FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Does feminism stand for equality?.
Does feminism stand for equality?.
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't know I'll as the wife ..she will tell me "   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I know plenty of women who identify as feminist, but it seems to be a growing trend for more women to misuse the word to project their hatred. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What conclusions did you come to?" That it dont stand for equality in most cases, especially the wich hunt on men we see in sweden. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen some very extreme views and nothing other than pure hatred towards men from some women hiding behind the word feminist.
I know plenty of women who identify as feminist, but it seems to be a growing trend for more women to misuse the word to project their hatred. " this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having an interesting discussion about it today, especially whith the #metoo campaign they have, whats your view? "No equality stands for equality Feminism starts with an F for fuck you and your male sensibilities   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This" This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the endpoint - are people generally starting to question and see through the real motives or just the people who are actually "woke" (to the nonsense)? " WAIT!!! You are also woken? That is WONDERFUL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the endpoint - are people generally starting to question and see through the real motives or just the people who are actually "woke" (to the nonsense)? WAIT!!! You are also woken? That is WONDERFUL " It's far from wonderful actually...ignorance is real bliss. Oh to go back to the innocent times when I didn't know that some girls were being told (and buying it!) that there's a 1/4 chance that I'd r*pe them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen some very extreme views and nothing other than pure hatred towards men from some women hiding behind the word feminist.
I know plenty of women who identify as feminist, but it seems to be a growing trend for more women to misuse the word to project their hatred. "So much so that if I sniff it on fab I'll entertain them on the forums but avoid them like the plague. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the endpoint - are people generally starting to question and see through the real motives or just the people who are actually "woke" (to the nonsense)? WAIT!!! You are also woken? That is WONDERFUL " The seven dieties have entrusted their wisdom to him. He can see the haters of men and their false promises must be DELETED | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, " Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Originally yes. It was all about equality across the genders. Now I mainly see it hijacked mainly by the womans lib movement and much less about equality." Very much this. I'm not a feminist and I'm not a swinger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. " The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think you need to be a feminist to support the #metoo campaign." I don’t think you need to be a woman to support the #metoo campaign.
V x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. " This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. " So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. " In addition given that I was brought up on a council estate by parents who both left school at 15 without any qualifications I assume that I didn't have the finest genetics and that it was wrong to force me into a life my brain couldn't handle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? " You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. In addition given that I was brought up on a council estate by parents who both left school at 15 without any qualifications I assume that I didn't have the finest genetics and that it was wrong to force me into a life my brain couldn't handle. " Was your mum a drug addict? Was your dad unemployed? Did they place a very low importance on education? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. " That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. " Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The online definition is the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." Of course you'd have to believe the sexes weren't already equal for that to make sense. Let's just ignore all the laws that have been passed to ensure the sexes are given equal opportunities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome." As I have only argued generally that equality of opportunity is impossible without some degree of equality of outcome and as I have not proposed any particular steps to achieve greater equality of outcome, I'd be interested to know what particular steps to enforce equality of outcome you think I favour. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome. As I have only argued generally that equality of opportunity is impossible without some degree of equality of outcome and as I have not proposed any particular steps to achieve greater equality of outcome, I'd be interested to know what particular steps to enforce equality of outcome you think I favour. " Since you didn't counter my example of prison populations having vastly different outcomes but equality of opportunity (i.e. fair trial) then i assumed you'd conceeded the point. But you repeated it again 
As a lawyer, can you explain to me why the justice system doesn't provide equality of opportunity for men then? Since the prison population is 95% male it must obviously not have equality of opportunity. Should we put more women into prison to balance things out or let off some of the men committing crimes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome. As I have only argued generally that equality of opportunity is impossible without some degree of equality of outcome and as I have not proposed any particular steps to achieve greater equality of outcome, I'd be interested to know what particular steps to enforce equality of outcome you think I favour. Since you didn't counter my example of prison populations having vastly different outcomes but equality of opportunity (i.e. fair trial) then i assumed you'd conceeded the point. But you repeated it again
As a lawyer, can you explain to me why the justice system doesn't provide equality of opportunity for men then? Since the prison population is 95% male it must obviously not have equality of opportunity. Should we put more women into prison to balance things out or let off some of the men committing crimes? "Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I believe it does. Unfortunately the banner of feminism is often hijacked by individuals proclaiming it's promoted by loony, radical men hating women. If you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man then I'd say you're in favour of feminism? I have many women in my family. I wish to see them happy and treated equally. " 86% of men support equality of opportunity but only 4% of men identify as feminist. Clearly feminism doesn't mean you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome. As I have only argued generally that equality of opportunity is impossible without some degree of equality of outcome and as I have not proposed any particular steps to achieve greater equality of outcome, I'd be interested to know what particular steps to enforce equality of outcome you think I favour. Since you didn't counter my example of prison populations having vastly different outcomes but equality of opportunity (i.e. fair trial) then i assumed you'd conceeded the point. But you repeated it again
As a lawyer, can you explain to me why the justice system doesn't provide equality of opportunity for men then? Since the prison population is 95% male it must obviously not have equality of opportunity. Should we put more women into prison to balance things out or let off some of the men committing crimes? "Is there any data on which crimes men and women commit? Are there lots of women bank robbers, sexual abusers, murderers and drug dealers that we don't hear about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. " It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I believe it does. Unfortunately the banner of feminism is often hijacked by individuals proclaiming it's promoted by loony, radical men hating women. If you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man then I'd say you're in favour of feminism? I have many women in my family. I wish to see them happy and treated equally. 86% of men support equality of opportunity but only 4% of men identify as feminist. Clearly feminism doesn't mean you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man. Maybe it should, but it doesn't. " Good point, and not an argument against your points (I concur) but isn't that semantics? Google:the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. So perhaps we've hijacked the word or even title, advocating it represents things which in fact it doesn't? Sadly there's a percentage of dinosaurs who get riled up at the term, when in fact the concept is important in modern society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. " You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, Equality of what? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? 86% of men support equal opportunities for women, which was actually more than women in that study. Very few people want communism/ equality of outcome. The problem is that without some broad level of equality of outcome its pretty impossible to have equality of opportunity. In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is example of wrapping a lie around a truth by over extending your case, massively. You forgot to mention facts like schools getting extra funding per pupil when they take the crack whore babies in order to try and level the playing field before they get to those university entrance exams. It's not the job of government to undo nature and the skills for university are partly genetic. I'd wager that most council estate drug addicts don't pass the finest genetics on to their children. Nor does forcing those children into lifestyles their brains can't handle, help them lead fulfilling lives. The prison population is massively skewed towards men (outcome) and yet we don't go around pretending that only women get fair trials (opportunity) or that men don't just commit more crime than women. When we do multivariable analysis instead of bloody univariable analysis (i.e. gender) then feminism goes running to the hills. So are you saying that if our two babies were swapped around at birth the child of the Duke brought up on the council estate would have a better chance of getting to Oxford? You want to start a nature / nurture debate!?! If i entertain the idea that the child doesn't, then so what? I've already said most people support the equality of opportunity. Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. That's a piss poor argument. That one recommends some state action to equalise life chances to some extent (as every developed country does) does not mean that one wants the state "controlling people's life for them". It's always struck me that many on the right appear to be unable to distinguish between the mildest forms of social democracy of the type practiced in western Europe for going on for a century and people like Pol Pot. It all leads to the gulag apparently. Because you refuse to acknowledge that we've already got a lot of state action to level the playing field, as i pointed out. It just doesn't give the outcomes you want so eventually your arguement crosses from wanting equality of opportunity to enforcing equality of outcome. As I have only argued generally that equality of opportunity is impossible without some degree of equality of outcome and as I have not proposed any particular steps to achieve greater equality of outcome, I'd be interested to know what particular steps to enforce equality of outcome you think I favour. Since you didn't counter my example of prison populations having vastly different outcomes but equality of opportunity (i.e. fair trial) then i assumed you'd conceeded the point. But you repeated it again
As a lawyer, can you explain to me why the justice system doesn't provide equality of opportunity for men then? Since the prison population is 95% male it must obviously not have equality of opportunity. Should we put more women into prison to balance things out or let off some of the men committing crimes?
Is there any data on which crimes men and women commit? Are there lots of women bank robbers, sexual abusers, murderers and drug dealers that we don't hear about?
"Women generally do non violent crimes like drugs and theft. Men prefer to get rowdy and are also way more likely to reoffend. Women very rarely murder and it's almost always someone they know. That female terrorist who got arrested the other day is a very rare case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. " Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? " First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your logic ultimately takes you down the path of the removal of liberty and a state controlling people's lives for them. That's been tried many times in other countries and doesn't make people better off or happier. " While I disagreed strongly with your bullshit about council estates and intelligence this is a very salient point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I’ve seen some very extreme views and nothing other than pure hatred towards men from some women hiding behind the word feminist.
I know plenty of women who identify as feminist, but it seems to be a growing trend for more women to misuse the word to project their hatred. "Radical feminists are very much in the minority, still. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If there was equality of the sexes there would be no need for feminism. " It's more so that we have (effect tively relative to the past and relative to other regimes) a huge degree of equality already. What can men do that women can't? Tell me about barriers to entry. Feminists know this so they have to keep inventing trivial causes to keep the book sales and blog hits going. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? " This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If there was equality of the sexes there would be no need for feminism. It's more so that we have (effect tively relative to the past and relative to other regimes) a huge degree of equality already. What can men do that women can't? Tell me about barriers to entry. Feminists know this so they have to keep inventing trivial causes to keep the book sales and blog hits going. " It's also linked to vunerable narcissism. The desperate need to get some real world feedback to validate a self perception as a victim. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man then I'd say you're in favour of feminism? " We all want the best for the women in our lives and in general. That's why we should steer them clear of feminism.
This is how the sucker you in...very very few people wish to see women with lesser rights but now there this whole if you not with us you are "part of the problem" thing. Clever marketing to be fair! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? " I am not aware of any research re percentages ascribed to societal and genetic factors when it comes to male propensity for violence, so I wouldn't be daft enough to try to put a figure on it. What I would say is that people who are hot on genetic arguments tend to overlook massive historical social changes. Take slavery for example. Until virtually yesterday in historical terms, people would think it was obviously human nature to either kill or enslave captured enemies. I mean why would you incur expense feeding your enemies without expecting anything back? Now that's thought to be an appalling view... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If you think it's fair for a woman to enjoy life in exactly the same way as a man then I'd say you're in favour of feminism? We all want the best for the women in our lives and in general. That's why we should steer them clear of feminism.
This is how the sucker you in...very very few people wish to see women with lesser rights but now there this whole if you not with us you are "part of the problem" thing. Clever marketing to be fair!"All men have mothers. Most men have wives. A lot of men have daughters. Some have all three. The tax structure of the country means that a husband and wife with equal earnings will have a lot more money in their pocket than the husband earning 100% of the same combined amount. The idea that men benefit from keeping women down is now absurd. In the past there was a lot more truth to it. Birth control changed everything. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Radical feminists are very much in the minority, still. " Are you aware of the dictatorship of the small minority? The most intolerant wins. Google Nassim Taleb Minority Rule | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Radical feminists are very much in the minority, still. Are you aware of the dictatorship of the small minority? The most intolerant wins. Google Nassim Taleb Minority Rule " Nah, I’m good. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? I am not aware of any research re percentages ascribed to societal and genetic factors when it comes to male propensity for violence, so I wouldn't be daft enough to try to put a figure on it. What I would say is that people who are hot on genetic arguments tend to overlook massive historical social changes. Take slavery for example. Until virtually yesterday in historical terms, people would think it was obviously human nature to either kill or enslave captured enemies. I mean why would you incur expense feeding your enemies without expecting anything back? Now that's thought to be an appalling view... " I'm asking what you think, not what you know to be a fact. You must think it's a significant percentage otherwise you wouldn't bother bringing it up. There's an implied belief in what you're saying so the daftness is evident whether you want to put a number on it or not. I think you won't because on some level you know it's trivial. Similar prison population stats are found in just about every country in the world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that men are more violent on average. We have more testosterone." You should see the murder rate 60,0000 years ago! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree that men are more violent on average. We have more testosterone. You should see the murder rate 60,0000 years ago!" Careful now or we will all be tagged and on a curfew. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread has a distinct lack of feminists - maybe they are a dying breed after all. "We’re just all really turned on by men who preach and debate about feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing." Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? I am not aware of any research re percentages ascribed to societal and genetic factors when it comes to male propensity for violence, so I wouldn't be daft enough to try to put a figure on it. What I would say is that people who are hot on genetic arguments tend to overlook massive historical social changes. Take slavery for example. Until virtually yesterday in historical terms, people would think it was obviously human nature to either kill or enslave captured enemies. I mean why would you incur expense feeding your enemies without expecting anything back? Now that's thought to be an appalling view... I'm asking what you think, not what you know to be a fact. You must think it's a significant percentage otherwise you wouldn't bother bringing it up. There's an implied belief in what you're saying so the daftness is evident whether you want to put a number on it or not. I think you won't because on some level you know it's trivial. Similar prison population stats are found in just about every country in the world." You've got me there. I don't state an opinion if there is no evidence on which to base that opinion. That's obviously where we differ. Any self respecting social scientist dealing with the incidence of male violence in any given society would accept there are both social and genetic factors involved. No respectable social scientist would try to reduce it to some precise mathematical formula. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. " This is the equality elephant in the room. The real inequality is and has always been between classes and your gender is insignificant relative to who your parents are. There's not much you can do about it though...hence no careerist twitterati fighting the good fight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? I am not aware of any research re percentages ascribed to societal and genetic factors when it comes to male propensity for violence, so I wouldn't be daft enough to try to put a figure on it. What I would say is that people who are hot on genetic arguments tend to overlook massive historical social changes. Take slavery for example. Until virtually yesterday in historical terms, people would think it was obviously human nature to either kill or enslave captured enemies. I mean why would you incur expense feeding your enemies without expecting anything back? Now that's thought to be an appalling view... I'm asking what you think, not what you know to be a fact. You must think it's a significant percentage otherwise you wouldn't bother bringing it up. There's an implied belief in what you're saying so the daftness is evident whether you want to put a number on it or not. I think you won't because on some level you know it's trivial. Similar prison population stats are found in just about every country in the world. You've got me there. I don't state an opinion if there is no evidence on which to base that opinion. That's obviously where we differ. Any self respecting social scientist dealing with the incidence of male violence in any given society would accept there are both social and genetic factors involved. No respectable social scientist would try to reduce it to some precise mathematical formula. " If you understood social science you'd realise that the variation in cultures around the world acts as a control on that variable, since the same results are found worldwide then anyone with a basic grasp of common sense would see it's an irrelevant factor. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread has a distinct lack of feminists - maybe they are a dying breed after all.
