I agree. That quote was pulled way out of context from months ago- I vaguely recall wanting to express ironic amusement. It wasn't a dig on feminists.
Really would be conducive to discussions like this if being emotional about something wasnt thrown around like an insult - there is no harm in that as long as one is aware if it. Its vilification however leads to people convincing themselves they are beyond such a thing and using it - often ironically - in an emotional eay to shut others up and discredit them instead of actually discussing the issues at hand
The whole 'being emotional' thing suffers from the same thing the word 'feminism' does - ot's become this taboo thing that no longer is allowed to be what it is, causing dissonanse between the different warring factions that would harness the power of its definition- the definiton they choosenit togave- for their own gain, ironically often due to fear and other emotions motivating them.
And then we get into this yes/no bickering match instead of a proper acknowledgement and encompassing discussion of the actual topic, getting us effectively nowhere
All because of 'im right/you're wrong' bullshit that is about as subconsciously driven by self-preservational fear and power-seeking from both sides as it comes.
There would be a certain kind of symmetric beauty to it if it wasnt' so mindbogglingly frustrating, futile and harmful to go through/observe. The idea of a rat running in its wheel comes to mind.
It's different because how? how are you going to seperate s power if all power is being centralized? you haven't explained anything. There are no righrs accociated with democratic socialism. If the will of the people decide you are a wrong thinker they can easily destroy you and take your property etc. In essence its totalitarian like socialism.
yes. lol
I think it's a smoke grenade unconsciously designed to defend otherwise indefensible aspects of the ideology; keep the fight elsewhere so it never arrives at the doorstep. There is just something about feminism, like other ideologies but somehow extra exemplified and concentrated, that refuses any kind of internal analysis or constructive criticism. I don't know if it's because most of the members of the third wave are millenials who believe adversity and competition are inherently evil, or if people have sacrificed too much of their own identity and individuality for the sake of it- to the effect that an attack or critique on feminism becomes an attack or critique of their very cores- but I have never seen a group react so strongly or absurdly towards outside opinions than feminists. The gal I dated would get violently upset and physically ill if I ever brought up anything political- her own body literally would not allow her to consider it in any kind of objective terms. It was sewn onto her soul. Outside of that we had tons of mutual respect and common interests, it just always struck me as very odd- and probably unhealthy. I've always identified as a conservative, but never social-dogmatically- when the later years of the bush admin went off the rails with all the Toby Keith team America fuck yeah nonsense I vehemently critiqued and disowned them. I feel like most feminists should have done the same with most of the more ridiculous 3rd wave shenanigans, but it never happened, so the price they are now paying for that is having their legitimate concerns bound to the illegitimate ones. By not policing their own they've left themselves far more vulnerable to external threats.
I have explained my views on quotas elsewhere. You are correct that they are usually employed to address symptoms when we really need to be addressing root causes. Feminism (and other forms of anti-bigotry) go hand-in-hand with meritocracy in that they ask that women, or blacks, gays, or whoever else, be judged on their actual merits and not excluded or made to go through more hoops because of the group they belong to. This breaks down in situations where members of certain groups do not have the same opportunity as others to develop the skills and knowledge necessary to compete for positions based on merit.
Women have reproductive value and has always had this since the beginning of species. This is due to women only being able to carry a child every 9 months or so which means in the early human days she must have to be protected from danger. She was also physically immobile during those nine months and would choose the strongest mate to fetch her resources to give to her and her children. This is the dynamic between men and women that have been going on for centuries. Men are far more disposible by nature and society views men as so.
Liberals for some reason are completely blind of the value of responsibility they fail to see that having status as a manager, CEO, President, police officer means that there are rules and hierarchy that should be followed. When those Hierarchies are dismantled there is no structure chaos, poverty, and death emerge in order to ultimately bring those hierarchies back. This is why all cultures across the world are fundamentally conservative in nature not liberal. Women did not have the responsibility of the draft because men due to their disposable nature were perceived by society as caretakers of their women. This means that women were exempt from danger however as a trade off for being protected were not granted the same rights as men. In short you cannot have rights unless you carry a certain level of responsibility. The right to vote was tied to the responsibility of the draft.
Really? This looks like the same baseless hogwash you usually spout on this topic. No point in trying to correct your misconceptions - you are far too wedded to them. To recap for anyone new in town:
