|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 19 20 21 22 23 ... 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
posted August 05, 2014 05:13 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 05, 2014 05:32 PM |
|
|
The video is completely off track, since those movies are made by males for males. The hot chick that can fight like a man can also be considered a male fantasy or at least a woman playing the men's game. If you want, you can try to make a film, in which the male protagonist beats and shoots women all the time but I'd say the box office would wave a certain goodbye to you. Well, at least Jemo will buy a ticket 
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 08:26 PM |
|
|
I'm sorry artu but none of your points makes sense whatsoever.
I think you're just here to attack anyone who opposes feminism and puts strawman argument to any of us. This needs to be pointed out.
I'm glad you went to men's representation in the media because I do have a lot to talk about there. I don't play feminists' game since men have far too heavier issues to deal with and I think many don't even care about that but since you put it that way...
The thing with our society is that it is misandric and it accepts misandry as a norm.
You should watch Misandry in the Media series. It's easily searchable in youtube. You'll see a lot of examples of what I'm talking about.
Obama is a feminist and quite misandric. He clearly said in one of his SONA that women are smarter than men.
There was also one movie, I forgot what it was. It was a Nicholas Cage movie wherein he was raised from hell and was regretful for beating up his wife.
There was a woman who was beating up a man. The man got fed up and hits the woman. This was portrayed as a no-no. Yes, I guarantee, the rest of society was frowning on that idea as well.
Apparently, if you're a man, you're not allowed to defend yourself from a woman hitting you over and over again. I really don't get the logic in this. Men are humans too.
Back when I was applying for a job, there was this one female applicant who thinks she was entitled to my seat. There was no seat left and I was the last seat grabber. The two female applicants who just arrived told the other how no one was a gentleman to offer her their seat.
To make the long story short, I never gave the woman my seat. Hey, it's feminism. You want to be treated like men? You have it.
Apparently, women are not as oppressed as feminists make it seem. They are in fact the most privileged gender on the planet and only a few people can see that.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 08:30 PM |
|
|
jemo said:
They are in fact the most privileged gender on the planet and only a few people can see that.
Keep spreading the word, Copernicus. 
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 08:39 PM |
|
|
artu said:
jemo said:
They are in fact the most privileged gender on the planet and only a few people can see that.
Keep spreading the word.
Unlike you, I make arguments of why I think such about my claims. You're insulting people's intelligence if you don't think open-minded people can't see where I'm coming from.
artu said:
Copernicus
uhmm.. no comment.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 09:21 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
You're insulting people's intelligence if you don't think open-minded people can't see where I'm coming from.
Double negatives are such a bummer.
But no matter what you actually wanted to say, I'd guess that artu probably thinks that most everyone can - and should - indeed see where you're coming from.
One might also remark, that you make a strong case in Obama's point, but that could be considered provocative and malignant - so: withdrawn!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 06, 2014 09:24 PM |
|
|
Your arguments had already been refuted by the most basic logical standards, already by... everyone who had something concrete to say on the matter (including me) with explanations. You just repeat them on and on, nevertheless. That brings forth two possibilities, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
1- You are a (very dedicated) troll.
2- You are genuinely incapable of understanding that your arguments had already been refuted.
Naturally, at some point, anybody reasonable will give up explaining things to you, when you cant understand them or pretend not to, at all. We have a proverb here, "they ask a camel why is his neck skewed, he replies, well, which part of me is straight to begin with!" If I try to reply and correct every mistake, even in one of your posts, it would take me like 10 minutes to do so per post, I really wouldn't waste the time on that when your level of comprehension is this:
Politician says both men and women should be decent. Men shouldn't cheat, be dedicated to their family. Women shouldn't laugh out in public. You interpret this as "there is nothing discriminative because he says both men and women should be decent." He doesn't say men shouldn't laugh in public though, does he?
And the thing is Jemo, if I DO have to explain something this simple and obvious to a person, I feel embarrassed INSTEAD OF THEM. I feel pity and it disturbs me.
And just for the record, it is you who arbitrarily makes things up, not me. Why is my comment on the video a straw man, no explanation given, I don't think you even know what a straw man means, I haven't talked about (therefore not misrepresented) the video's argument, whether it is right or wrong, I objected to it with my own argument, so technically, it is impossible for me to have pulled out a straw man there anyhow. Maybe, before comparing yourself to Copernicus, you should try reading his book, I did, trust me, you ain't him. To be open-minded is not giving credit to every piece of non-sense out there, the first thing to learn about being open-minded, if you actually want it to work properly, is to know how to choose the things you will be open-minded about.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 04:34 AM |
|
|
@JollyJoker
what if Obama said men are smarter than women? How would you respond to that?
@artu
Yes, they've refuted me. But I've refuted them back by giving strong arguments of my own. I'm not bias. If I can see that an argument given by the person has no loopholes, then I declare the opposition the winner.
artu, you're just one of the many bias feminists. You can't use that tactic on me because I've been dealing with your likes over and over again. Now I'm not saying all feminists are bias. I just met one who isn't. His name is Steyn. 
Also, artu. I never said you made straw man arguments on the video, I said you made straw man arguments on me. You're trying to convince people that I am this big bad guy who wants to see women killed even though you have no reference about it.
Being open-minded is at least trying to understand the person.
If the person doesn't make sense then that's where you give up. You on the other hand just brush me off, close your mind and has this one track mindset that I'm this big bad troll. I have no problem with that since everyone is entitled by their own opinion but you're trying to convince people about what you think of me. There has been open-minded people in this thread who can see where I'm coming from by the way.
Lastly I can't see how women shouldn't laugh in public or men shouldn't cheat is discrimination. Did they make a law about it? It's like telling people what you want a certain group to be. It's purely a harmless opinion if you ask me.
Now "women is smarter than men" on the other hand is clearly discrimination. A comparable argument to that is "men are smarter than women" which by the way, you don't hear politicians talk about that.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 07:43 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
@JollyJoker
what if Obama said men are smarter than women? How would you respond to that?
I would respond that over the last couple thousand years they've gone to great length to not let it show.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 11:11 AM |
|
|
??? I take that you mean your response is different. It's more violent since you think female is the more oppressed gender since the beginning of time?
If so, you obviously didn't read this thread.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 11:59 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:12, 07 Aug 2014.
|
@JJ
The average difference between male and female IQ is quite insignificant according to the studies. Historically, men always scored higher on the tests (probably due to better education) but know women started to get ahead by a little. The general consensus is our brains are better than each others at different tasks.
There are so many links about this but here's one that is enjoyable to read:
Click
Jemo said:
Yes, they've refuted me. But I've refuted them back by giving strong arguments of my own.
No, you absolutely didn't. Maybe, you didn't "breeze through" that but nobody supports all of the arguments brought on by feminist lobbies, (and I don't call myself one, I support them in general, again, as I already stated). There had been some arguments and difference of opinion about some of those details but looking at the bigger picture, no one denies the world is patriarchal except you. Your position is getting stuck into a few details and ridiculously extrapolating them to a point where you almost claim women are the real oppressors. Also, you have the very fundamental inconsistency of saying on one hand, that you like patriarchy and there's nothing wrong with it and then, saying there is no patriarchy but a hidden matriarchy instead... Which one is it? That's like answering to a rape accusation by saying "I wasnt there that night and she wanted it, too." I wont get into anymore details again, since it's like explaining them to a brick wall. But if you think your collection of cherry-picking examples and using them on an imaginary premise is refuting things back, you are clueless about what's going on. People take your sentences and put them on as signatures to have fun, doesn't that give you a hint?
Jemo said:
Also, artu. I never said you made straw man arguments on the video, I said you made straw man arguments on me. You're trying to convince people that I am this big bad guy who wants to see women killed even though you have no reference about it.
You wrote it under my video comment, if you were referring to "Well, at least Jemo will buy a ticket" part, it is very obviously just a joke, it even has the "" emoticon. Calling that a straw man is only pathetic.
Jemo said:
If the person doesn't make sense then that's where you give up.
Exactly.
Jemo said:
Lastly I can't see how women shouldn't laugh in public or men shouldn't cheat is discrimination. Did they make a law about it? It's like telling people what you want a certain group to be. It's purely a harmless opinion if you ask me.
Now "women is smarter than men" on the other hand is clearly discrimination.
They don't have to make a law about it, this is not some random dude, he is one of the leading figures of the political party in power. His statement underlines a social norm and expectation that women ought to behave submissive. Discriminative behavior is not necessarily only about laws. And if that is just an opinion, how is "women are smarter than men" isn't? If one has to pick between the two, the latter one is the harmless one because it doesn't dictate any behavior to anyone, besides most men who say that mean it as a gesture.
As you can see, just like I said, even replying to one of your posts, I had to correct almost every single sentence you wrote. Stern can have the patience to do that over and over again, I certainly don't.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 12:41 PM |
|
|
artu said:
@JJ
The average difference between male and female IQ is quite insignificant according to the studies. Historically, men always scored higher on the tests (probably due to better education) but know women started to get ahead by a little. The general consensus is our brains are better than each others at different tasks.
That was not the point I tried to make. By now it should be quite obvious that I'm not seriously trying to discuss.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 01:02 PM |
|
|
|
Yes, not at this moment but I rememer you saying something similar earlier, I was going to link it back then but it just slipped my mind.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 03:14 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
artu said:
@JJ
The average difference between male and female IQ is quite insignificant according to the studies. Historically, men always scored higher on the tests (probably due to better education) but know women started to get ahead by a little. The general consensus is our brains are better than each others at different tasks.
That was not the point I tried to make. By now it should be quite obvious that I'm not seriously trying to discuss.
suit yourself. Just so you know, it's not you who I am trying to convince.
Going back to the discussion, you couldn't disagree that if Obama said the opposite, that would create some backlash. This is another reason why women have the upperhand in our society, which takes away even more from feminists' argument that women are more oppressed than men.
To summarize it, misogyny is widely frowned upon while misandry is systemically embedded in our culture.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 03:18 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
JeremiahEmo said:
@JollyJoker
what if Obama said men are smarter than women? How would you respond to that?
I would respond that over the last couple thousand years they've gone to great length to not let it show.
Sorry if this counts as spam, but JJ reply is just glorious 
____________
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 03:46 PM |
|
|
so, I was watching one of theAmazingAtheist's video and I found a lovely comment by Sargon of Akkad that has 180 likes.
By the way, Sargon isn't an MRA.
He's a history freak. So, it's safe to call him a reliable source.
Hehe, I didn't know about this part of history until now.
I guess we can now all agree that military service and getting the rights to vote was directly related.
Sargon of Akkad said:
I'd just like to say there actually is contention over the historical oppression of women. Feminism has been made possible by technology alone, before the modern era, by the feminist definition of "oppression", almost everyone was oppressed. Physical labour of various stripes were literally out of the bounds of what women either could or wanted to do, which is why so many women opposed women getting the vote - they didn't want to get drafted. Historically, land ownership was very much tied to military service, and so women couldn't own land (in certain societies) because you couldn't draft them into an army that relied in killing its enemies in hand-to-hand combat.
Men didn't treat women likes slaves or chattel, it's absurd. Men through history loved their women and women aren't useless and stupid. In the words of my 80-year-old grandmother: "We weren't oppressed. We wouldn't have stood for it". 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1oYtp1iO7A&list=LL-yewGHQbNFpDrGM0diZOLA&index=3
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 04:30 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
Historically, land ownership was very much tied to military service, and so women couldn't own land (in certain societies) because you couldn't draft them into an army that relied in killing its enemies in hand-to-hand combat.
That is complete and utter nonsense. On all levels, mind you.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 05:28 PM |
|
|
In the dark ages, the warrior caste was granted additional rights over other people, since fighting is risky business and these rights were guaranteed by their warlord. Warlord, in this case, means people like Ludovicus and Charlemagne (Karolus Magnus), Frankish or Germanic post-Roman rulers. They had rights, like, "when you lose a battle and scavengers bash your head in and take your stuff and we find that out, then we kill those scavengers" and "If you don't feel like it, don't pay taxes."
When we go later in time, to a more courtly medieval time, then you had privileged men and women owning land and these men (and sometimes women) owed their fief lord resources in times when those were required. This was in the form of retainers with suits of armour and swords and 3% of their peasant population wielding pitch forks and other weapons (english peasants often had really big bows, for instance). These privileged men (and sometimes women) were expected to contribute to war by giving their fief lord (their king, emperor, Hochmeister or Grand Duke or whatever) this stuff and they rode along for the ride, so they could sit in tents with their fief lord to discuss strategy or whatever or grant morale and very pointedly not die, because they're not the grunts in front of the battlefield, dying.
I don't see how that has anything to do with feminism, but then again I'm not listening to such great people as the amazingatheist.
But let's in fact, drop the medieval era. People did the best they could at the time, I'm sure. It was really hard to pick up the pieces when the Roman empire fell, but let's be honest here for one moment. One of the greatest tragedies of human history is the period between 500-1500. Romans had indoor plumbing, woman who could live by themselves if they wanted to, non-religious privately funded art, literature, great architecture, advanced surgery, centralised and in-depth legislature. The Romans were great, is what I'm saying here. The medieval peasants didn't just forget how to do indoor plumbing, they forgot that cooking fires over piles of manure were a terrible terrible idea.
The only thing that era ever brought us was the plague, literally, the Black Death. All that hassle where people were kiling each other over small bits of land and whose weird idea of God they prayed to was stagnation, terrible stagnation. We could have colonies on the moon by now, if we just got over that terrible period in time 500 years earlier. Anyone who justifies something with "because that's how they did it in the medieval era" should be injected with the plague and farm manure for me for marginal profit.
So, from the sidelines I say:
1) There was no right to vote, until the 1800's. Guess who got to vote? Men with money. Voting was privilege directly tied to money. you had to cough up a sum every time you wanted to vote. In the roaring industrial era that meant that only people with actual power got to vote.
2) There was no democracy of any kind before that. Warriors had privileges, because they helped the guy in power.
3) What does this mean? the only people who got to vote were the people in power. What doe sthis say about women not having the right to vote?
Do you think women weren't allowed to vote in Athens because they didn't die for their stupid city state? How about in Sparta where women were subjected to military training? Oh, they weren't allowed to vote either, because every citizen of sparta was property of the leaders there?
The control of government and the right to vote are all directly related to power and the currency of power in the past, which most often was money and land, which women didn't own. And if you think it was the privileged people who had money and land who died in wars then you're completely unaware of human history. The men in power got there, so they didn't have to die stupid deaths. Otherwise, what's the use of power? When mister "L'état, c'est moi"'s second successor was eating pastries with his stupid Austrian wife (who both didn't deserve to die, for the record), how likely was he to pay for his rights with blood, do you think?
EDIT: Made the correction. And about the sun king: No matter how powerful and war hungry that man was. he didn't have to pay anything for it in terms of own blood. That dude lived way too long.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 05:37 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:37, 07 Aug 2014.
|
|
Nice post dude, "L'etat, c'est moi" is Louis the 14th though, not Louis the 16th. He was a very powerful king and personality as the quote itself suggests.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 07, 2014 05:47 PM |
|
|
Women weren't allowed to fight, and to vote, and to do a great many things not because at the time it was an accepted conclusion that it wasn't a woman's place to do so, and women in the majority not only accepted it, but lived to uphold it and the morals on which it was based.
Today that conclusion is mostly different, the problem is, while in ancient Athens (I've studied women in Ancient Rome and Athens) for example there were clear rules of conducts and gender roles were clearly established and acknowledged. In modern times this isn't so clear, the current western effort is trying to establish an "equal" society, but there is no real unanimous agreement as to what that ought to be.
Perhaps nations/societies should be reduced to smaller independent communities where it's made up of people with whom you largely share your values.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
