|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 27 28 29 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 16, 2014 10:01 PM |
|
|
Yeah, you're very disillusioned if you think the big thing feminists in first world countries are working for is equal rights. That fight has largely been won already. What feminists realized was that even with equal rights, women still didn't have the same opportunities as men. Therefore, efforts continued to change the social norms that are perceived as the cause of this inequality.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:12 PM |
|
|
|
Am I misunderstanding or does Jeremiah's argument consist entirely of, "look at all these bad things that happen to men, therefore women/feminists have no right to complain"
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:14 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 23:14, 16 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
What feminists realized was that even with equal rights, women still didn't have the same opportunities as men.
And this is the turning point where the apple becomes rotten. They call it a fight for equality, but it's not called equalism.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:25 PM |
|
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:41 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 23:41, 16 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Sir, this club is a traditional club for gentlemen and has been so for the last 300 hundred years. We are a private institution and we have our right, not to accept members. If women want to have a wine tasting club so much, they can establish their own.
It's a lame example. It's men's right to create such club. Women have no less rights to create a women's club, and no one will be standing in their way.
Same for the job offerer - it's his right to choose whom he wants to hire. Or should he hire specific people just because the society tells him so? The root of the problem you are trying to show is apparently not there.
Quote:
that at least 30 percent of employees should be female
Again - why "should"? If the person can do things better than others, he/she deserves the job. If not - there is no point in specifying the necessary percentage of women/men/domestic pets/dinosaurs working on the place.
A farsighted job offerer always takes that into account, and will take the most skilled employee, because the employer does it for benefit. Whoever he/she will be. Hiring people just because they are women or men has nothing to do with business.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2014 11:47 PM |
|
|
There's no contradiction between saying that people have the right to form male-only clubs and hire only males and saying that they shouldn't. It's not something that should be dealt with by force, but it is something that should be dealt with in some form, by discourse, persuasion, etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 12:01 AM |
|
|
|
Exactly. Feminism is called that because it focuses on discrimination based on gender. If a specific form of discrimination exists, a specific reaction will evolve accordingly. When someone says, racism is wrong and people shouldn't be discriminated based on their ethnicity, nobody will object to it by saying "why focus on race, talk about humanity instead." I find it abysmally pointless and intentionally ignorant to skip such a simple notion.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 12:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Feminism is called that because it focuses on discrimination based on gender.
Then it should not be called a fight for equality. It should be called more specifically since it has nothing to do with men's rights.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 12:19 AM |
|
|
|
The premise is equality and the focus is on women. Your specification does not necessarily contradict with your premise.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 12:23 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 00:24, 17 Jul 2014.
|
|
The premise is not equality. The premise is additional social rights for people of a specificated gender. Feel the difference.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 12:35 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:44, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Since, there are many feminist sects, you'll have to give me a solid example on that, what additional rights?
Mainstream feminism is a struggle about women not being discriminated because of their gender. Of course, this usually and indirectly results in objecting to gender discrimination in general but that would be overcomplicating things, right now. The thing is, we don't live in a world where women have it all and keep asking for more and more, we live in a world that is still basically very patriarchal. I'm sure you can find and present to me, some examples in which a feminist lobby is asking for something extremely stupid but that's not the situation we have in hand, if we were to sum up what feminism is and what constitutes its motivations in general.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 08:06 AM |
|
|
You people are completely arguing beside the point, and that point is actually a pretty simple one.
Until a couple of decades ago, a kind of "natural labor division" has been in place: for a woman there was only one (legal) job: 1) get married; 2) get and raise children. (3) If hubby is rich, alternatively or additionally engage in charity.)
Men could pick between jobs.
Now, from a modern point of view, it should be rather obvious that this is akin to oppression and forced labor - sure, a woman was not FORCED to marry and get children, but how would she earn the money for a living? No adequate schooling, no one hiring her (in a legal job)...
