Are You a Feminist? [Blogthings]

[Norrsken]

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]
I'm more attracted to the term 'egalitarian' anyway.

 

[EcK]

[MENTION=5643]EcK[/MENTION]
I'm more attracted to the term 'egalitarian' anyway.

Yeah but people are not equal.
We can make them equal under the law, still doesn't make them equal.

a better alternative - though dated - Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It's 100 years old but it's actually much more sensical than modern liberalism, which is what happens when you let the unqualified majority decide on policies through showmen / cons generally refered to as career politicians.

 

[Norrsken]

Yeah but people are not equal.
We can make them equal under the law, still doesn't make them equal.

I kinda hope that we at least understand the idea that everybody should at least have equal opportunity rather than special privileges on the basis of imaginary oppression that may no longer exist.

 

[EcK]

I kinda hope that we at least understand the idea that everybody should at least have equal opportunity rather than special privileges on the basis of imaginary oppression that may no longer exist.

I'm all for equal opportunity. It's a net loss for the group otherwise (more special interest groups, less social cohesion overall, less trade etc..)

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

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.

You are correct - it doesn't matter, because people are not statistics. Treat everyone as an individual. That would be true progress. If a woman doesn't have the strength to do something usually done by men, don't give her the job, simple as that. But she is excluded not for being female, but for not being strong enough. I guarantee there will be lots of men out there who are not strong enough as well. I do hope they are not hired simply because they are men.

We don't need equal numbers of men and women doing every single thing out there for boys and girls to grow up with the sense that they are limited only by their actual abilities. Moreover, many if not most occupations and activities can be done equally well by men or women on average. Just look at how many women are now successful as doctors, lawyers, elected officials, business owners, accountants, and the many other occupations from which they were once barred, ostensibly due to lack of ability or suitability.

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.

Are you content to be judged based on what is average for your demographic? Or would you prefer to be judged for who you actually are? Treating every human as a manifestation of the average for their demographic is what denies reality. Moreover, those averages have shifted considerably, just in the past couple of generations.

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.

I find it telling that people who make a big deal of areas like brute force strength where men tend to excel, overlook areas where women excel, like handling G forces and being smaller in stature, reducing weight in aircraft. That's because the entire system is designed to make use of only half the population.

As for the draft, if we aren't willing to see our daughters come home in body bags, we shouldn't be so willing to see our sons do so.

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.

It encourages men to have children as well, at least in a world where women are in the workforce. Family leave should be available to all new parents on equal terms. Women recover from childbirth more quickly when fathers are present to take on daily chores so they can rest and nurse. After recovery, either mother or father (or ideally a combination) can tend a baby just as well. Workplaces should get used to this sort of tag-team parenting, which allows both parents to pursue careers while also spending time with young children. Then to the extent that bias remains, it will be against parents or others with family commitments, and not women.

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.

You got one right here. You have to play to win. Now for generations, women weren't allowed to play, or their play was artificially handicapped. Much of that is gone now, and the remaining barriers of culture and expectation will not be whittled away by women who sit at home making traditional choices, however much that is their right. I have said many times that women contribute to gender bias as well as men, though it can be hard to do otherwise when one has been raised with those expectations. Addressing this is the ongoing work of generations, not years.

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).

I guess no one told Napoleon this.

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.

Wow. So many unsubstantiated claims. First, the world has yet to see true communism, except perhaps in monasteries, or in the average family (totally non-producing babies provided gratis with everything they need). This means all those deaths you are presumably attributing to governments in the USSR and similar are really due to despotism, with communism just the idology of the day. The czars killed millions as well without recourse to communist ideals, as did Hitler, Tojo, King Leopold, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and many others.

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.

We have already done this experiment, many times over. Capitalism encourages the worst in human nature, namely greed: placing acquisition of money or material goods ahead of everything else, even at the expense of others. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has attempted to account for all the deaths resulting from such practices, though it would be a challenging task indeed given how far-reaching capitalist methods are, and how little record-keeping is done in many of these societies. Moreover, I'm not sure you can attribute true innovation to capitalistic motivations. That applies more to the translation of innovation into a good or service capable of being repeatably produced and sold to customers. That is important, too, but it is like the manager, while the true innovator is the artist or athlete the manager represents.

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.

This is a mischaracterization of feminism. Feminists are pointing out that the real differences between men and women are overrated, and in no case justify discrimination against an individual based on gender.

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.

Well, that all depends on what you consider to be an achievement. It is too soon to assess the 21st century as a century. In the last century, the work of feminism was making it so women are allowed to do whatever men do. In this century, women need to focus on going out there and doing it - and so do men, as corresponding opportunities open up for them.

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.

Not really. This assumes that (1) there is only one way to do a given task effectively, (2) what is true of one activity is by extension true of others, and (3) we neither can nor should evolve beyond what may have once made sense for cave people.

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.

You are neglecting the considerable influence culture and custom have on those individual decisions. One need only look at how many women graduate from medical school now compared with the first couple of decades after they were first admitted to see the effects of this influence, and how it changes gradually. As more and more women make the decision to go against the flow, the entire direction of the current changes.

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.

This is quite off the mark. The amount of gender bias I have experienced directly has been quite minimal, and for the most part I have received the same treatment as male colleagues with similar skills and experience. Sure, I grew up surrounded by many of the usual expectations about gender roles, but never had any trouble brushing them off in favor of what I wanted to do. I have thus never really been frustrated by the expectations others had for me. My parents were always supportive, which I am sure helped. I see that this is not the experience of everyone, though, and often it is far from it. I still see parents discourage girls from studying STEM subjects. I know women who have experienced sexual harassment and even assault on the job. My INTP's family have criticised his brother-in-law for relying on the financial support of his well-paid wife during an extended period of unemployment and disability. I am motivated then more by the experiences of others than my own. I want others to realize the freedom I have enjoyed to make my own choices and pursue my interests, atypical or not.

 

[EcK]

You are correct - it doesn't matter, because people are not statistics. Treat everyone as an individual. That would be true progress. If a woman doesn't have the strength to do something usually done by men, don't give her the job, simple as that. But she is excluded not for being female, but for not being strong enough. I guarantee there will be lots of men out there who are not strong enough as well. I do hope they are not hired simply because they are men.

We don't need equal numbers of men and women doing every single thing out there for boys and girls to grow up with the sense that they are limited only by their actual abilities. Moreover, many if not most occupations and activities can be done equally well by men or women on average. Just look at how many women are now successful as doctors, lawyers, elected officials, business owners, accountants, and the many other occupations from which they were once barred, ostensibly due to lack of ability or suitability.


Are you content to be judged based on what is average for your demographic? Or would you prefer to be judged for who you actually are? Treating every human as a manifestation of the average for their demographic is what denies reality. Moreover, those averages have shifted considerably, just in the past couple of generations.


I find it telling that people who make a big deal of areas like brute force strength where men tend to excel, overlook areas where women excel, like handling G forces and being smaller in stature, reducing weight in aircraft. That's because the entire system is designed to make use of only half the population.

As for the draft, if we aren't willing to see our daughters come home in body bags, we shouldn't be so willing to see our sons do so.


It encourages men to have children as well, at least in a world where women are in the workforce. Family leave should be available to all new parents on equal terms. Women recover from childbirth more quickly when fathers are present to take on daily chores so they can rest and nurse. After recovery, either mother or father (or ideally a combination) can tend a baby just as well. Workplaces should get used to this sort of tag-team parenting, which allows both parents to pursue careers while also spending time with young children. Then to the extent that bias remains, it will be against parents or others with family commitments, and not women.


You got one right here. You have to play to win. Now for generations, women weren't allowed to play, or their play was artificially handicapped. Much of that is gone now, and the remaining barriers of culture and expectation will not be whittled away by women who sit at home making traditional choices, however much that is their right. I have said many times that women contribute to gender bias as well as men, though it can be hard to do otherwise when one has been raised with those expectations. Addressing this is the ongoing work of generations, not years.


I guess no one told Napoleon this.


Wow. So many unsubstantiated claims. First, the world has yet to see true communism, except perhaps in monasteries, or in the average family (totally non-producing babies provided gratis with everything they need). This means all those deaths you are presumably attributing to governments in the USSR and similar are really due to despotism, with communism just the idology of the day. The czars killed millions as well without recourse to communist ideals, as did Hitler, Tojo, King Leopold, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and many others.


We have already done this experiment, many times over. Capitalism encourages the worst in human nature, namely greed: placing acquisition of money or material goods ahead of everything else, even at the expense of others. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has attempted to account for all the deaths resulting from such practices, though it would be a challenging task indeed given how far-reaching capitalist methods are, and how little record-keeping is done in many of these societies. Moreover, I'm not sure you can attribute true innovation to capitalistic motivations. That applies more to the translation of innovation into a good or service capable of being repeatably produced and sold to customers. That is important, too, but it is like the manager, while the true innovator is the artist or athlete the manager represents.


This is a mischaracterization of feminism. Feminists are pointing out that the real differences between men and women are overrated, and in no case justify discrimination against an individual based on gender.


Well, that all depends on what you consider to be an achievement. It is too soon to assess the 21st century as a century. In the last century, the work of feminism was making it so women are allowed to do whatever men do. In this century, women need to focus on going out there and doing it - and so do men, as corresponding opportunities open up for them.


Not really. This assumes that (1) there is only one way to do a given task effectively, (2) what is true of one activity is by extension true of others, and (3) we neither can nor should evolve beyond what may have once made sense for cave people.


You are neglecting the considerable influence culture and custom have on those individual decisions. One need only look at how many women graduate from medical school now compared with the first couple of decades after they were first admitted to see the effects of this influence, and how it changes gradually. As more and more women make the decision to go against the flow, the entire direction of the current changes.


This is quite off the mark. The amount of gender bias I have experienced directly has been quite minimal, and for the most part I have received the same treatment as male colleagues with similar skills and experience. Sure, I grew up surrounded by many of the usual expectations about gender roles, but never had any trouble brushing them off in favor of what I wanted to do. I have thus never really been frustrated by the expectations others had for me. My parents were always supportive, which I am sure helped. I see that this is not the experience of everyone, though, and often it is far from it. I still see parents discourage girls from studying STEM subjects. I know women who have experienced sexual harassment and even assault on the job. My INTP's family have criticised his brother-in-law for relying on the financial support of his well-paid wife during an extended period of unemployment and disability. I am motivated then more by the experiences of others than my own. I want others to realize the freedom I have enjoyed to make my own choices and pursue my interests, atypical or not.

I've actually got everything right, not just one. But fine, I'll answer in details when I have time.
As to the last point, it was to give you an out. As I said, take it or leave it.

 

[EcK]

*disclaimer* for ease of reading I'll describe the fallacy/issue in quote in this fashion
-quote-
at least one of the fallacies
answer

You are correct (...)

Yes thank you

Are you content to be judged based on what is average for your demographic? Or would you prefer to be judged for who you actually are?

appeal to emotions instead of valid argument, non sequitur.

That is beyond the point, it doesn’t matter how I feel about it. My feelings don’t take precedent on data or truth.

Treating every human as a manifestation of the average for their demographic is what denies reality. Moreover, those averages have shifted considerably, just in the past couple of generations.

strawman (you're not answering my point, you're making up your own due to inability to actually give a counter argument)
I never advised to treat all humans as a manifestation of the average for their demographic. I outlined some of these averages as they matter when talking about statistical trends. That is what statistics are.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve here or do you simply not have a cogent argument to give. I mean, it’s fine to admit you’re wrong you know. There’s no shame in that. I do so occasionally when applicable.

I find it telling that people who make a big deal of areas like brute force strength where men tend to excel, overlook areas where women excel, like handling G forces and being smaller in stature, reducing weight in aircraft. That's because the entire system is designed to make use of only half the population.

strawman!
And men, on average, have better spatial awareness, kind of handy for a pilot don’t you think. Again that point does nothing to discredit my argument. My whole point was not to lower requirements only for women or any other group. If a woman can handle extra Gs – cool. If she can pass any reasonable set of tests designed to see whether she’d make a good pilot and whatever else military pilots need to know I’m all for it.
*shrugs* I don’t get how that’s a counter argument to anything I said. (it’s not)

As for the draft, if we aren't willing to see our daughters come home in body bags, we shouldn't be so willing to see our sons do so.

not a fallacy but clearly impersonating a politician
Sure why not. I don’t think I’ve stated being against drafting women in the military. (because why would I state something I disagree with)

It encourages men to have children as well, at least in a world where women are in the workforce. Family leave should be available to all new parents on equal terms. Women recover from childbirth more quickly when fathers are present to take on daily chores so they can rest and nurse. After recovery, either mother or father (or ideally a combination) can tend a baby just as well. Workplaces should get used to this sort of tag-team parenting, which allows both parents to pursue careers while also spending time with young children. Then to the extent that bias remains, it will be against parents or others with family commitments, and not women.

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or building a strawman here. I guess we could go for Your logical fallacy is ambiguity (I said 'having a child' as in actually growing and giving birth to a child - you were talking about parenting which would extend to - for example - adoption. That wasn't the point I was making)

You got one right here.

yes, I got one right every time so ... but hey thanks.

I guess no one told Napoleon this.

Anecdotal : that is not a counter argument.

Wow. So many unsubstantiated claims. First, the world has yet to see true communism, except perhaps in monasteries, or in the average family (totally non-producing babies provided gratis with everything they need). This means all those deaths you are presumably attributing to governments in the USSR and similar are really due to despotism, with communism just the idology of the day. The czars killed millions as well without recourse to communist ideals, as did Hitler, Tojo, King Leopold, Idi Amin, Pinochet, and many others.

"no true scotman' fallacy
*yawns* ah sophistry round and round you go. One might call it a [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] effect. Before we start I was wandering whether your nickname is a commentary on the fictitious or is it something more pedestrian?

Okey back to Plato then. See Plato believed in the Realm of the Forms, that there was this ‘perfect form’ of a chair , a dog or well , to paraphrase him : of communism.
Of course as far as we know that is incorrect, but Plato had no way of knowing about pattern recognition and how it makes us categorize things. There’s not ‘really’ a human species, the genepool and phenotypes change with each new birth, death, generation etc. (there’s not really anything like a ‘generation’ at the macro scale either – people are born and die constantly).

In the same fashion when we say ‘sun’ or ‘communism’ we don’t mean some perfect idealized version of it. We use these words as tools.
An example closer to home for you (probably) - FDR 'rebranded' his party as 'liberal' despite not having much to do with liberalism as it was then defined.
I've explained this before and I would have hoped you'd pay attention: people keep confusing IDENTITY and QUALITY. By people I mean you in this case.
If some frustrated guy in london decided to define communism as what I'll refer to as 'the communist utopia' - great. However these days we use the term to describe the USSR etc.

As nothing approaching the communist utopia has ever been achieved it’s fair to call systems attempting the end-goal of communism as communist. Otherwise you might as well state that there is no blue because no blue achieved the degree of perfection envisioned by some blind monk dreaming about the heavens 5 centuries ago.
But you wouldn’t make such ridiculous argument now would you.

We have already done this experiment, many times over. Capitalism encourages the worst in human nature, namely greed: placing acquisition of money or material goods ahead of everything else, even at the expense of others. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has attempted to account for all the deaths resulting from such practices, though it would be a challenging task indeed given how far-reaching capitalist methods are, and how little record-keeping is done in many of these societies. Moreover, I'm not sure you can attribute true innovation to capitalistic motivations. That applies more to the translation of innovation into a good or service capable of being repeatably produced and sold to customers. That is important, too, but it is like the manager, while the true innovator is the artist or athlete the manager represents.

*coughs*
You’re answering a ‘parable’ I’ve clearly stated it was not meant to be an argument but a story.

Not really. This assumes that (1) there is only one way to do a given task effectively, (2) what is true of one activity is by extension true of others, and (3) we neither can nor should evolve beyond what may have once made sense for cave people.

What the..?
None of this follows from what I've said.
Just think it through please. If you still don't get it after a while let me know and I'll list your mistakes out when I have some time.





a commentary

As stated in my previous post, you've got everything wrong so far. I knew that before even reading you post as there was no way you'd give cogent counter arguments based on the little I've seen from your posting history.
My expectation was that you'd either evade or start building strawmen. I've then taken a few steps (see just above) to lower the likelihood of the first possibility.
and voila.

Not very impressed so far.

 

[chubber]

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.

I like how this card is being played.

so 480 (96% of 500) elite few men, is used to justify the unfairness, because apparently, they represent all men.

 

[EcK]

I like how this card is being played.

so 480 (96% of 500) elite few men, is used to justify the unfairness, because apparently, they represent all men.