We’re just all really turned on by men who preach and debate about feminism."Why does it bother you? We are having a chat and sharing our opinions on a discussion forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok, so you don't want to answer my question. On your question, I entirely agree that when it comes to violent crimes men are more likely to be sent to prison. That's partly because men commit more violent crimes than women and partly because of societal assumptions about male propensity for violence. Gender stereotypes are a bad thing per se in my view and we all suffer from them. That's why I am not on board with the trans movement amongst other things. It's not a 'societal assumption' or a 'gender stereotype', it's a statistical fact that men are, on average, more violent then women by quite some margin. Feminism ultimately devolves into denyiny biological and psychological facts because they don't fit the narrative. You can't just blame everything on society and patriarchy. So as we've now established, you can have equality of opportunity without equality of outcomes. Glad that's settled. You always mildly shock me when as someone who loudly trumpets his devotion to facts and logic, you then assert something that doesn't follow at all from the previous discussion and which is essentially ascribing an opinion to someone you know full well they don't hold. Frankly, if you are not even able to abide by the basic courtesies of debate, you will have to find someone else to talk to. Because it seems you are just attempting semantic tricks rather than conceed the point and move on. It's utterly meaningless to say 'well it's a mix of men doing more crime and society'. Ok - what mix? 99-1%? Just give me a rough percentage of how much of the complete imbalance of the prison population can be atttibuted to 'societal assumption'? First of all please tell me why plucking one example out of the air means that I agree that you can have equality of opportunity without some degree of equality of outcome. Even if your argument is correct on the prison issue, I pay you the compliment of assuming that you are intelligent enough to know that that doesn't lead to the conclusion you asserted that I agreed with. Which leads to me to believe you are primarily interested in playground one upmanship. In which case count me out. On your particular point, is it your argument that there are no societal influences on someones propensity to violence? That, for example that in a society where the social norm was that men repay an insult with violence and that anyone who doesn't follow that norm is a contemptible Coward, would tend to have more violent men than a society like ours where, on the whole, reacting to an insult with violence is seen as wrong? This is all just semantics. Why can't you just state clearly what you believe? I'm not going to quibble over a few percentage points here and there, I'm not trying to trip you up on the numbers. I just think you're taking a near irrelevant point and trying to make it sound like the central issue, but you'll neither confirm nor deny this. I didn't say there's zero societal impact, but I'd say it's accounting for less than 5% of the trend because we know at the biological level, men are a lot more violent than women, on average. So what % do you think it's having? I am not aware of any research re percentages ascribed to societal and genetic factors when it comes to male propensity for violence, so I wouldn't be daft enough to try to put a figure on it. What I would say is that people who are hot on genetic arguments tend to overlook massive historical social changes. Take slavery for example. Until virtually yesterday in historical terms, people would think it was obviously human nature to either kill or enslave captured enemies. I mean why would you incur expense feeding your enemies without expecting anything back? Now that's thought to be an appalling view... I'm asking what you think, not what you know to be a fact. You must think it's a significant percentage otherwise you wouldn't bother bringing it up. There's an implied belief in what you're saying so the daftness is evident whether you want to put a number on it or not. I think you won't because on some level you know it's trivial. Similar prison population stats are found in just about every country in the world. You've got me there. I don't state an opinion if there is no evidence on which to base that opinion. That's obviously where we differ. Any self respecting social scientist dealing with the incidence of male violence in any given society would accept there are both social and genetic factors involved. No respectable social scientist would try to reduce it to some precise mathematical formula. If you understood social science you'd realise that the variation in cultures around the world acts as a control on that variable, since the same results are found worldwide then anyone with a basic grasp of common sense would see it's an irrelevant factor. " and someone who understood social science even more would appreciate that because something has a worldwide incidence at any given time doesn't necessarily mean it's an unalterable given of human nature. See my previous example of slavery. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread has a distinct lack of feminists - maybe they are a dying breed after all.
