User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 195

  1. #31
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    Here the real ones are - Equality simply means that one thing is equal to another. This is in terms of measurement. 5=5, 2=2, etc. However, because men are not women, they are not equal. The faulty presumption lies in the belief that if one thing is not equal to another, it is somehow inferior or superior. 5 is not superior to 4, and 4 is not inferior to 5. Something about our tendency to preserve our egos coerces us into believing that we are better or worse than others, which leads us into thinking that we ought to change ourselves or each other.

    This is the pitfall of both feminist and anti-feminist movements - that women ought to be something other than what they are.
    No. This is the pitfalls of systematic socialization when it comes to gender roles.

    Equality is promoted by certain feminists exactly because it is a reactionary socio-political movement that is rising out of a milieu where inequality equals power dynamics (better/worse).

    Your argument would make sense if we're talking of an Utopian society, but, no society has ever existed, or are existing currently that does not have some kind of social heirarchy to curb power dynamics from getting out of control.

    Thus, in the real world (leaving the realm of mathematics), 1 is considered better than 2 - such that we call the first one a WINNER.

    I can only sympathize. If I were to encourage women to do anything, I would encourage them to pursue their personal goals and for others not to hold them back unless they were planning to divide and conquer.
    But, you'd first have to acknowledge how others could/do hold them back. Your previous argument thus negates this sentiment.

  2. #32
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    No. This is the pitfalls of systematic socialization when it comes to gender roles.

    Equality is promoted by certain feminists exactly because it is a reactionary socio-political movement that is rising out of a milieu where inequality equals power dynamics (better/worse).

    Your argument would make sense if we're talking of an Utopian society, but, no society has ever existed, or are existing currently that does not have some kind of social heirarchy to curb power dynamics from getting out of control.

    Thus, in the real world (leaving the realm of mathematics), 1 is considered better than 2 - such that we call the first one a WINNER.



    But, you'd first have to acknowledge how others could/do hold them back. Your previous argument thus negates this sentiment.
    I'm not talking about a Utopian society.

    Here's the misunderstanding - When you refer to equality, you are talking about the promotion of equal opportunity rights in a social sense.

    When I'm talking about equality, I'm talking about empirically measured properties.

    These definitions of equality are mutually exclusive. The problem with both feminist and anti-feminist arguments is thinking that they aren't mutually exclusive.

    Hence why both camps think that either equality or inequality= power.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    When I'm talking about equality, I'm talking about empirically measured properties.
    What do you mean by this?

  4. #34
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Empirically measured properties like salary?

  5. #35
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Empirically measured properties like salary?
    Perhaps "access to funds" would be a better categorization.

  6. #36
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    What do you mean by this?
    I mean, what women are, not what society tells them they should be.

    Gah, fuck it.

    I want wimmins to dominate me.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Perhaps "access to funds" would be a better categorization.
    So says the Boy Toy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystic Tater View Post
    I mean, what women are, not what society tells them they should be.

    Gah, fuck it.

    I want wimmins to dominate me.
    Well, if it is empirically measured, do elaborate on exactly what properties you are measuring, and how.

  8. #38
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So says the Boy Toy.
    Do you have an actual comment, or do you think that snide remarks will suffice? I certainly hope that's not the case.

  9. #39
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    So says the Boy Toy.



    Well, if it is empirically measured, do elaborate on exactly what properties you are measuring, and how.
    Here's a study.

    http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...nequality.html

    The problem is that statistical measurements only apply to large pools of people and not to individuals. There are plenty of women who would fill a "man's shoes" in areas of expertise where other men might fail miserably at. There are also men who bleed into filling rolls that women are stereotyped as being astute at, like teaching or linguistics. Men are, on average, more spatially perceptive while women are more verbal. However, these differences are so marginal that thinking that one sex should bow to the other is ludicrous.

    Enforcing dominion over someone because they have better hand-eye coordination than you do is kind of a silly political struggle.

  10. #40
    Courage is immortality Valiant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sx/so
    Socionics
    EIE
    Posts
    3,919

    Default

    I think most of the idea of feminism is ridiculous.
    Feminism is not about equality, something that I actually like.
    Feminists try to gain all the perks of being a man, while not taking on any of the responsibilities and downsides with it.

    It's just a matter of chemistry and biology.
    Estrogen makes you act female, testosterone makes you act like men.
    High levels of estrogen turns people into emotional bundles that cry for nothing.
    High levels of testosterone makes people aggressive as hell and usually physically strong.
    Those two are extremes, but that's where women and men are different.
    Men are naturally stronger and more aggressive because they are, were and always will be built to protect the women and the children of the group.

    Women are... Well... Women...
    Gossip/can't keep secrets, overly emotional, irrational/hormonal, crazy...
    And incredibly cute.

    I can admit that I am teasing you a bit, but it's only seriousness packaged like a joke.
    Why? I can't take feminism seriously.
    I've even done college studies on the subject. Mandatory stuff...
    Really tried to take it all in and give it a shot, but the entire mindset just pisses me off.

    I'll buy equality, but we are different.
    And, you know, reality is that you will only have as much power as men permit.
    I feel dirty saying that, but if you look at it in the light of realism, it is true.
    Men have always taken over because we are generally speaking stronger, meaner and more aggressive.
    Humans have always been on edge with each other or other threats, predators etc.
    This has never ceased to be the case.
    How many times when you walk home in the dark of night haven't you wished that you had a big sturdy guy with you?
    That's another point where men and women are different.
    Another point on why we need each other, or rather to remind you why you need us.
    We always know why you are needed.
    Don't take that wrong, either, i'm the most pussy-whipped guy out there when i'm in a relationship.
    All voluntarily. I even enjoy doing the cooking, cleaning, dishes, laundry etc at a regular basis.

    We need you because you think differently, feel differently.
    You enable us to feel things that most of us don't, normally.
    Us together can produce children for the continued survival of our kind.
    We're usually good at different things, and none of those qualities should be looked down upon.
    Women and men are meant to complement each other, not to be alike.
    Regardless if you are a man or a woman, you deserve your liberty, your free right to express yourself, your opinions and your right to do what you want as long as you are able and it won't hurt others.

    I realize some are going to dislike this a lot.
    On the other hand, I think most people with common sense would agree.
    I'm just ballsy enough to stand up and challenge this bullshit. It's gone too far.

    Mightier than the tread of marching armies is the power of an idea whose time has come

Similar Threads

  1. I'm trying to supply my friend who knows nothing of MBTI with some material
    By swordpath in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-19-2011, 04:23 PM
  2. A word to those who are offended...
    By TickTock in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 03:32 PM
  3. To those who care
    By 527468 in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:39 PM
  4. Replies: 77
    Last Post: 02-27-2008, 01:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO