Toxic Feminism

[Jaguar]

No. They use it as political agenda to express hate toward men and everything what men are.

And your problem with women stems from what?

 

[Coriolis]

No. They use it as political agenda to express hate toward men and everything what men are.

Who exactly are "they"?

 

[ceecee]

No. They use it as political agenda to express hate toward men and everything what men are.

How many times are you going to repeat the same thing?

 

[Norexan]

And your problem with women stems from what?

I don't have a problem with women, a REAL women, regardless who she is.
I have a problem with imposter who act like strong woman where she is not and use system against men, especially men who is not manly enough. Where is they rights?

You know if a person deserve some special treatment then a men then we are not equal.

 

[Lark]

I don't have a problem with women, a REAL women, regardless who she is.
I have a problem with imposter who act like strong woman where she is not and use system against men, especially men who is not manly enough. Where is they rights?

You know if a person deserve some special treatment then a men then we are not equal.

While I think its possible to argue that women, womens liberation and feminism are not the same thing, I'm not even sure that's what you're saying here.

 

[Deprecator]

I am fairly certain that the most of these would be able to fight you. (perhaps even without guns)

Right, because if skirts, makeup, heels and uniforms with cleavage tell us anything it's that they're readily competent combat warriors. And far be it from me to disagree... hopefully word spreads around and they're able to bring this sort of feminism to female troops in the US.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

No. They use it as political agenda to express hate toward men and everything what men are.

That really hasn't been my experience.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Right, because if skirts, heels and uniforms with cleavage tell us anything it's that they're readily competent combat warriors. And far be it from me to disagree... hopefully word spreads around and they're able to bring this sort of feminism to female troops in the US.

Well, that was deliberately "graphic" from my side but the fact is that militaristic regimes and chaotic regions often turn women into something that isn't too close to female stereotype. Therefore if you aren't some hardcore macho commando there are good odds that such woman can fight you without too much extra effort. What opens the question of "what is really female nature", since the cheerleader thing is only the part of the story/spectrum. You wouldn't believe me how many people I know that were physically and mentally abused by their mothers/partners.


I don't find feminism to be fundamentally bad or toxic but women can evidently behave like that.

 

[Deprecator]

militaristic regimes and chaotic regions often turn women into something that isn't too close to female stereotype.

Sounds just like the female UFC in the US.

I don't find feminism to be fundamentally bad or toxic but women can evidently behave like that.

Noted discrepancies can be observed regarding which specific "inequalities" feminists are want to point out. For an example, I think I've lost count of all the times feminists want to discuss the so-called "wage gap" between men and women. In contrast, not once have I seen a feminist advocate that women should be required to sign up for the selective service alongside their male counterparts. So... is feminism a buffet where people get to nitpick all the perks they want while avoiding all the drawbacks they don't want, or is the movement actually about equality?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Sounds just like the female UFC in the US.


Noted discrepancies can be observed regarding which specific "inequalities" feminists are want to point out. For an example, I think I've lost count of all the times feminists want to discuss the so-called "wage gap" between men and women. In contrast, not once have I seen a feminist advocate that women should be required to sign up for the selective service alongside their male counterparts. So... is feminism a buffet where people get to nitpick all the perks they want while avoiding all the drawbacks they don't want, or is the movement actually about equality?

Well, historically women were suppressed in various ways and now many are simply reactive about all of this. Some want equality, some want domination, some what nothing …
However the last president of my country was a man that didn't have a single reactive bone in his body, while current one is a woman that knows how to load a gun casually and without fuss. So I simply object to the idea that women can't be violent or soldiers and that men are like this by default. This thread of reactive feminism wouldn't even exist in the case that women can't rise tensions on a number of ways.


However to be honest I don't have a problem with equal pay if they indeed to the same job as men and equally well. Especially since women on livable wage reduce drastically the odds of long term demographic problems (which can crash everything). Actually I would rather unburden men than place more burden on women (within reasonable amounts), especially now when we have so many machines. In my place if I am not mistaken we abolished selective service even for men (if I get the term correctly).

 

[FemMecha]

I hate big jerks of both genders. I also do think part of feminism is women trying to do better and be their own best morally, intellectually, etc. There are plenty of women I hate because they are cruel money grubbers and such. There are plenty of men I hate too for the same reason. I would suggest there is no moral superiority between the genders - the wretchedness of humanity is distributed between genders.

 

[Deprecator]

Well, historically women were suppressed in various ways

And why is it you think that your observation of suppression just happens to be gender specific? If men and women were truly equal then by extension wouldn't this historical suppression also be evenly distributed?

However to be honest I don't have a problem with equal pay if they indeed to the same job as men and equally well. Especially since women on livable wage reduce drastically the odds of long term demographic problems (which can crash everything). Actually I would rather unburden men than place more burden on women (within reasonable amounts), especially now when we have so many machines.

A fundamental assumption within economic theory is that firms are motivated to increase their total revenue/ net profits. So, if feminist theory were true and women were doing the same job equally as well but for less pay, then historically, what would prevent a firm from increasing their profits by exclusively hiring women? It seems to me that either fundamental pillars within economic theory are wholly inaccurate -- that firms aren't motivated to increase their net profits -- or the myth of the wage gap has been soundly debunked as soon as you factor in other variables, such as average number of hours worked during a given fiscal year.