We’re just all really turned on by men who preach and debate about feminism.
Why does it bother you? We are having a chat and sharing our opinions on a discussion forum.
"I’m letting you know why your thread has a distinct lack of feminists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you "It's true...we are mostly aware of the theatrics and histrionics Why won't anyone inform us about the cool calm collected feminism that's taking on real problems and solving them quitely? Genuinely interested. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you
It's true...we are mostly aware of the theatrics and histrionics
Why won't anyone inform us about the cool calm collected feminism that's taking on real problems and solving them quitely? Genuinely interested."Perhaps because the anti feminists on this thread are a bit histrionic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This thread has a distinct lack of feminists - maybe they are a dying breed after all.
We’re just all really turned on by men who preach and debate about feminism.
Why does it bother you? We are having a chat and sharing our opinions on a discussion forum.
I’m letting you know why your thread has a distinct lack of feminists. "What exactly is the point being made? Men can't be feminist? Men can't objectively analyse feminism? Men shouldn't talk about feminism? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you
It's true...we are mostly aware of the theatrics and histrionics
Why won't anyone inform us about the cool calm collected feminism that's taking on real problems and solving them quitely? Genuinely interested.
Perhaps because the anti feminists on this thread are a bit histrionic? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" In legal theory the child of the Duke of Westminster and the child of a drug addicted mum on a south London council estate have equal opportunities to get a place at Oxford , but no one pretends that's the case in reality. This is the equality elephant in the room. The real inequality is and has always been between classes and your gender is insignificant relative to who your parents are. There's not much you can do about it though...hence no careerist twitterati fighting the good fight. " I actually agree with that and get rather irritated with people from well heeled backgrounds banging on about how oppressed they are. But as a white man from a working class background, I would say that. Social being determines consciousness as another white man said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you
It's true...we are mostly aware of the theatrics and histrionics
Why won't anyone inform us about the cool calm collected feminism that's taking on real problems and solving them quitely? Genuinely interested.
Perhaps because the anti feminists on this thread are a bit histrionic?
"I am sticking up for feminists. Can I have a shag | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you
It's true...we are mostly aware of the theatrics and histrionics
Why won't anyone inform us about the cool calm collected feminism that's taking on real problems and solving them quitely? Genuinely interested.
Perhaps because the anti feminists on this thread are a bit histrionic?
I am sticking up for feminists. Can I have a shag "Oh go on then, but make it quick | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I actually agree with that and get rather irritated with people from well heeled backgrounds banging on about how oppressed they are. " I'm going to focus on your word actually here. Remember what I said at the start about in/out group psychology. This is case in point. You want us to be opposed and polar in all our opinions. That probably is the case with the typical grunt manosphere tool who hates feminism because some websites told him to hate women but it's not the case with me or many others. A complex world requires complex opinions so you (collectively) need to find space in your mental buckets for people who disagree with you strongly (on implementation...in this case feminism) while wanting the same outcome (fairness and equality in the true sense). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But as a white man from a working class background, I would say that. Social being determines consciousness as another white man said. " Epigenetics are interesting. A genetically predisposed psychopath can become a serial killer or corporate CEO depending on the stresses of their upbringing. *Perhaps the CEO is a worse monster but you get the point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I actually agree with that and get rather irritated with people from well heeled backgrounds banging on about how oppressed they are. I'm going to focus on your word actually here. Remember what I said at the start about in/out group psychology. This is case in point. You want us to be opposed and polar in all our opinions. That probably is the case with the typical grunt manosphere tool who hates feminism because some websites told him to hate women but it's not the case with me or many others. A complex world requires complex opinions so you (collectively) need to find space in your mental buckets for people who disagree with you strongly (on implementation...in this case feminism) while wanting the same outcome (fairness and equality in the true sense)." I used the word "actually" as being the resident lefty on this thread, that view possible wasn't expected. On the general point, saying whether a particular ideology is a good or bad thing generally boils down as to how you define the ideology. See also socialism. If it means the NHS and publicly owned railways far more will be in favour than if it means gulags and enforced collectivisation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But as a white man from a working class background, I would say that. Social being determines consciousness as another white man said. Epigenetics are interesting. A genetically predisposed psychopath can become a serial killer or corporate CEO depending on the stresses of their upbringing. *Perhaps the CEO is a worse monster but you get the point. " Epigenetics are my favourite subject to research at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree references to gulags and Hitler and shit like that are a bit extreme and unhelpful to a serious debate (which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?)" Why? Once you establish the principle that the state needs to enforce equality of outcome then it's reasonable to see what the logical extension of that is and whether anyone has tried it before. Only one person mentioned gulags... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree references to gulags and Hitler and shit like that are a bit extreme and unhelpful to a serious debate (which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?)" Don't you think talking about guilt is a bit unhelpful? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?)" Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree references to gulags and Hitler and shit like that are a bit extreme and unhelpful to a serious debate (which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Why? Once you establish the principle that the state needs to enforce equality of outcome then it's reasonable to see what the logical extension of that is and whether anyone has tried it before. Only one person mentioned gulags..." I didn't really follow that part...got too deep so I don't know who mentioned gulags but I do agree that trying to enforce outcomes is a bag of shit. Are we going to have a taking part prize in life? If that's the case do things right, bring in the robots, wean people off consumer rubbish and give us the Keynesian dream of leisure under. Universal Basic Income. Of course there is a very low chance of that transpiring but I could well see a dichotomy where we are distracted with SJW rubbish and increasingly draconian measures in those areas while we are railroaded by the 0.001 percent (who own the automation) in the background. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do I pay for the meal or do I let her pay it!! ""let" her? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree references to gulags and Hitler and shit like that are a bit extreme and unhelpful to a serious debate (which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Don't you think talking about guilt is a bit unhelpful? " No way, career feminists are a scurge on society and should absolutely feel guilty. For every 100 feminazis 1 new lone wolf will go around maiming hot chicks who won't shag him. The feminists wound him and his fragile white male ego up to the max...he'll show them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. " So you don't have tales of cool clam collected and effective feminist action for me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. So you don't have tales of cool clam collected and effective feminist action for me?" A loaded question to begin with, implying that activism has to be 'cool and calm'. Anger gets things done a lot more effectively, sometimes. But that doesn't play into your 'feminists are all angry harpies' narrative. But generally, I know it's not worth debating you. I've seen you ask these types of questions in several previous feminism threads, get good answers from people, and totally ignore them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. So you don't have tales of cool clam collected and effective feminist action for me?" Part of my job sees me do project work with female sex workers, homeless women and victims of domestic violence. Our charity finds them accommodation, we teach them life skills, we help them with addiction, and we provide any help they need. I fight to make sure these women, who have had awful lives, have access to the opportunities that I have. To me, that’s feminist action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. So you don't have tales of cool clam collected and effective feminist action for me? Part of my job sees me do project work with female sex workers, homeless women and victims of domestic violence. Our charity finds them accommodation, we teach them life skills, we help them with addiction, and we provide any help they need. I fight to make sure these women, who have had awful lives, have access to the opportunities that I have. To me, that’s feminist action. " That's nothing to do with improving women's rights or equality. It's favouritism layered onto a universal problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"(which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Often, silence is an indicator that what you have to say isn't all that interesting or engaging. So you don't have tales of cool clam collected and effective feminist action for me? Part of my job sees me do project work with female sex workers, homeless women and victims of domestic violence. Our charity finds them accommodation, we teach them life skills, we help them with addiction, and we provide any help they need. I fight to make sure these women, who have had awful lives, have access to the opportunities that I have. To me, that’s feminist action. That's nothing to do with improving women's rights or equality. It's favouritism layered onto a universal problem. " Haha. It has everything to do with improving women’s rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree references to gulags and Hitler and shit like that are a bit extreme and unhelpful to a serious debate (which still lacks the voice of the seasoned and serious feminist...have we got it all wrong or is the silence an admission of guilt?) Why? Once you establish the principle that the state needs to enforce equality of outcome then it's reasonable to see what the logical extension of that is and whether anyone has tried it before. Only one person mentioned gulags..." Bit of a history lesson. Historically socialism wasn't that much concerned with equality of outcome. Both Marx and Lenin were of the view that under socialism the governing principle would be from each according to his abilities to each according to his work. (they distinguished socialism from communism, under communism the idea was there would be such abundance that anyone could just take what they needed from the common store). What was important, in classical Marxism, was getting ownership of the means of production into the collective hands of the working class and it was that that defined socialism. The idea of equality of outcome pretty much derives from Croslands "Future of Socialism" published IN 1956. Crosland