Are You a Feminist? [Blogthings]

[EcK]

^^
I'm personally against all military drafts and mandatory military registration regardless of gender. I'm with the Vietnam era hippies.
[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION], what other advantages do you see women having besides being excluded from being drafted into the military?

First off, I really don't mind about the advantages in question.
ie: men are physically stronger than women on av. I'm not going to start whining about it.

The thing is that some people look at innate differences between women and men (statistically speaking) and conclude that it must mean that the system is rigged - which is of course ridiculous.

Regarding the military - women hired in the military have lower standards for passing. It's been shown that women on the field - on average - lower the combat effectiveness of the troop.
In short it means, that on average, when you don't just give the same access but advantage a gender / group (here women) to get into the armed forces by lowering the requirements for their admission = you are going to get soldiers killed compared to a scenario where you only pick people based on ability.

Does that sound like a good idea to you ?

Therefore while its 'unfair' to some that only men would get drafted I think that it's quite rational :
a) after a major war - the kind people get drafted for - you need babies and its more likely that you'll get babies if half of your female population isn't dead
b) men are on average more physically capable of carrying out the types of roles needed for combat operations.

I don't have an opinion regarding women in other roles (logistics and other support roles) in the military. I'm in no way saying women shouldn't be in the military, simply that they shouldn't have 'special lowered standards' for getting the same 'job' - esp. when it means dead soldiers down the road. Which is inevitable on large scales. (so not talking about individual cases ofc)

To name only two, the other one would be what happens in divorces: with men rarely getting the main custodial role and having to pay alimony. if they don't they can be sent to jail. Women are rarely in that situation. While this can be discussed at nauseum it becomes a real issue when the decision to make a child is unilateral (say a woman saying she's on the pill, lying about it, having a child and forcing the unwilling father to pay alimony), in this aspect women are unfairly advantaged as well.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There is mostly legal equality in the West, but not cultural equality. The imbalance between the sexes is the most deeply pervasive issue because it has consistency throughout time and geography. Yes, women can vote and drive, but there are a lot of negatively dismissive attitudes towards women and there is quite a bit of violence directed at women from men still, even in the U.S.

Yes, for instance in the case of domestic violence....

http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.42.15.0031a

Oh wait....

A lot of women have experienced ongoing physical danger from men throughout their lives, even in the West. Polite, upper-middle-class people are unlikely to be conscious of it.

Which is why the people who tend to be more vocal about the issue come from the middle and upper "educated" classes.

I do think there is a statistically significant number of men who are emotionally abused by their female partners.

Per the CDC study it is also often physical abuse.

This is an issue that should be addressed formally.

Pretty sure that's been attempted by a number of men's and boy's advocacy groups who tend to be ignored by the government and media they've appealed to. Maybe if some feminist groups or female senators or a certain presidential candidate addressed the issue beyond some passing lip service then more people would start to pay attention.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

So men's value should be based on financial viability and women's value should be based on attractiveness, just for the sake of tradition? That's completely illogical. When gender roles were more prominent, women didn't have the ability to support themselves financially, so it made sense that one of a man's "dating stats" was the amount of money he made; however, women are now perfectly capable of making a living, so there's no logical reason for a man's financial situation to determine his appeal to women. I think attractiveness is more fluid for both genders. Most people don't want to date someone who doesn't take care of his/her appearance and has impolite or unsanitary habits, regardless of gender.

And yes, I pay for dinner dates.

I agree it seems illogical.

And yet some studies are showing more women "marrying up" today than in the 1940s when fewer women worked, traditional gender roles were more prominent and the wage gap was greater.

Not saying that's a good or bad thing.

My thoughts are that maybe people of both genders are often shallow in regard to mate selection criteria. I suspect the breaking down of many cultural walls in the dating world (people were more likely to be married into their own class and demographic "back in the day") has empowered more shallow women to go after men of higher status and more shallow men to go after women considered beautiful or physically out of their league. Just speculation though.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Let me preface my next post with a disclaimer that I'm a pragmatic pacifist.

That said we're at a point where technology may soon be able to compensate for any physical shortcomings in military roles. Think exosuits, to say nothing of the potential for soldier drones replacing human soldiers.

War will be as fun as video games and I'm all for women gamers having an equal and fair chance to blow away insurgents and terrorists

 

[cosmic royal]

You Are 90% Feminist

You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man).
You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

First off, I really don't mind about the advantages in question.
ie: men are physically stronger than women on av. I'm not going to start whining about it.

The thing is that some people look at innate differences between women and men (statistically speaking) and conclude that it must mean that the system is rigged - which is of course ridiculous.

Regarding the military - women hired in the military have lower standards for passing. It's been shown that women on the field - on average - lower the combat effectiveness of the troop.
In short it means, that on average, when you don't just give the same access but advantage a gender / group (here women) to get into the armed forces by lowering the requirements for their admission = you are going to get soldiers killed compared to a scenario where you only pick people based on ability.

Does that sound like a good idea to you ?

Therefore while its 'unfair' to some that only men would get drafted I think that it's quite rational :
a) after a major war - the kind people get drafted for - you need babies and its more likely that you'll get babies if half of your female population isn't dead
b) men are on average more physically capable of carrying out the types of roles needed for combat operations.

I don't have an opinion regarding women in other roles (logistics and other support roles) in the military. I'm in no way saying women shouldn't be in the military, simply that they shouldn't have 'special lowered standards' for getting the same 'job' - esp. when it means dead soldiers down the road. Which is inevitable on large scales. (so not talking about individual cases ofc)

To name only two, the other one would be what happens in divorces: with men rarely getting the main custodial role and having to pay alimony. if they don't they can be sent to jail. Women are rarely in that situation. While this can be discussed at nauseum it becomes a real issue when the decision to make a child is unilateral (say a woman saying she's on the pill, lying about it, having a child and forcing the unwilling father to pay alimony), in this aspect women are unfairly advantaged as well.

On reading your post, we should identify two types of privilege: compensating privilege and advantageous privilege.

Compensating Privilege includes:
People with disabilities sometimes receive government money to help cover living expenses. This is compensating for their limited ability to enter the work force.

Women are not required to register for military drafts because they are significantly more likely to get killed on the battleground (assuming that argument you present is correct)

Women are given more maternity leave than men are given paternity leave. This is to compensate for the physical hardship of pregnancy.

The issues relating to female privilege in divorce and custody cases results from the past traditional culture in which there weren't jobs for very many women in the workforce and the task of child-rearing was culturally designated to women. That many of these laws remain in a changing culture could in some cases result in an unfair advantage for women. However, it is still true that men tend to earn more money and women tend to do more work 'off the books' taking care of a home and the children.

To address your comment about women tricking men into pregnancy: While it is possible for women to deceive men into getting them pregnant resulting in the man having to pay them ongoing money, there is also a cost to the woman for getting pregnant. Any time there is sex it is a gamble because some younger women even get pregnant while on the pill. When people choose to take that gamble, responsibility goes with it even when it is costly.

Advantageous Privilege includes:

Attractive women being more likely to be hired into high paying jobs because of their appearance. There is no significant disadvantage to being attractive. It is a pure form of privilege.

Taller people being more likely to be hired into leadership positions over short people because of their height. There is no disadvantage to being tall, so it is pure benefit.

96% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male. This is not because men are disadvantaged.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

Women are not required to register for military drafts because they are significantly more likely to get killed on the battleground (assuming that argument you present is correct)

Of course my argument is correct. It's me.
Your interpretation is incomplete though: I didn't say the women in question would be more likely to be killed - i said such policies would undoubtfully get people killed. So not necessarily the under qualified women.

Your argument contain other such issues which i might address tomo.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

[MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

Of course my argument is correct. It's me.
Your interpretation is incomplete though: I didn't say the women in question would be more likely to be killed - i said such policies would undoubtfully get people killed. So not necessarily the under qualified women.

Your argument contain other such issues which i might address tomo.

A couple of more thoughts. I was planning to go back and delete a response to the issue of women tricking men into pregnancy. That's too complex to address here, and I agree that is extremely unethical. I don't care to defend it. It can happen in reverse and that is also unfair. The additional thoughts I have are on two versions of purely advantageous privilege.

There is a completely arbitrary form which includes the examples I gave. Being tall does not make someone more qualified, but instead it comes perhaps from some long-lost instinctual response of needing a leader to be able to see further across the savanna. Who knows. At any rate it becomes a trait selected for that overlooks more pertinent qualifications.

There is also a more rational skill-based advantageous privilege. People with greater physical strength are given opportunities to perform the jobs that require that strength. It is a privilege, but also has a rational basis.

Much of the imbalance between opportunities for men and women throughout history have been justified as being in the second category. "Women are not given opportunity to be composers because there has never been one who could do it!" "Therefore we will select for the traits that demonstrate skill - you must be a man to do that job". Much of feminism is about calling into question the assumptions of people consider to be rationally derived privilege. Many of these assumptions are being questioned as falling into the arbitrary privilege category. The requirement of being a man is often as arbitrary as the requirement of being tall in order to do a job successfully.

I believe in maintaining the skill-based selection for privilege, but to also allow for a wider range of people to have the opportunity to develop those skills and to be in a continual mindset of questioning the instilled assumptions about what traits imply possessing those skills.

 

[Coriolis]

So men's value should be based on financial viability and women's value should be based on attractiveness, just for the sake of tradition? That's completely illogical. When gender roles were more prominent, women didn't have the ability to support themselves financially, so it made sense that one of a man's "dating stats" was the amount of money he made; however, women are now perfectly capable of making a living, so there's no logical reason for a man's financial situation to determine his appeal to women. I think attractiveness is more fluid for both genders. Most people don't want to date someone who doesn't take care of his/her appearance and has impolite or unsanitary habits, regardless of gender.

It wasn't inability that kept women from supporting themselves, but rather arbitrary exclusion from most occupations and schooling. As soon as these barriers were removed, women showed themselves more than capable of learning and practicing a wide variety of occupations capable of providing self-support.

That's why I said that overall women are unfairly advantaged. I can live with it but if people start whining about not having the same rights as men then they should at least bother to know about the current state of things.


Yes, so what are you advising? to get rid of all forms of unfair advantages for women ..?
I don't think that's feasible. Frankly. It's human nature to a degree. After all if it was just 'cultural' it wouldn't be present in all advanced cultures on the planet would it.

To get rid of all forms of unfair advantage, period. Everyone has the same opportunities to develop their individual potential, whatever that happens to be. No social stigma for pursuing non-traditional employment or academic subjects. No harsh judgment for staying home with children, regardless of gender. No assumptions about who is going to do what within the family or the household. No more "boys this" and "girls that" unless it is firmly rooted in physical reality.

And please don't characterize identification of remaining gender bias as whining. That will do nothing to address it. If someone really is whining - i.e. complaining repeatedly without doing anything to try to help matters - that is their problem, and not an indication that gender bias no longer exists.

Let me preface my next post with a disclaimer that I'm a pragmatic pacifist.

That said we're at a point where technology may soon be able to compensate for any physical shortcomings in military roles. Think exosuits, to say nothing of the potential for soldier drones replacing human soldiers.

War will be as fun as video games and I'm all for women gamers having an equal and fair chance to blow away insurgents and terrorists

Many people fixate on the idea that men on average are physically larger and have more brute force strength than women. While this may be true, they miss the fact that not many jobs and daily activities put a premium on these qualities. Even when they do, women are often able to accomplish the same task just as well in a different way. What this means is that there are plenty of jobs in the military, including combat-related jobs, that can be done just as well by women as by men, some perhaps better. There is no excuse therefore to draft only men. Anyone who remains insistent on women's unfitness for combat can view it as: every woman in a support role frees up a man for combat.