 

[Coriolis]

And why is it you think that your observation of suppression just happens to be gender specific? If men and women were truly equal then by extension wouldn't this historical suppression also be evenly distributed?


A fundamental assumption within economic theory is that firms are motivated to increase their total revenue/ net profits. So, if feminist theory were true and women were doing the same job equally as well but for less pay, then historically, what would prevent a firm from increasing their profits by exclusively hiring women? It seems to me that either fundamental pillars within economic theory are wholly inaccurate -- that firms aren't motivated to increase their net profits -- or the myth of the wage gap has been soundly debunked as soon as you factor in other variables, such as average number of hours worked during a given fiscal year.

This presumes people act rationally. It should be quite plain that they do not. Most people are all too willing to cut off their nose to spite their face. At one time, businesses could have saved money by hiring blacks for less, but that didn't happen either. Witness also the military, which in the wake of 9/11 paradoxically let go a number of linguists proficient in Afghan languages and Arabic, because they were gay. Prejudices can run very deep.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Sounds just like the female UFC in the US.


Noted discrepancies can be observed regarding which specific "inequalities" feminists are want to point out. For an example, I think I've lost count of all the times feminists want to discuss the so-called "wage gap" between men and women. In contrast, not once have I seen a feminist advocate that women should be required to sign up for the selective service alongside their male counterparts.

You mean, like the [url="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html']National Organization for Women[/url]?

''Compulsory universal military service is central to the concept of citizenship in a democracy,'' the brief filed by NOW asserts. The brief says that ''devastating longterm psychological and political repercussions'' result from the exclusion of women ''from the compulsory involvement in the community's survival that is perceived as entitling people to lead it and to derive from it the full rights and privileges of citizenship.''

This was back in 81, by the way.

If you want something more recent, there's this:

White house petition asks that women be required to register for selective service.

Some feminists, I should add, are not in favor of women being included in selective service, because they think that selective service should be abolished anyway.

 

[Jaguar]

You mean, like the [url="https://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/22/us/women-join-battle-on-all-male-draft.html']National Organization for Women[/url]?



This was back in 81, by the way.

If you want something more recent, there's this:

White house petition asks that women be required to register for selective service.

Some feminists, I should add, are not in favor of women being included in selective service, because they think that selective service should be abolished anyway.

Political discussions are allowed again? Good to know.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Political discussions are allowed again? Good to know.

I have no idea, honestly. I guess I did mention "white house" so I suppose that's a no go.

 

[Jaguar]

I have no idea, honestly.

I see. Then why are you posting about White House petitions?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I see. Then why are you posting about White House petitions?

Because I forgot the forum was dying.

 

[Virtual ghost]

And why is it you think that your observation of suppression just happens to be gender specific? If men and women were truly equal then by extension wouldn't this historical suppression also be evenly distributed?

Because women got to vote much later, because religions suppress them more than men (down to this day), etc. Men and women aren't biologically identical but they can have the same social standards for the most part. Because if they don't you get "toxic feminism", that is simply human nature.

Second question: no, since the upbringing and circumstances can totally suppress certain group. The last time I checked many complain that there is now way too much feminized men out there and that is exactly this. This can go both ways if enough effort is invested.

A fundamental assumption within economic theory is that firms are motivated to increase their total revenue/ net profits. So, if feminist theory were true and women were doing the same job equally as well but for less pay, then historically, what would prevent a firm from increasing their profits by exclusively hiring women? It seems to me that either fundamental pillars within economic theory are wholly inaccurate -- that firms aren't motivated to increase their net profits -- or the myth of the wage gap has been soundly debunked as soon as you factor in other variables, such as average number of hours worked during a given fiscal year.

Perhaps, but is this because they aren't the first in line to get work/assignments ? Plus I always got the impression that this question is more about why there is a female domination in lousy jobs ? (in my part of the world this is more of an issue). In my place you can have a female A class student and D class male student and the guy will get the job, because he is a guy. Back in college I had a female professor that openly said to the class "I like the fact that women like to get higher education, but I am sorry to say that most of you are here just for fun, the companies wouldn't hire you". We have large demographic problems in these parts exactly because women have harder time getting money. (therefore the state has to fix this with benefits for system to work). Probably the main factor why I never dated is because I had the impression I will be hanging out with a mess … and that mess didn't came out of nowhere.


Men and women will probably never be 100% equal in everything but they can be more equal than they globally are.

 

[wildmoon]

Sigh.
I have a positive opinion of feminism, it has done more for me and my life situation and my emotional wellbeing than any other movement ever has. I'm allowed to look the way I look? Sounds great. I'm allowed to do the things I'm good at? Also great. I'm allowed to expect to be treated like a person? Fantastic. But seeing how people twist it and hate on it has given the word a negative association for me. Feminism was the first tiny thread of public support that women ever had and we can't even have that without people misconstruing it as some kind of hate movement that it's absolutely not, so yeah, screw everything.