|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted July 25, 2014 11:12 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:39, 25 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Orzie, don't you see that virtually all "problems" you describe, are basically a residual consequence of the fact that everything considered typically FEMALE has been also considered INFERIOR, with MALES showing that behavior being considered not only being inferior, but also being an inferior role model, hurting the males as a whole?
Yeah, you are right about that. Almost all of this comes from the inferiority of women, except the female domination in the family. But anyway these prejudices exist (and hurt both sides), and must be removed by any means suitable enough to justify the word "equality" the feminist community strives to achieve.
One detail though - women are less judged in everyday situations, "because they are women - they are weak and oppressed". Women are rarely hurt because they are considered weaker and they in general are really physically weaker. I cannot say this is 100% because of their inferiority, it is just nature. Everyone knows than women are physically weaker, and thus no social group will esteem a man who hurt a person that will obviously not be able to fight back, even if wanted to. Not even mentioning the fact that all rapists automatically become the lowest cast in prison, and are treated you know how.
Women have devised a tactic to live in such situations, and are often able to turn their disadvantages into advantages. Many muslim women even don't want the named equality, because they will have to go to work like everyone other - many of them don't want to work like men.
And such case as the maternity leave also adds to it, when a real lot of women stay employed and get salary while sitting at home. The tactic is pretty popular in Russia, when women get employment, after 2 months they give birth to children and leave with a trolling face, making the employer to pay them for nothing and anyway seek for another employee. And the employer cannot do anything to prevent it - it's women's rights. Such things as employment contracts with the pararaph about not giving birth to children are not so widely used - only in show-business, if I recall correctly.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 11:39 AM |
|
|
|
Muslim women dont act that way because "it feels guuud" to stay in the house all day. Most of them interiorise their role as the submissive houswife because they are raised that way and do not have any other notion. In Turkey, the conservtive Muslims are in power for 12 years now, naturally, their own middle-class started to develop. This means better education and more opportunities. So, now, a diversion among themselves started to prevail. There are headscarfed women debating other headscarfed women, saying they want to work and of course they should not be economically dependant on their husband, while the more traditional ones stick to old-school arguments about how important it is to take care of the children and the provider should be the man etc etc. Of course, almost all conservative men take the traditional side.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 11:51 AM |
|
|
I suppose, you want to say this:
Women are either
1) meeting the female role model; this comes with disadvantages, but also with advantages; or
2) try to meet the male role model; this comes only with advantages, because they shake off SOME or even ALL of the disadvantages - but they can also reap the advantages that come with their old role model; while
Men are either
3) meeting the male role model; this comes with advantages, but also with disadvantages; or
4)they don't; this comes only with disadvantages, since they lose the advantages of their role, but don't gain anything for it, since ... since you get no respect for actually changing for the weaker.
Is that what you mean?
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 12:01 PM |
|
|
Well, in general this suits to what I have said if I don't miss anything. But for this case
Quote:
they don't; this comes only with disadvantages, since they lose the advantages of their role, but don't gain anything for it, since ... since you get no respect for actually changing for the weaker.
the trouble is that the male role model is often defined by women (as well as the female role model is defined by men, I admit that), and they define it as they like, so "don't hurt the girl" and other leftovers of gentlemanly still have power while the ladies are in a drastically different position than they were when the gentlemanly appeared. They are now able to openly abuse it with no one able to prevent that. The generation of men who was educated by women has been already raised in Russia, and the things may become worse in future. The alternative with snowheads who beat their wives and treat them like scum is even more inacceptable of course.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 12:17 PM |
|
|
|
What exactly is this "dont hurt the girl" thingy you complain about. You are obviously not in favor of beating up a woman if necessary, so what is it precisely, that the feminized Russian men cant do, that they should be able to. Tangible examples from daily life, please...
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 01:01 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 13:05, 25 Jul 2014.
|
It starts from the kindergarten. A boy who hurt the girl, either consciously or by accident, is being obstructed by parents and teachers. This installment is kept in boy's mind all his childhood and teen ages, and is being supported by parents (Sister: "Mom, Danny hurt me!" - Mother: "Husband, do something to Danny" - Father: "Danny, hurting girls is bad and no man must hurt the girl!" - Danny is punished, father takes his newspaper back and doesn't care for anything else).
The same situation under different angle:
Sister Anne, who is 6 year old, and brother Danny, 5 year old, are hurrying to the kitchen for the dinner. On her way, Anne stalks Danny and he falls down while Anne arrives to the kitchen first. After that we hear the sacramental "Danny hurt me" and Danny gets punished. Danny is offended by the older sister and gets the punishment for nothing (namely - for being a man).
Same situation can work when both children are struggling for the same toy. Guess who will get the toy if Anne calls parents.
Women are capable of using their victim status to get what they want. And what is more sad, that they are educated to use their victim status since their very childhood. Parents who don't care enough about the reasons of the children quarrel only assist that. After that we have either a passive feminine boy who is taught to concede to girls in every endeavor, or a stoic sexist who will oppose women all his life. This is real, artu. That is how things go in many countries where the gentlemanly has become a mandatory rule in men's education, without parents' proper control of the situation.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 01:27 PM |
|
|
That is a very flawed comparison AND example.. Now, since you've just said it yourself, men are usually physically stronger (and also hormonally more prone to physical violance), so there's nothing wrong with teaching them not to hit girls from an early age. How many little girls will potentially grow up to physically beat men?
Your second example is about kids trying to manipulate their parents and unless you cherry-pick or become overselective in your perception, children from both genders try to pull that off. And most parents react and punish their boys and girls the same when they catch that kind of attitude, they dont go "well, it's okay for the girl to lie." However, in adulthood, a woman, if exceptionally beautiful or sexy, can manipulate men easier by that trait, but let's face it, that's not oppression, that's them using our soft spot for their advantage, men do the same with money. That's not about girls being raised as spoiled princesses in modern times, that's something as old as humanity itself. And more importantly, it's usually something only significantly attractive women can pull off, not a typical advantage.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 13:58, 25 Jul 2014.
|
I just wanted to say that if you want women to be treated equal than men, you must not point out their victim status.
Yes, it sounds contradictional, but if men will still be taught to, say, leave the door open for women (but in post-soviet countries it's a tradition coming from gentlemanly), give away free seats in the public transport for women, do something and everything for women which they don't do for themselves - they will always recognize women as the entities of another nature. Any reminders of their victim status must be removed, and only then, with a change of several generations, there will be a slight chance of equality.
However, I don't believe in equality, because the nature indended us to be different. Women are physically weaker, and thus en masse cannot do physically hard labor. While the majority of men can do women's work if taught properly (but they can't give birth to children and can't produce the milk for them). Other than that - the differences vary from person to person, but it is already enough to bring so many arguments in this (and any other) feminism thread.
Leaving away a seat for a woman is usually done because women are again physically weaker. This is not so obvious for the big part of society, because young women can stand in public transport as well as men. So that you will have to decide what side will you choose - the side of rationality, when the weak status of women is accepted, but women are not considered as fully equal, or the situation where you don't care that women are weaker and treat them like equal, not leaving away your seat for them. If you want to treat women like equal and give them additional privileges at the same time (taking into account their physical abilities) - sorry, it is not equality. You cannot have a cake and money for it. Because giving women certain privileges you risk to shatter the balance, which depends on many, many tiny factors. In other words, you cannot simply allow women to have more rights because of their lower physical abilities and save the other fronts intact. Something on other front will surely go wrong, either with the psychological perception of a woman entity in the minds of men, or something else. Women must be treated by men the same as they treat each other, when a stronger man helps a weaker man to lift the car if he sees that the weaker man can't do it.
Leaving seats for old people of both genders and for people with a lot of cargo of both genders - this is what does not contradict with the equality definition.
I won't go to the sexist statements about the rational nature of men's mind and emotional nature of women's mind, because it is a big question if the rational/emotional way of thoughts is specific to the gender instead of the education which was given to a person when he/she was a kid, counting the actual social norms too. But the majority of female feminists I met in my life seem to have the same emotional way of thoughts 
Quote:
How many little girls will potentially grow up to physically beat men?