#NotAllMenDontRepresentAllMen

 

[chubber]

#NotAllMenDontRepresentAllMen

#NAMALT

 

[Coriolis]

I've actually got everything right, not just one. But fine, I'll answer in details when I have time.
As to the last point, it was to give you an out. As I said, take it or leave it.

To give me "an out" (I wasn't aware I needed one) by inviting me to pretend my reality has been different than it is? No thanks.

appeal to emotions instead of valid argument, non sequitur.

That is beyond the point, it doesn’t matter how I feel about it. My feelings don’t take precedent on data or truth.

The truth is that you probably don't match the average for your demographic, regardless of how you feel about that. Few of us do - that is completely consistent with the idea of an average, and why the average family can have the nonsensical quantity of 2.2 children.

I never advised to treat all humans as a manifestation of the average for their demographic. I outlined some of these averages as they matter when talking about statistical trends. That is what statistics are.
I really don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve here or do you simply not have a cogent argument to give. I mean, it’s fine to admit you’re wrong you know. There’s no shame in that. I do so occasionally when applicable.

If you are in no way suggesting that these averages should be the basis for judging individuals or making rules, then I will agree that I overstated your position by implying you considered them normative and not simply descriptive. They are changing, though; another aspect of reality you seem quick to discount.

strawman!
And men, on average, have better spatial awareness, kind of handy for a pilot don’t you think. Again that point does nothing to discredit my argument. My whole point was not to lower requirements only for women or any other group. If a woman can handle extra Gs – cool. If she can pass any reasonable set of tests designed to see whether she’d make a good pilot and whatever else military pilots need to know I’m all for it.
*shrugs* I don’t get how that’s a counter argument to anything I said. (it’s not)

I am showing that some aspects of the discussion are too narrowly framed by people (not specifically you) who want to cherry pick to focus only on data that support their case.

not a fallacy but clearly impersonating a politician
Sure why not. I don’t think I’ve stated being against drafting women in the military. (because why would I state something I disagree with)

Good. There is hope for you yet.

Not sure if you're agreeing with me or building a strawman here. I guess we could go for Your logical fallacy is ambiguity (I said 'having a child' as in actually growing and giving birth to a child - you were talking about parenting which would extend to - for example - adoption. That wasn't the point I was making)

I am agreeing that family leave should not be limited to women. My comment explained my reasons for agreeing. Yes, I would include becoming parents by adoption, or even needing time to care for a seriously ill child or parent. Basically criteria similar to what is included in the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Anecdotal : that is not a counter argument.

Data are just a collection of anecdotes. I could find lots more examples that undercut the claim you are trying to make about physical height, but I'm sure our readers get the point by now.

Okey back to Plato then. See Plato believed in the Realm of the Forms, that there was this ‘perfect form’ of a chair , a dog or well , to paraphrase him : of communism.
Of course as far as we know that is incorrect, but . . .

Respectable history lesson, but it still doesn't mean you can blame deaths caused by dictators on communism. For centuries Russia (the heart of the USSR) had a monarchy; now they have Vladimir Putin, who doesn't claim to be Communist. But in many respects things are run exactly the same, with differences in degree and window-dressing. The oligarchy simply ceased to be hereditary after 1917.

As stated in my previous post, you've got everything wrong so far. I knew that before even reading you post as there was no way you'd give cogent counter arguments based on the little I've seen from your posting history.
My expectation was that you'd either evade or start building strawmen. I've then taken a few steps (see just above) to lower the likelihood of the first possibility.
and voila.

Not very impressed so far.

And I am very disappointed in you.

I was actually about to compliment you on your ability to discuss a controversial topic while remaining respectful, objective, on-topic, and addressing the specifics of what I have been posting. All that went out the window with this post. When someone resorts to trying to label someone else's statements with fancy debate terminology rather than address the content; when they make repeated claims of "you're wrong" without support; when ego and condescension start to creep into their statements, including needless digressions to insult someone's username; then I know they are at the end of their rope and have nothing constructive to add.

I have seen enough to be reasonably reassured that you treat women and men fairly IRL for the most part. In fact, I suspect we agree more than we disagree. Perhaps you are just unused to explaining your thoughts on specific questions of gender bias, as we have been doing here. No harm, no foul. This discussion is really of little consequence in the broader scheme of things.