sought to define socialism as saying it was about equality rather than public ownership. By equality he meant as much equality of outcome as possible. He was much criticised by Marxists for that redefinition. The labour party broadly took on that ideology and it has more or less been the party's official doctrine since (Crosland was a minister in two labour governments). Given we have had 24 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why don't you help men too? " Nice try. I do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds to me that you can't think of any examples. Ok not cool or calm...but an effective solution to a serious problem?" What's the point? You just got given a good answer, and you try to twist it in order to dismiss it. If you genuinely want an answer, the Internet is your friend. There's even a Wikipedia page of feminist effects on society. But you don't really want answers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing." Thank you . It doesn't help that some women get offended when called feminist. I do want equality, no one better than the other, just fair treatment of the 2 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds to me that you can't think of any examples. Ok not cool or calm...but an effective solution to a serious problem? What's the point? You just got given a good answer, and you try to twist it in order to dismiss it. If you genuinely want an answer, the Internet is your friend. There's even a Wikipedia page of feminist effects on society. But you don't really want answers. " You take this intellectually wimpish stance on everything...sticking your nose in to say nothing. I'm aware of Wikipedia but I'm looking for some silent evidence to help moderate my views. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continued.. We've had 24 years of Labour government since Crosland wrote, with no signs of any gulags. Given that it seems to me that talking about believing in some degree of equality of outcome leading to such things is indeed histrionic nonsense. " Literally the only person who said gulags was you! Well done for giving a live demostration of a strawman arguement though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continued.. We've had 24 years of Labour government since Crosland wrote, with no signs of any gulags. Given that it seems to me that talking about believing in some degree of equality of outcome leading to such things is indeed histrionic nonsense. Literally the only person who said gulags was you! Well done for giving a live demostration of a strawman arguement though. " As you well know, you have said something similar elsewhere. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continued.. We've had 24 years of Labour government since Crosland wrote, with no signs of any gulags. Given that it seems to me that talking about believing in some degree of equality of outcome leading to such things is indeed histrionic nonsense. Literally the only person who said gulags was you! Well done for giving a live demostration of a strawman arguement though. As you well know, you have said something similar elsewhere. " Nope, I've never said that enforcing equality of outcome leads to gulags. You just made that up. Other things do lead to gulags as well you know because gulags have happened, haven't they. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Continued.. We've had 24 years of Labour government since Crosland wrote, with no signs of any gulags. Given that it seems to me that talking about believing in some degree of equality of outcome leading to such things is indeed histrionic nonsense. Literally the only person who said gulags was you! Well done for giving a live demostration of a strawman arguement though. As you well know, you have said something similar elsewhere. Nope, I've never said that enforcing equality of outcome leads to gulags. You just made that up. Other things do lead to gulags as well you know because gulags have happened, haven't they. " Yes, but not by people in favour of gender and racial equality as you said, only by people who were conservative on such issues. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sounds to me that you can't think of any examples. Ok not cool or calm...but an effective solution to a serious problem? What's the point? You just got given a good answer, and you try to twist it in order to dismiss it. If you genuinely want an answer, the Internet is your friend. There's even a Wikipedia page of feminist effects on society. But you don't really want answers. You take this intellectually wimpish stance on everything...sticking your nose in to say nothing. I'm aware of Wikipedia but I'm looking for some silent evidence to help moderate my views. "If I'm 'sticking my nose in' then so is literally everyone else who joins a forum topic. You're looking for evidence - but only in the form of what people will post on a swinging forum. You won't do your own research. Yep, you totally come across as someone willing to learn, not just reinforce their biases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You won't do your own research. " And you won't share anything compelling from yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "Welcome back. Set up the pot and let it boil, didn't you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Welcome back. Set up the pot and let it boil, didn't you "Ty yes, the coffee was good, you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Welcome back. Set up the pot and let it boil, didn't you Ty yes, the coffee was good, you? "Did you learn anything from your thread / change any opinions? Want to change sides and go smash the patriarchy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This." Totally this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"
Welcome back. Set up the pot and let it boil, didn't you Ty yes, the coffee was good, you?
Did you learn anything from your thread / change any opinions? Want to change sides and go smash the patriarchy? "Yes I did, there was lots of good views, such as those feminists that dont stand for equality is more on the radical side, my opinion is kind of the same, its been a good debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do I pay for the meal or do I let her pay it!!