The girls don't grow and beat men. The girls grow and learn how to use their victim status to manipulate men in modern society. I thought I expressed that clear enough.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 25, 2014 08:58 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:28, 26 Jul 2014.
|
1- Equality is not sameness and that had been pointed out many times.
2- Physical strength is quite insignificant in today's world unless you put men and women in an arena to fight each other. There is absolutely no reason to base a social hierarchy over it.
3- Meanwhile, you admit that social hierarchy exists (Russia is patriarchal to the core), but instead of objecting to that, you pick on some women who exploit the disadvantages they have. If it had been a racist society, that would be like focusing on some people who try to get ahead by perpetually saying "is this because I'm black, are you a racist" even in irrelevant situations. Fight the racism instead so that the exploiters wont have a basis to exploit. Besides, as I already stated out, it's quite a spoiled and taking the priviliges for granted way of looking at things: Victims, dont use your victimhood. That's like telling guerrillas to wear a uniform and stand in the line if they want to fight properly.
4- Your whole position seems like you are quite annoyed by this "equality non-sense" and trying to intentionally invent reasons to prove why it wont work. If we could only go back to the good ol' ways... We have similar Muslim conservatives here, explaining how openly dressed women without headscarfs who are free to work seduce men to get ahead and ruin the natural order of things. All this we are not equal because we are stronger talk is quite old, very shallow and simply pointless when we are not hunter gatherers.
Quote:
The girls don't grow and beat men. The girls grow and learn how to use their victim status to manipulate men in modern society. I thought I expressed that clear enough.
And I said your comparison of two examples is flawed and irrelevant. I thought I was clear about that. It's a non sequitur, boys are not thought not to hit girls so that the girls use their victimhood and women who do that dont do that because men dont beat them anymore. Instead of constantly blaming feminists for being emotional, I'd suggest some introspection because if you think the things you whine about and male frustration isnt emotional, you are way over your head.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 06:22 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 18:26, 26 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
And I said your comparison of two examples is flawed and irrelevant. I thought I was clear about that. It's a non sequitur, boys are not thought not to hit girls so that the girls use their victimhood and women who do that dont do that because men dont beat them anymore.
You describe things like they are isolated in vacuum, and probably think in the same way. The world is harder than you think, and it will behave differently, not like the feminists expect when all the changes they want will be applied.
Quote:
Instead of constantly blaming feminists for being emotional, I'd suggest some introspection because if you think the things you whine about and male frustration isnt emotional, you are way over your head.
I didn't it constantly, I said it only once, and was not trying to offend.
Quote:
All this we are not equal because we are stronger talk is quite old, very shallow and simply pointless when we are not hunter gatherers.
We are not equal because men are physically stronger. If you deny that, it is fine - then all the privileges for women which were invented due to their lack of strength must be eliminated. No more leaving away the seats in public transport, no more additional punishment (with leaving the necessary punishment for these crimes) and social accusations towards men who hurt and rape women. Women are considered equal and can theoretically hurt and rape men as well, according to your logic, and will be punished equally in case. If women want additional seats in parliament and business companies - they also must increase the percentage of female employees in coal mines, sewer cleaning and metal industry. Is this what you intend while saying that the difference of strength doesn't matter nowadays? If not, you just force double standards.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 08:48 PM |
|
|
What kind of a point is that? Men are not only GENERALLY stronger, they are are also GENERALLY heavier. They GENERALLY eat more food, need more energy. Women are probably GENERALLY more intelligent. Black people are GENERALLY stronger than white, and white are GENERALLY stronger than yellow. I would say that black women are GENERALLY at least as strong as yellow men.
Women can GENERALLY stand more pain than men.
No one stands up in the bus for women. If anything, CHILDREN are urged to stand up for the ELDERLY.
I don't see your point.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 08:59 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:07, 26 Jul 2014.
|
Applying to logical fallacies is not having a broader perspective, it's having a wrong perspective. I told you why your comparison was flawed and I wont repeat it since you have nothing to say other than "it's not that simple." Unfortunately, your argument IS that simple.