 

[Morpeko]

100% on this test.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I guess we dun shitted up another feminism thread. Oops.

oh no not again

These things tend to go on forever.

 

[Maou]

You Are 62% Feminist

You are certainly a feminist - whether you know it or not.
You believe in gender equality, at least most of the time. You also believe there are a few exceptions.

Let it be known, modern Feminism is pure fucking cancer. THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENDER. Why else would things like trangenderism and non binary exist if it wasn't? Don't feed me that shit about upbringing either. It is BOTH upbringing and biology that determine behavior. I think having the successful model of the nuclear family is IMPORTANT for the survival of culture.

 

[Lexicon]

I got 95% Feminist.


I’ve never specifically self-identified as a feminist, though I believe fully in gender equality.


I strongly agreed with all of the quiz statements, except for the statement, “Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals.”. I selected “Not sure,” though I was likely splitting hairs pedantically.

Beauty ideals are crazy a lot of the time, & I fully agree with that. It’s the ‘acceptance’ aspect of the statement I don’t fully agree with.

For instance, people whose gender identity is female but their biological sex is male should not have to accept their anatomy as it is, when gender confirmation surgeries are available & wanted. Or women with breast cancer mastectomies shouldn’t just accept their new body if they don’t want to. I don’t care if grandma wants to get her turkey neck trimmed off or if the girl next door lasers off all her pubic hair & stretch marks. If they’re doing it for themselves, then I see no issue.


And in particular— I don’t agree with the statement that ‘women (or anyone) should accept their body as it is’ if it’s not healthy. You don’t need to be supermodel thin or cut like Tyler Durden, but obesity is a huge problem (in the US, at least). I do not glorify clinical morbid obesity (I don’t believe in shaming people for it, either). Excess adipose tissue strains every organ system & reduces overall lifespan & longterm quality of life. It wears down joints & leads to a host of chronic health problems. On the same token, I don’t advocate starving oneself, either, for the all same reasons.


More than merely accepting yourself, you need to love yourself enough to make whatever healthy choices you can for a better life. I’ll emphasize again: make what good choices you *can* (what’s within your control/ability), however big or small. I’m not telling people what to do— they can do as they like (it’s your life, not mine— & I recognize this is an inherently charged topic— some people’s values don’t align w/this, & however carefully I phrase this, I may still offend somehow, which is not my intent at all), but this is why I couldn’t fully agree with that particular statement in the quiz. I believe we should strive to be our best, healthiest selves, physically & emotionally. They go hand in hand.


I’m only elaborating because I’ve seen a lot of toxic things around the Body Positivity Movement— which mostly focuses on women’s bodies & their appearance. Some really wonderful things have come out of that, most definitely. No one should be ashamed or hate how they look— thick or thin. But I’ve also seen some tattered edges of that movement, where it gets twisted into something that promotes extremely unhealthy behavior, which I can’t morally get behind, & would never encourage in others. Just as much as I can’t get behind someone starving themselves to look like Kate Moss, or whoever. I see some of this stuff & I worry about both extremes on the spectrum.


I support women (& people in general) safely doing whatever they want to & with their bodies. I just hope their decisions come from an emotionally healthy place of love & self respect. Thick or thin, you can appreciate the beauty to be found all along the spectrum. I feel like we should all strive to be healthy, most of all. That is beautiful to me— not necessarily the body itself.

 

[Hypatia]

I would have to say no, at least not in "first world countries." Women in general are more snakelike and I believe tend to operate/communicate more covertly. It's kind of appalling actually, the degree that women in the first world, I believe, get away with indirectly and insidiously manipulating events without being forced to actually perform an overt accounting of their own integrity.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's pretty funny to read all the posts from permabanned users in this thread. I can't believe there was a time when I thought maybe those kind of people could say something insightful. I think I was just guilty of really underestimating stupidity and holding on to dumb ideas of how things are "supposed to be" even when they don't actually work.

"My dad did x, y, and z and let me tell you he was a real man...so what if he drank himself to death? it was worth it because it taught me how to be an alpha. That's why I spend all my time debating people about feminism on the internet because I'm such a badass alpha dom. I can have any chick I want, I just choose to enlighten minds and spread truth here... sorry to burst your safe space snowflakes!"

These people are too invested in dumb shit to have an original idea.