There is a completely arbitrary form which includes the examples I gave. Being tall does not make someone more qualified, but instead it comes perhaps from some long-lost instinctual response of needing a leader to be able to see further across the savanna. Who knows. At any rate it becomes a trait selected for that overlooks more pertinent qualifications.

There is also a more rational skill-based advantageous privilege. People with greater physical strength are given opportunities to perform the jobs that require that strength. It is a privilege, but also has a rational basis.

Exactly. I also think some tasks have been structured in such a way as to take advantage of the greater physical strength of men, since men have traditionally been the ones to perform them. If for some reason the tasks had been done primarily by women, they might have been structured to take advantage of abilities that women tend to be better at.

Much of the imbalance between opportunities for men and women throughout history have been justified as being in the second category. "Women are not given opportunity to be composers because there has never been one who could do it!" "Therefore we will select for the traits that demonstrate skill - you must be a man to do that job". Much of feminism is about calling into question the assumptions of people consider to be rationally derived privilege. Many of these assumptions are being questioned as falling into the arbitrary privilege category. The requirement of being a man is often as arbitrary as the requirement of being tall in order to do a job successfully.

I believe in maintaining the skill-based selection for privilege, but to also allow for a wider range of people to have the opportunity to develop those skills and to be in a continual mindset of questioning the instilled assumptions about what traits imply possessing those skills.

Restrictions based on inability ("women shouldn't become composers because they don't have the ability to write good music") make about as much sense as prohibiting men from having babies. If it truly is a matter of lacking the ability, no imposed restriction is needed. The inability itself is restriction enough.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] well yes, those barriers made women unable to support themselves. That's what I meant

 

[EcK]

When people's have to go through so much mental gymnastics its usually because their argument is bullshit. Ie: they re starting with the conclusion they want and try to make it sound like they re having a rational argument.

 

[EcK]

A couple of more thoughts. I was planning to go back and delete a response to the issue of women tricking men into pregnancy. That's too complex to address here, and I agree that is extremely unethical. I don't care to defend it. It can happen in reverse and that is also unfair. The additional thoughts I have are on two versions of purely advantageous privilege.

There is a completely arbitrary form which includes the examples I gave. Being tall does not make someone more qualified, but instead it comes perhaps from some long-lost instinctual response of needing a leader to be able to see further across the savanna. Who knows. At any rate it becomes a trait selected for that overlooks more pertinent qualifications.

There is also a more rational skill-based advantageous privilege. People with greater physical strength are given opportunities to perform the jobs that require that strength. It is a privilege, but also has a rational basis.

Much of the imbalance between opportunities for men and women throughout history have been justified as being in the second category. "Women are not given opportunity to be composers because there has never been one who could do it!" "Therefore we will select for the traits that demonstrate skill - you must be a man to do that job". Much of feminism is about calling into question the assumptions of people consider to be rationally derived privilege. Many of these assumptions are being questioned as falling into the arbitrary privilege category. The requirement of being a man is often as arbitrary as the requirement of being tall in order to do a job successfully.

I believe in maintaining the skill-based selection for privilege, but to also allow for a wider range of people to have the opportunity to develop those skills and to be in a continual mindset of questioning the instilled assumptions about what traits imply possessing those skills.

And i knew you d do that and saved your answer as first written the moment i saw it.

So it doesn't matter. Now the question is whether I really want to have a discussion on this as I feel this is all going to be a tedious listing of logical inconsistencies in yours and coriolis's arguments. A frankly that doesn't really entertain me.

And no it's not really a complex matter. It's actually pretty simple. It's made complex by people starting with assumptions they want and developing their arguments based on that instead of facts. Any post I would do in answer would just consist in a long ass list of logical inconsistencies - which is why I'm rather reluctant to do so. Not very entertaining to my extroverted self.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

To get rid of all forms of unfair advantage, period. Everyone has the same opportunities to develop their individual potential, whatever that happens to be. No social stigma for pursuing non-traditional employment or academic subjects. No harsh judgment for staying home with children, regardless of gender. No assumptions about who is going to do what within the family or the household. No more "boys this" and "girls that" unless it is firmly rooted in physical reality.

