered by being born into wealth is of far greater significance.



When it comes to the fair evaluation of individual circumstances, sociology is irrelevant. I can only surmise, from your chosen form of response, that you are not pro-equality. Either you value people for their individuality, or you see them as disposable stereotypes.



No, I'm not, though I agree that it's unfair.



It's okay to lump all men together based solely on their gender, but it's not okay to loosely group feminists together based on their shared ideology? If you've read my previous posts and responses in this thread, you'll be fully aware that the conflation of 'feminist' with 'woman' is a behaviour I find tiresome - not to mention all too common.



The statistics we've reviewed so far in this thread suggest the part in underlined bold is subjective interpretation. Placing emphasis on the latter only reveals that you personally find it more important - which is fine by the way. Expecting everyone to fly the same flag, and attempting to shame those who do not, is not so fine. Of those advocating feminism in this thread alone, you are thus far the only one to not do either in lieu of an actual point.



Mathematics when applied to linguistic concepts is more an art than a science, but I'll play anyway.

Perhaps the addition of brackets will help:

(A woman with high self esteem and intelligence) =/= feminist

Still reads much the same.

Perhaps if we reverse the positions of the arguments:

Feminist =/= a woman with high self esteem and intelligence.

Still open to misinterpretation.

How about super simplifying the equation to make my point more clear:

Feminist =/= a woman.

I hope that removes any ambiguity.

So is any group when considered as a collective, you fence-sitter you.

Eh, feminists tend towards a special kind of annoying, there are even studies on it:


http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_e ... s_partner/

I believe there are no such things as rights and people should remember that they are privileges. Of course right should be fought for; however, we do not fight for them and the government are slowly taking them away. Thus, as soon as we become complacent that we have a god given right that is when these rights will be taken from us. Female nature has a bad habit of destroying rights as one can look at probation as an example and how they usually back censorship such as political correctness.



It does not matter what situation we are born into there is a similar thread of "manning up" that is no different in any culture and is worst in other such as the african community.



I am correct, it just that you are looking at the basic level. Women get help through the state with the court system as they are the clear winners of the divorce system. They are also tend to get lighter sentences then men do if they commit the same crime.



The Master- slave morality is a concept from Nietzsche. To boil it down, the master morality is the ability to create one's own morals and will it into being. In contrast, the slave morality is all about subversion and to make masters slaves. Examples of the slave morality is judaism, democracy and feminism.

I agree with your first. The rest is garbage.

A just man will know that justice demands equality, be it fought for or not by the individual.

Regards
DL

You see 20/20.

Regards
DL

Try to understand this. Ifr you do, you will see why people take labels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLm3HMG8IhM

Regards
DL

Indeed. All who seek justice are annoying as they are teaching us how unjust we collectively are.

Better to leave us in our blind ignorance.

You must be a Christian.

Regards
DL

Much more like it!

Seriously though, the article pretty much nails it, albeit on the most mundane level.

Actually, the male/female wage gap is something that I have delved into in depth. Even the most misogyny-apologist based study put the gap at 96% after controlling for everything they could think of to toss out conflicting data, including a few bizarre assumptions about how pregnancy and childbirth work.

While I self-identify as a feminist, I will not argue with this sentiment. It is the same criticism I have with many atheists (which is something I also self-identify as). I guess the same could be said for every ideological group. Most have valid points (some more than others), but all have those who use it to justify that ingrained us v them style hatred we seem to have coded into our DNA.

Oh, we're upping the ante to all people, everywhere? Do you really want to go there?


two points:
1)that statistic generally leaves out women murdered in the course of sex work, because it's illegal in most states.
2)Men also make up ~89% of the Darwin Award recipients.
In other words, men choose to take on danger, and to do stupid things, in part because it is seen as 'masculine' to do so. The fact that they do so is part of the same poisonous ideology that says that men cannot wear makeup.


