No. Scientifically, women are not design to be warriors. Women power comes in home because she is the pillar of the house and family while man is protector of house.
Without real woman power house become mixture of chaotic and violent like today is. In one word: family become unstable. And this is real problem.
Because there is no one to bring harmony in home. To give a peace and forgiveness where man would choose violence and revenge! To guard home from manipulators and poison tongues.
And this is why I like women.
Exactly. Somehow the same people who jump to judge all feminists based on the handful of bad apples in the mix, won't similarly judge all Christians based on those subsets who act in harmful and counterproductive ways. Yes, if we treat everyone as an individual first and foremost, most of these problems related to bias and bigotry will go away.Same here. You have taken the exact words out of my mouth.
The word "feminist" makes me proud, actually. This is because I know there is not just ONE way of being a feminist, but MANY. It is not a scary or daunting word. It just means, to me and my circle of friends / family, that we should strive to be equals...women have many strengths which balance out with those of the men in their families.
I think the problem is putting a label on gender itself. If we treated each other as equals, asexually, let's say, and just played to each individuals' strengths to vote and work as a society, we would be all the better for it.
I would, too, but then I don't seek spiritual fulfillment in ideologies or public policy.
Wrong. From the Oxford dictionary:
And I am really annoyed when people make more of biology than it warrants. See above.
Nature itself speaks against the highlighted. The fiercest fighters in the wild are mothers defending their young. Perhaps in cave man times I might have relied on a man to protect me and my household. In the modern age where threats are more likely to come from identity thieves and cyber crime, I am the best defender of my household. The family stability you speak of is the stability of dictatorship. Sure - common street crime was rare in the Soviet Union, but at what cost? If men are threatened by the notion of sharing family responsibility equally with women, it doesn't say much for their confidence level, their intelligence, or their practicality.
But you identified the fighter/protector role as belonging to males. You contradict yourself. I cited this as a commentary on the nature of females, which you mischaracterized.
Right. Folks like Trofim Lysenko who encouraged farmers to plant several seeds together so they could "help each other grow"? Genetics research in the USSR was set back at least a generation by such quackery. Ideology drove science in the USSR, not the reverse. Human religious tendencies were satiated with ideological ritual and symbolism (ever see the lines of people wending their way through the shrine that was Lenin's tomb?)
But you are not example of average woman. Are you? Obviously no!
The highlighted is the basis for feminism. With equal rights go equal responsibilities. Individual differences that are real don't need to be forced. That is the point. Remove all the barriers - explicit, implicit, legal, social, etc. Then and only then can we attribute differences in outcome to the innate attributes of each person, man or woman. We are not there yet by a long shot.
That's like saying the main problem with Christianity is that it isn't any more about following Jesus, but rather a way to push a political agenda. The fact that some Christians (feminists) do it does not change the underlying philosophy, motivations, and goals.
Sure - there are women out there who hate men, many of whom probably call themselves feminists. There are also folks out there who hate Jews, Muslims/etc. or are white supremacists, many of whom call themselves Christians despite their behavior being quite un-Christ-like.