Ok, and how do you plan to implement that?
By default if women and men exhibit different average abilities (and they do) people will develop gender based expectations.
I'm giving you this link because, frankly it's a bit funny while making a point, which is my overall style:
Chimp "Girls" Play With "Dolls" Too—First Wild Evidence

So what do you propose then? To change the species genetics to fit your ideals?
Sounds a bit silly/idealistic to me.

That is not progress.

regarding the link - I haven't checked their methodology, and in case it's lacking there's plenty of other data/study on the topic so it doesn't really matter.

And please don't characterize identification of remaining gender bias as whining. That will do nothing to address it. If someone really is whining - i.e. complaining repeatedly without doing anything to try to help matters - that is their problem, and not an indication that gender bias no longer exists.

Hence me calling it whining. ie: "a feeble, peevish complaint."
I wasn't saying you were whining but yes in general I see people disregarding reality in favor of their ideals under the guise of 'fairness' as whining. Because it's quite childish.
If your argument is sound then you shouldn't feel concerned by that qualifier.

Furthemore I never said that whining is an indication that gender bias no longer exists. Of course gender bias exists, it exists because genders ARE different on average.
There is a word for beliefs that go against facts, and that is delusion.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Many people fixate on the idea that men on average are physically larger and have more brute force strength than women. While this may be true, they miss the fact that not many jobs and daily activities put a premium on these qualities. Even when they do, women are often able to accomplish the same task just as well in a different way. What this means is that there are plenty of jobs in the military, including combat-related jobs, that can be done just as well by women as by men, some perhaps better. There is no excuse therefore to draft only men. Anyone who remains insistent on women's unfitness for combat can view it as: every woman in a support role frees up a man for combat.

Right, I understand that. I was really addressing the physical strength concern since it seems to come up whenever the issue of women and the draft comes up. Either way it will be irrelevant within a few generations, assuming technology becomes readily available that compensates for physical "weakness" in members of either sex. I think we're going to see more and more warfare being conducted by proxy. Human soldiers will become obsolete in first world nations' armies.

The one added benefit of this recent push for inclusion of women in the draft means that we may finally be able to do away with the draft altogether, since people tend to pay attention to these things more when faced with the potential reality of a lot of white women dying in the line of (involuntary) duty.

 

[EcK]

On reading your post, we should identify two types of privilege: compensating privilege and advantageous privilege.

Why should we?

Compensating Privilege includes:
People with disabilities sometimes receive government money to help cover living expenses. This is compensating for their limited ability to enter the work force.

I don't think women as a whole are handicapped, I think they're fully capable adults. So I don't see the relevance of that point.

Women are not required to register for military drafts because they are significantly more likely to get killed on the battleground (assuming that argument you present is correct)

As stated before, this is inaccurate, I said that selecting people based on other factors than pure capability will lower combat effectiveness (applies to effectiveness in other fields as well) - in this case it means people will get killed, not necessarily the women in question.

Women are given more maternity leave than men are given paternity leave. This is to compensate for the physical hardship of pregnancy.

No. There is no reason to 'compensate' women.
Let's clarify that by defining the term 'to compensate/compensation'

something, typically money, awarded to someone in recognition of loss, suffering, or injury.
"he is seeking compensation for injuries suffered at work"
synonyms: recompense, repayment, payment, reimbursement, remuneration, requital, indemnification, indemnity, redress, satisfaction

So by saying women should be 'compensated' you imply that other people somehow 'owe' the woman for her personal choice to have a child.
Why should they? The woman chooses to have a child, she is not owed anything. If she pays taxes then fine, the state can decide to 'ease' the rearing of children with maternity leaves etc. But that is very different from 'compensation'. That is just a policy aimed at encouraging women to have children.

The issues relating to female privilege in divorce and custody cases results from the past traditional culture in which there weren't jobs for very many women in the workforce and the task of child-rearing was culturally designated to women. That many of these laws remain in a changing culture could in some cases result in an unfair advantage for women.

This is correct

However, it is still true that men tend to earn more money and women tend to do more work 'off the books' taking care of a home and the children.

Yes and so what? Men make more money because they make different choices.
They tend to, on average, choose more lucrative fields, work longer hours, take less vacations. It's only fair that - on average - they'd be paid more.
If women were paid less just because they were women then every company would mostly hire women. I know that first hand having worked in (Gulf) countries where some groups of people would genuinely accept much lower pay for the same work (Pakistanis, Indians, some east Asians) and were hugely over represented in the work force.

To address your comment about women tricking men into pregnancy: While it is possible for women to deceive men into getting them pregnant resulting in the man having to pay them ongoing money, there is also a cost to the woman for getting pregnant.

It doesn't matter that there is a cost - if the woman chooses to stay pregnant or chooses not to take the pill, or doesn't insist on the use of condoms she's responsible. Women are not children.

Any time there is sex it is a gamble because some younger women even get pregnant while on the pill. When people choose to take that gamble, responsibility goes with it even when it is costly.

Yes, if a woman chooses to take that gamble she should be responsible for her actions. Other people shouldn't be in the absence of a contractual-like obligation (marriage basically). Contraception exists. If the woman for whatever reason ends up pregnant without wanting to then it's her choice and her responsibility if she wishes to keep that child whether her reasons for it are rational, religious or others. Again, women are adults. Your arguments seem to steem from a belief that women need to be 'protected'. They don't.

Advantageous Privilege includes:

Attractive women being more likely to be hired into high paying jobs because of their appearance. There is no significant disadvantage to being attractive. It is a pure form of privilege.

Taller people being more likely to be hired into leadership positions over short people because of their height. There is no disadvantage to being tall, so it is pure benefit.

96% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male. This is not because men are disadvantaged.

Yes and so what?
Are you saying we should change human nature to fit your preference? People assign leadership traits to people they literally 'look up to'. There is a reason for this expression to exist, it's down to human psychology (your parents were taller than you most of your life and women tend to prefer taller men for example).

It's absurd to assume that an attractive sales person will not be able to sell more (all other things being equal). For example.

As to fortune 500 CEOs, men tend to show more of the traits needed to be selected for CEO type jobs. So at either extremes of the spectrum this trends are going to be exacerbated.
ie: if men are on average more competitive, logical etc. they're going to be wildly over represented at the top of the corporate food chain. Personally I'm just for the best people getting the job, not for encouraging one gender over another for no other reason than the circumstance of their birth: That's sexist discrimination.

It's the same logic regarding IQ - women tend to have lower standard deviations in IQ - while this doesn't really have much impact on most people it leads to much more high IQ and low IQ men.

96% of Fortune 500 CEOs are male. This is not because men are disadvantaged.

Your logical fallacy is black or white

Saying that 'this is not because men are disadvantaged' does not make the rest of your argument valid.
First off fortune 500 CEOs are in no way representative of men in general. Making this argument cherry picking at best.

Furthemore, If you think men are advantaged unfairly due to sexism you should say HOW they are being advantaged and how it relates to fortune 500 CEOs being mostly male.
There is however trillions of other possibilities. So your statement is meaningless in making a point, it is however effective at revealing your bias.
ie: your default position is that women are disadvantaged.

Quote of the day:
The unexamined life is not worth living.
- Generally attributed to Plato

 

[EcK]

ps: [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] I respect you, this is the only reason why I bothered making these posts.
So please don't misconstrue my anwers as anything else than a conversation.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

to give some background and perspective on my overall view - though this is not really an argument I would back but rather a 'parable'

going against human natural propensities has been 'problematic : P' in the past.

I believe the type of feminism we see in the media today (so not talking about feminism 50 years ago) advocates for things that defy evidence and reason in the favor of feelings and bias.