Death by industrial accident, death by voluntary stupidity, and death by murder are quite different things. If men would deign to take jobs that are considered 'women's work' like secretary or child care, or if they would refrain from harassing the men who do, and if they would refrain from harassing the women who try to take on 'men's work,' then the gender proportion of industrial accidents would change.
Here's an interesting essay on the topic:
http://inequalitybyinteriordesign.wordp ... ted-death/


Self-harm is, quite often, a prelude to suicide. Cutting of the arms results in what psychologists call "hesitation marks," a serious sign of suicide risk. Again, the fact that women want to go 'gently' and 'without mess' means that there is time for medical and pharmacological intervention, not that the did not mean to kill themselves. Having spent 15 years in a job that largely involved clinical work in an ER, I can state from my own experience that people who self-harmed with the goal of self harm were largely depressed to the level that they either did not care if they died, or actively sought death.

One thing that women have going for them, that men do not, is that women are already seen as 'weak' so there's not as much of a stigma to them asking for help. Again, if men were willing to fight against the repulsive, macho gender constructs that are imposed on them by society, and actually admit when they need help and seek it, they'd be better off.

because I think that it's a historical (and American) anomaly that the university gender imbalance is as it is. It has become 'effete' to be learned in anything - men going more into those dangerous, macho professions, striving to be jocks rather than scientists - but that will change sooner or later.
There's also the vast disproportion in men and women in the STEM fields, but that's another whole argument.

In general, I think that chivalry is BS, and I think that weak-kneed women who allow themselves to be rolled with no struggle are pathetic. A 30-lb dog will do more to protect itself than some full-grown women, though thankfully that is changing.
It does seem to be true, though, that men (at least NT men) like to 'rescue' women; in general, if a woman comes across as incompetent, she gets a lot more male attention. It's like the Japanese phenomenon of 'kawai.'


The two are not mutually exclusive. Hence the feminist philosophy of intersectionality.


first five links for 'intersectionality' on google:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Intersectionality
http://socialdifference.columbia.edu/fi ... enshaw.pdf
http://www.uccnrs.ucsb.edu/intersectionality
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens ... -care.html

You could also hang out on http://feministing.com, http://www.feministe.us/blog/
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/category/pandagon/, or any number of active feminist sites rather than listening to Rush Limbaugh about what feminism is.


However, the majority of men are vastly better represented by presidents, senators, justices, etc. than are the majority of women. This has been patently clear in the last decade, with laws not only clawing back advances in abortion rights but de facto making women wards of the state (largely in southern states) when they're pregnant.


True, but, again: the two are not mutually exclusive. I'm a socialist as well as a feminist.


BS. When employers are more likely to hire a white felon than a black man with a clean record, your pretensions of 'fair evaluation' fly out the window. You might not like it, but statistical differences in how people are treated do accumulate not only over a lifetime, but over a society, in the same way that minuscule advantages in fitness accumulate in a population over thousands of generations.


1)false dichotomy
2)it depends on what you mean by 'equality.' I am in favor of equality of opportunity, which we patently do not have in the US at this time, and I am in favor of taking measures to correct that.

Well, I'm not going to dig through the thread again trying to ferret out the quote that you meant. If you care about it, reiterate it.


the validity of lumping depends on the context, and you missed my point. I was saying that women who enjoy chivalry are largely *not* feminists, and largely would not claim to be so. Not all women are feminists.

Uh, yeah. My point?


I disagree, and the scientists who study the matter back me up on that despite your dismissal of the field because you don't like its conclusions.


*snort*
that borders on chastising me for getting into an argument on an internet forum built for arguing. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I want everyone to 'fly the same flag,' nor that I am 'shaming you,' any more than you disagreeing with me means that you think those things.

That's a little bit of a backhanded complement, but I think it's largely because I've been scientifically trained and I've been doing this for a while. People get emotional in this sort of argument, on both sides.



Yeah, it makes it clear that I was absolutely correct with my initial interpretation.