Affirmative acrion is a quota used to descriminate people based on their race and gender or order to create opportunity of outcome. Its racist and sexist in nature and pushes society backwards not forward. It's like giving a short person a free pass to double dribble because hes short and cant compete in the nba.
Patriarchy theory by feminists definition describes a system which benefits men at the expense of women. So how can a system that benefits men be oppressive to men? Organized religion isn't necessarily a bad thing cultures revolve around religion to uphold their societies. Christianity encouraged capitalism which helped shape and structure the west into the free trade powerhouse that it was.
Feminists push for entitlements and privileges such as the right to abortion at the expense of tax payer money. Having an abortion without the man's say in the matter because "my body my choice" even though it is not just your baby it's another body as well. Having full custody of children while requiring child support benefits from the father even though he has no say on abortion. Affirmative action is another one that encourages women into stem by providing government subsidies while simultaneously taking away another man's opportunity to enter the field.
I'm sure you are familiar with the expression: two steps forward, one step back? Our trajectory on social issues is obvious to anyone who bothers to look back more than a couple of generations.
Again, taking the short view.
I haven't seen anyone defend affirmative action here.
Ivan the Terrible experienced significant pain most of his life due to a medical condition, and at one point tried to get some respite in the country. No dice. His court followed him there, making the usual demands on his time and attention. Point is: he could no more stop being king than the peasants in the fields could stop being peasants. The society of the time bound them all in their roles. His authority and privilege came with costs. Same with men in a patriarchal system. Much has been said about the costs borne by women under such a system. The constructive MRA folks do a good job of pointing out where they did benefit: exemption from the draft; more favorable treatment in divorce and custody proceedings; more lenient prison sentences than men for the same crime. Even the whole "women and children first" mentality. Well, women are not children, and most of us don't want to be treated as such. "Benefits" that come at the cost of full adulthood and independence are not worth the cost. These inequities need to change, on both sides.
This is too convoluted to address. Lots of assumptions, errors, lapses in logic, etc.
"The" family? Exactly which or whose family do you mean here? The family structure that requires a woman's dependence on and subservience to a man should die. Fortunately today, we understand that "family" includes more than mom, dad, and 2.2 kids. It always has, and always will. Now, it might be fair to say that, in modern society, people play too fast and loose with their commitments. I would agree with that, and it affects far more than marriage, but that is a topic for another thread.
This is where the Church Of Leftism starts to sound like those christians who keep declaring that the book of revelation is soon upon us. I guarantee you have as accurate a grip on the future as they do.
Yeah but that's not the case here, there are various reasons why trump won and I think a good part of that is the anti feminist sentiments that have been growing.
All you do is defend it, you defend government subsides and welfare all day providing it as a solutions to all life's problems even in this very response.
Sorry but in what ways is authority a privilege if it comes at a cost? that doesn't sound very privileged being the disposible sex and all. Yet for some reason feminists label it as privilege as if they never experience an ounce of responsibility in all of their lives.
So now you admit women benefit from a patriarchal system? so tell me in what ways does patriarchy oppress women? do your arguments have logical consistency at all?
No you just don't know how to address it.
So traditional men go to work paving roads, working in coal mines and bring home that money to support his wife while she stays home to take care of her children and you think that a women is being subservient to the man? or is the man being subservient to the women?
If I had the choice to select which leftist organizations could tell me what to do (including none of them) I would cease to feel in any way threatened by that and would actually welcome it.
Why does she represent it more than someone else? How did she earn that?
Why not it's an open discussion forum where I wish to practice my freedom of speech.
No
I'm sure they influenced it one way or another, women had the vote so at the time women were now a major factor in politics that couldn't be ignored.
Nope AA is cancer in my eyes.
Protected men how?
Women should be able to do whatever they choose as long as it's not being funded by people's tax dollars. That included staying at home to raise children or going to work and hiring a nanny etc.
The man hatred thing might have something to do with it. I guess it relates to how you define the word. When I think of the word feminism, I think of the extremist wackos.
Sure, certain segments of the population have been doing their best to vilify feminists, just as was done to
This directly contradicts statements I have made on several threads, including this one.
Do you think anyone is privileged? There is always a cost, even if the privileged person does not recognize that, or chooses to accept it, just like Ivan.
Nothing is 100% or completely black/white. The benefits given to women under a patriarchal system are very similar to the benefits given to children. Treating a competent adult as a child is oppression. Blacks in South Africa were treated this way. I recall a story about Nelson Mandela's years in jail there. The men (grown, black men) were made to wear shorts all year round, even when it was cold and snowy, because they were treated as "boys", and boys wore short pants then.
Wishful thinking. Apparently you cannot distinguish between inability, and simply having better things to do with my time.
You are discussing a division of labor. I am discussing a power imbalance. One does not require the other, which is a significant part of my point. If husband and wife mutually agree to what you describe, and make decisions about the family together, there is no subservience or oppression.
This does not address my comment, at all, as I did not dismiss the importance of family, just the idea that there is only one configuration for family.
In the words of Milo Yannopolis "Feminism is cancer".
No it doesn't
No I don't think any class or race is privileged. There is no such thing as "white privilege" or "male privilege" this is propaganda perpetuated by the left. If you were born in a free and wealthy nation and are not sick or disabled that all the privilege you have ,which you should be thankful for..
Most husbands and wives agreed to their roles at the time because fighting against biology does not do you any favors when it comes to survival. I'm talking about money gained from doing manual labor which a woman cannot keep up with.