However, once a society accepts the idea that the other half of the population should have some more career opportunities than becoming wife and mother - that women have the same right to work then men -, it's necessary to establish a couple of prerequisites, prerequisites that may seem unfairly in favor of women - for example, due to the fact that a woman CAN get pregnant (but not a man), from the point of view of an employer it's more economical to hire a man, because there isn't the danger that a man gets pregnant and suddenly isn't available for work for some time.
But there is a lot more to consider. Not only will most women have the wish to fulfill their natural role and bear and raise at least one child - it's also in the interest of every society that they do, to ensure the continued existence of a society and to be able to take care of their old.
If you accept the idea that equal right means, once a child is born, it's not a law of nature that the woman has to raise it (and forfeit her right to work), be it as part of a family or in case of a single parentship or a divorce, society AGAIN has to prepare the ground: daycare facilities, for example.
The third part has of course to do with sex and equal rights (and respect) there as well (and of course contraceptives and their widespread use did a lot of good in that regard).
The problem men have with all that is simply the following: men are comparatively simple structured; from their point of view, it gets all too complicated when women come into play, so a lot of "fuss" is being made. The whole equality thing is awkward and there are so many things to consider and enact and to have regards for ... which is correct from their point of view, but considering equal rights means, considering THE OTHER POINT OV VIEW IS EQUALLY VALID.
And THAT is basically, what feminism is about: because men tend to (at least subconsciously) have the attitude, that gender equality wouldn't be a problem at all if women would simply behave and act like men most of the time, that is, adapt to male attitudes. However, the fact is, that women have a right to their own attitudes, and to be accepted with THEM (and not only when you fulfill male standards), because equal rights means, equality of standards.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 01:32 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 13:34, 17 Jul 2014.
|
sounds reasonable, i'm all for it. one issue, though. everywhere i know, everywhere i have ever worked, this was already a non-issue. in everything but 3rd-world countries, women have everything they need, which is to say, equality. 3rd-world countries are the last places left in the world that actually NEED this kind of thinking. everywhere else is already up-to-date, as far as the job market goes(and pretty much everything else). from what i can see, anyway. i'm not seeing the discrimination that everyone seems to be talking about. the only thing i see is a worsened job market(due to the fact that i have applied for a ton of jobs, and only gotten one callback).
i think a lot of the issues with feminism is, they talk about what happens in 3rd-world countries, like feminism is the FIRST step forward towards an equal world.
and that's stupid. try stopping the kidnapping, murder, human trafficking(both male AND female), slavery, forced prostitution(both male AND female), etc. and what about places with no electricity, clean water, a decent supply of food, etc? 3rd world countries have so much more to deal with, than JUST equal rights for women. not to say that it ISN'T a noble cause, but, you know, PRIORITIZE. there are much more grave issues facing the world, than equality for all sexes in every aspect of life.
though, one would have figured, with the human race's advancement, that this stuff would've been ironed-out by now. it's a little sad that the human race is so far behind in it's treatment of everything.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 01:40 PM |
|
|
@Jolly Joker.
Really? Women's only job was to get married and raise kids? Tell that to Marie Curie and a bunch of women who had other work a couple of decades ago.
@artu
tell me, how is it that what I'm doing is different from the feminists who complain about the lack of female characters in the new Assassin's Creed game or Anita Sarkeesian criticizing every game objectifying female and the lack of female main characters in spite of the influx of examples disproving her?
I did avoid Heroes 6 but not Heroes 5. I love Heroes 5. I'm just expressing my personal taste towards Heroes 6. I mean, it was a Heroes game afterall. I'm actually quite tolerant compared to a lot of feminists because all I'm asking is at least 1 fantasy-rts game saga that is exclusively for the guys. But I can't have that because feminists make it a point that all popular games should be more feminine. Hey, not hating, just criticizing.
If you can give me at least one popular, recent (2010 up) rts-fantasy(elves, dwarves, wizards, etc) that is comparable to Heroes 5 in graphics and gameplay, and male-dominated then you've proven my argument wrong.
@mvassilev
ok, let me explain this to you as simple as I can possibly can. By the way, I've used the exact same words to my 9 year old nephew and he understood it as clear as a newly-bought window. So I don't see how you won't. Ok, let me start.
Before the draft, only men and women can own properties, right? I've given you citations provided by wikipedia that women who owned properties can vote.
Civil War came and states need man power, so men were drafted. It was against their will. Right? Still with me?
So, because men fought and died in war, the government thinks it would be unfair for men to die for their country and not have a say on who will run it.
So, that is why they allowed middle class men to vote.
So yeah, men paid the rights to vote with their lives. A year later, suffragettes didn't like not having the rights to vote (aka power), so they formed the Women's Suffrage Movement. Hence, women got their rights to vote without paying it with blood like men did.
Give me examples of the social norms that is worst for women (compared to men).
@Vindicator
I'm not saying feminists doesn't have the right to complain, I'm saying they shouldn't lie or over exaggerate it. Feminists has demonized men in the past decade. They say all men are oppressors and all women are the oppressed when everyone who are not in power had a snowty life back then. Men who were not in power had it worst if you ask me.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 03:23 PM |
|
|
The case of Marie Curve works against you. The Nobel committee fully intended to exclude her from the 1903 Nobel prize, and certainly would have were it not for a single Sweden mathematician who was a vocal advocate for women in the sciences - a discipline that still continues to have gender disparity. We're it not for his complaint, Cutie surely would have never been recognized for her work. And even so, citing a single example of a successful woman as evidence of no discrimination is a logical fallacy of the greatest kind.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 03:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The case of Marie Curve works against you. The Nobel committee fully intended to exclude her from the 1903 Nobel prize, and certainly would have were it not for a single Sweden mathematician who was a vocal advocate for women in the sciences - a discipline that still continues to have gender disparity. We're it not for his complaint, Cutie surely would have never been recognized for her work.
These have got to be the two best typos in the history of debate around feminism.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 03:35 PM |
|
|
LOL Corribus, I thought the OSM wasn't meant to be funny 
____________
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 04:30 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
The case of Marie Curve works against you. The Nobel committee fully intended to exclude her from the 1903 Nobel prize, and certainly would have were it not for a single Sweden mathematician who was a vocal advocate for women in the sciences - a discipline that still continues to have gender disparity. We're it not for his complaint, Cutie surely would have never been recognized for her work. And even so, citing a single example of a successful woman as evidence of no discrimination is a logical fallacy of the greatest kind.
really. Can you give me any citations about your claims of Curie's sex discrimination? The citations shouldn't be from a feminist website since it tends to be biased.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 04:38 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 16:41, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
Since, there are many feminist sects, you'll have to give me a solid example on that, what additional rights?
Depends on the sect. I don't think it's necessary to specify - they all say they are for equality (except radical feminists), and all of them practically fight with their lack of rights in some spheres of life instead. It's not the same. Can you even define what is gender equality?
You know, in Russia it's practically impossible for men to get their children after the divorce. Life observations tell us that if a father is raising his children alone, there was a WAY HUGE reason not to give them to their mother. Like mother's death, proven perversy or proven violence. And the proof must be made of reinforced concrete + probably even have some mass media fuss.
The cult of virginity is strong in almost every country - if a boy is not able to get a girl, he is judged and mocked at by the whole society. Certainly, if you are not able to attract a girl and draw her interest, you are a loser. The times when women were subjugated to men are gone (in civilized countries, I mean). Chivalry, which existed at that times, was a some kind of "being nice to their toys", to say roughly. However, chivalry did not disappear with the end of that time, and has become a part of modern men education.
After that, chivalry has become a common principle "don't hurt the girl", which is thoughtlessly used by parents to bash their sons, as they think, "in terms of a good boy education". And let's imagine a situation, when an older girl hurts a boy and tells everyone the vice versa. Guess who will be listened to.
I even don't mention a breed of cold-minded and cold-hearted women who does not have any borders in what they do, to men especially.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 04:44 PM |
|
|
Lol. Stupid autocorrect.
As for sources, I'm sure you can find this historical record on your own, though it's a fairly well known fact.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