I emphasized equality is not sameness and it's based on having the same rights, options and opportunities and you still keep on talking about this "we are stronger" non-sense. Frankly, it's getting very dull. Are boxers and wrestlers superior to you regarding to the things above? No,they are only superior to you if you box and wrestle them, when you compete in those specific tasks. Do you consider yourself equal to a boxer regarding to social norms, are you treated like an inferior group because they can beat the snow out of you? What kind of an argument is "we are not equal because we can rape them and they can't rape us?" That is a violation of rights, equality is about those rights. And you don't have to give your seat to a woman, it will be considered a gesture if you do but no one will blame or scorn you for not doing it.
This is the second time you brought up women getting emotional, not the first. The first one was while talking to meroe and again, nothing she said to you was overemotional. You are perceiving things through your own prejudice and accusing others of missing the deeper reality. The issue here is not the reality we miss, it's your persistence to stick to your flawed way of thinking.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:05 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 21:09, 26 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Women are probably GENERALLY more intelligent.
Any proofs of that? I guess, men's strength doesn't require them. Men are generally able to do women's work, but not vice versa. The definition of women's work often comes from the same gender roles you struggle to get rid of though.
My point is that all your equality proposed looks like 'equal opportunities' for men and women + bonuses/relief for women due to their physical characheristics (otherwise, why women want to be in the parliament and business companies, but don't want to work in coal mines?). My point is that adding those bonuses will never make the men believe they are equal with women. You guys struggle for an utopia. It should be a very careful change, and no reasonable propositions for that could be seen here.
Quote:
but no one will blame or scorn you for not doing it.
It's not like that in Russia.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:13 PM |
|
|
There is no such thing as "men's work" or "women's work.
Not anymore.
Remember, the hard labor is done by machines now - and if not BLACK MEN would be better suited than everyone else.
However, our society is based on BRAIN, not BRAWN.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:16 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 21:37, 26 Jul 2014.
|
"The bonuses/reliefs" as you call them, are blatantly about not violating someone else's rights, they are not a luxury. They also apply if a huge man tries to beat up a small man. And most social prejudice is not due to physical abilities to begin with anyway. Becoming a senator etc. has nothing to do with muscle.
Social change takes time but it's not an utopia, there are already places that are not "patriarchal to the core" so, that's actually not a realistic argument even on a de facto basis.
(Btw, JJ, black men in general are stronger only in countries where they were formerly slaves, because they were specifically breeded that way. In Africa, they are generally weaker and shorter in size due to bad nutrition. Just think of all the tribe men you see in NG documentaries and so on, they are not exactly Mike Tyson, are they.)
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:17 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 21:22, 26 Jul 2014.
|
Only when all the hard work will be replaced by machines, I will agree with you. Women and men will be able to work on the same jobs without any problems (except maybe the no-children contract option for women).
For now, the strength is still important in many jobs. And sometimes using the strength instead of the machine works cheaper.
Quote:
are blatantly about not violating someone else's rights, they are not a luxury.
But men mostly recognize it as a luxury. There would not be any anti-feminist movement otherwise - everyone would agree that feminists struggle for the right cause with the right methods.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:35 PM |
|
|
Orzie, there is no STRENGTH job anymore. If anything, there are jobs where you need to apply SOME strength over an extended period of time - physical work.
It's also the work that pays rather badly. It's not a privilege being able to swing a hammer for 10 hours a day.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:40 PM |
|
|
|
But those men who work on jobs like that consider that a privilege for women who struggle for the necessary percent of woman employees on administrative and other well-paid jobs, ignoring the low-paid ones. Don't you see the point?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:45 PM |
|
|
|
Orzie, that was not your point before and it's certainly not a very good one now, you seem to switch to the mode of replying just to reply. Giving answers for the sake of having the last word...
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 09:55 PM |
|
|
We seem not to understand each other due to language barrier or something. Alright, I will leave the right of the last answer for you in this thread, if it's so important for you.
My point is that the 'equality' is not achievable with the methods feminists propose, because every change in the current balance of rights will affect other rights which seem to be close to equal. And because they don't consider men's rights. I doubt it is even achievable, but that can be left behind.
|
| |
|
|