The case of communism
Communism tried to 'pretend' that humans - who produce differently - could be rewarded the same and that this would produce a stable / good outcome.
The death count from communism is approximately 100,000,000.

To give you a visual if you had that many humans stand on top of each other you would reach half way to the moon. Ironic because of the space race during the cold war of course.



What is the root of the problem behind communism' horrifying failure.
That is what happens when ideologies incompatible with human nature are taken to extremes.


What happens when we have systems more compatible with human propensities.
In contrast 'rather capitalistic societies' (capitalism being far more compatible with human & primate propensities) allowed for progress that led to billions more people being alive today.



Third wave feminism - a divisive force in the West
Current Feminism in the west tries to pretend that men and women are the same and that all differences are 'cultural' 'problems' that can be solved
Just look at what feminists are currently doing trying to achieve exactly what you are suggesting:
their actions are simply creating divisions between the genders. Men being told that they 'oppress' women for no reason. women believing despite evidence to the contrary that they are being oppressed. People lobbying for laws and policies that discriminate against males for no other reasons than they are males.



Achiements of Feminism in the 21st Century
Nothing I can think of,
They just keep claiming achievements they had nothing to do with. If you feel like it list achievements and it'll be my pleasure to show you how it had strictly nothing to do with them or was even in opposition to their publicized goals.




Why do I even care? (I don't really but a bit)
Because just like in the case of communism, it doesn't take a majority to agree or even competent people to agree.
It just takes a small group of over-eager zealots X time to push for change that is detrimental to the group as a whole.

I believe that is what feminist lobbying is doing.




To conclude
So I am not saying that feminism will kill millions, as stated previously, this is merely a parable at best.
Despite many feminists seeming to hate men - however that would be cherry picking and would not be a valid argument.

However I am saying the reality third wave feminists (in general) describe is just not there in the West.
- There is no institutional discrimination.
- Noone is forcing women to 'act like women'
- Noone is forcing men to act like men.
- Genders are not equal, people are not equal - they are however about equal under the law.
- If a gender imbalance had to be pointed out - under the law women are advantaged.
- etc.


As in any reasoned argument both sides need to be heard, and the truth is that today feminism is little more than an echo chamber for people's feelings.
It is irrelevant and downright harmful to society.

All lives matter, all genders matter. Anything else is just mindless partisanship, expressions of bias and sexism, good people believing in bad ideas, pseudo intellectuals in their echo chambers

 

[EcK]

Are You a Feminist?

yes, the questions are totally biased. stfu.

- - - Updated - - -

You Are 51% Feminist
You aren't a total traditionalist when it comes to gender roles. But you're no feminist either.
You generally think that women should be treated as equals, but you're not convinced the world should be gender neutral.

This test is oh so inaccurate.
It's closer to a test for whether you are a feminist circa late 19th early 20th century.

Most every culturally western person would be a feminist by these standards. 1st wave feminism has already succeeded.

To paraphrase my pal Plato:
This test / anyone believing it to be rather accurate in describing feminism today confuses IDENTITY and QUALITY.
1st wave feminism is 1 thing, third wave feminism is another.
The fact that they both share the 'quality' of using the same name does not make them the same thing.

Which would make them one or more of the following:
misinformed (one word: google), immature, naive, well-meaning fools, disingenuous, brain-washed, stupid, sexist
Now I know most people's frail egos can't take being any of these things and that they would rather double-down on their beliefs.


This is much more representative of third wave feminism vs reality today
Check Your Privilege, Feminists — I don't understand, how are you not a feminist?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

ps: [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] I respect you, this is the only reason why I bothered making these posts.
So please don't misconstrue my anwers as anything else than a conversation.

Same here. No ill will intended on my part.

 

[EcK]

It wasn't inability that kept women from supporting themselves, but rather arbitrary exclusion from most occupations and schooling. As soon as these barriers were removed, women showed themselves more than capable of learning and practicing a wide variety of occupations capable of providing self-support.

True. But that's yesterday's news.

To get rid of all forms of unfair advantage, period. Everyone has the same opportunities to develop their individual potential, whatever that happens to be. No social stigma for pursuing non-traditional employment or academic subjects. No harsh judgment for staying home with children, regardless of gender. No assumptions about who is going to do what within the family or the household. No more "boys this" and "girls that" unless it is firmly rooted in physical reality.

And please don't characterize identification of remaining gender bias as whining. That will do nothing to address it. If someone really is whining - i.e. complaining repeatedly without doing anything to try to help matters - that is their problem, and not an indication that gender bias no longer exists.

answered here http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...85085-feminist-blogthings-12.html#post2705771

Many people fixate on the idea that men on average are physically larger and have more brute force strength than women.

I don't think people 'fixate' on that. It's just that it's a good argument.

While this may be true, they miss the fact that not many jobs and daily activities put a premium on these qualities. Even when they do, women are often able to accomplish the same task just as well in a different way.

Yeah and women entrepreneurs are free to create jobs fitting these qualities. Starting with you.

What this means is that there are plenty of jobs in the military, including combat-related jobs, that can be done just as well by women as by men, some perhaps better. There is no excuse therefore to draft only men. Anyone who remains insistent on women's unfitness for combat can view it as: every woman in a support role frees up a man for combat.

Yes that's why I stated that my opinions were strictly limited to combat-related roles in the military
reference here http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...85085-feminist-blogthings-11.html#post2704665 and text below:
----------------------
I don't have an opinion regarding women in other roles (logistics and other support roles) in the military.
I'm in no way saying women shouldn't be in the military, simply that they shouldn't have 'special lowered standards' for getting the same 'job' - esp. when it means dead soldiers down the road. Which is inevitable on large scales. (so not talking about individual cases ofc)
-------------------

Exactly. I also think some tasks have been structured in such a way as to take advantage of the greater physical strength of men, since men have traditionally been the ones to perform them. If for some reason the tasks had been done primarily by women, they might have been structured to take advantage of abilities that women tend to be better at.

Not exactly,
if in ancient times for example a society of humans had put women in hunting roles and men in child rearing roles that society would most probably have been less successful.
Men are 'better hunters' / women on av are better child rearers because they evolved to be.

It's therefore likely that other traits just predispose men and women to perform better in specific tasks. Given that men and women on av are not the same there's no reason to believe different genders would perform the same. What you are suggesting seems more like 'making it harder for men to perform' as to 'level the plane'.
This is no different from the very thing you are complaining about (that some roles are not 'adapted' for women). You simply want it applied to the other gender whether you realise it or not.

Restrictions based on inability ("women shouldn't become composers because they don't have the ability to write good music") make about as much sense as prohibiting men from having babies. If it truly is a matter of lacking the ability, no imposed restriction is needed. The inability itself is restriction enough.

You're forgetting that nothing is as black and white as in a simple thought experiment such as the one you're giving.
While yes, as far as I know no man can grow babies inside of their body, in the immense majority of cases men and woman CAN do the same thing. It's only that men and women tend to
a) make different decisions leading to different outcomes. That is not "the fault of" : they're adults, they can make their own decisions.
b) these are all averages that don't apply to individuals.



A personal message (take it or leave it)
it seems to me that your beliefs stem from the fact that you are a smart, logical chick frustrated from people having 'expectations' / trying to fit you into a box.
But that experience is pretty much universal for anyone who is not 'average'. It has nothing to do with you being a woman.

However what you don't necessarily fully realize is that your experience does in no way mean society should be changed or that you are being discriminated against as a woman.
For example: I'm a white male with an IQ above 140 (sd-15). Meaning for most of my life I've never been 'normal'. However as a man I don't have a 'narrative' such as the feminist narrative to hold onto to explain these things away and I have no other alternative than just facing reality:
if you are different, you stand out because people build expectations based on averages in their environment.

It's just how things are and you can't do away with it without genetically modifying humans and sending them to a new planet.
That is just not going to happen any time soon.