"let" her? "Do you want to come for a meal with me xx  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've learned that feminists are either less prevalent or less cocksure in their quest than the good old heady days of 2015 on here. Maybe it's dawning on them that the emperor is naked. "I’m always suspicious of the men who obviously have a real issue with feminism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism wants equality, matriarchy wants women above men. There is a lot of confusion between the two, and actual feminists end up getting lumped in with the extremism of matriarchy. People always know the extreme more, and that ends up being their marker for the whole thing. Thank you! I man who knows the difference without being snide. As for the rest of you "This is the whole debate right here... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem" Do you think that laws and ‘telling’ fixes things?! It’s a wider social issue than that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am suspicious of the backlash against feminism. I love strong women who take no shit and are ready to battle for a fairer world for women. I also have a strong sense of chivalry to support women in this purpose. But I'm no longer a feminist myself, and see it as a very limited thing now. This is because the whole notion that seeing things through the prism of gender makes sense of the problems of the world is now palpably absurd. Men don't run things any more than Jews do. The defining factor of our overlords is their wealth and their drive to keep their power over us intact... not their balls or their foreskin. There might inadvertently be more men among them than women. But they aren't driven by sexism. They're driven by greed. That's why feminism is no longer an ism worth investing much more effort in than seeking social justice. In this lesser form I applaude it... and wish women would stand by it and insist on it being read in this more limited sense rather than the grotesque caricature that's often made of it. Women should be proud of feminism and its heritage. I know I would " No war but the class war.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem" That's exactly it Dave. We hear problem statements but never an attempt at a solution. If you don't know what you want, how can we get behind it? We want all the fluffy stuff of an equal and fair world too but we are a tad more realistic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It hasn’t “gone too far”, we’re not equal, the pay gap and representation in many careers still exist and patriarchy isn’t working out for anyone. " That's the pessimistic view. I see that where we live any woman can pursue any career she wants. What more could we ask for? I'd like a quota seat to be a fortune 500 board member too.... before that old chestnut gets trotted out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism is utter nonsense" Based on what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem That's exactly it Dave. We hear problem statements but never an attempt at a solution. If you don't know what you want, how can we get behind it? We want all the fluffy stuff of an equal and fair world too but we are a tad more realistic. " Again; wider reading is your friend here. Actually look into the subject. Who exactly is the ‘we’ you talk about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem That's exactly it Dave. We hear problem statements but never an attempt at a solution. If you don't know what you want, how can we get behind it? We want all the fluffy stuff of an equal and fair world too but we are a tad more realistic. Again; wider reading is your friend here. Actually look into the subject. Who exactly is the ‘we’ you talk about? " We ...the suspicious liberal. I've read extensively on this subject. I wish I was in a state of blissful ignorance but I'm not. Do you own research is the calling card of an empty argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism is utter nonsense Based on what? " Really? What percentage of the females are feminists? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem That's exactly it Dave. We hear problem statements but never an attempt at a solution. If you don't know what you want, how can we get behind it? We want all the fluffy stuff of an equal and fair world too but we are a tad more realistic. Again; wider reading is your friend here. Actually look into the subject. Who exactly is the ‘we’ you talk about? We ...the suspicious liberal. I've read extensively on this subject. I wish I was in a state of blissful ignorance but I'm not. Do you own research is the calling card of an empty argument. " It really isn’t. It’s just that the tripe and nonsense that is being peddled on this thread as fact is ludicrous. A well rounded argument requires reading around the subject, none of which seems to be in evidence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism is utter nonsense Based on what? Really? What percentage of the females are feminists? " That’s false equivalency, numbers don’t make something true or false. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm still looking for somebody to tell me which laws need changing or bringing in to fix "the problem"?.. Or is it just a case of telling people what to think and how to act to fix the problem That's exactly it Dave. We hear problem statements but never an attempt at a solution. If you don't know what you want, how can we get behind it? We want all the fluffy stuff of an equal and fair world too but we are a tad more realistic. Again; wider reading is your friend here. Actually look into the subject. Who exactly is the ‘we’ you talk about? We ...the suspicious liberal. I've read extensively on this subject. I wish I was in a state of blissful ignorance but I'm not. Do you own research is the calling card of an empty argument. It really isn’t. It’s just that the tripe and nonsense that is being peddled on this thread as fact is ludicrous. A well rounded argument requires reading around the subject, none of which seems to be in evidence" You are talking rubbish. Plenty of well rounded arguments have been laid out. We are asking a straight question which you are avoiding like the plague, with this meta silliness. When I said feminism had no clothes I meant it is directionaless, confused, all purpose and no plan. Am I wrong to say that? Feel free to provide evidence of how well read you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminism is utter nonsense Based on what? Really? What percentage of the females are feminists? That’s false equivalency, numbers don’t make something true or false. " What has true or false got to do with it? There is a small minority of the female population that agree or identify as feminist. Females think feminism is nonsense. Which it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having an interesting discussion about it today, especially whith the #metoo campaign they have, whats your view? "Ideally as part of an overall equality within society yes, of course! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminist Strategy Feminist Objectives Feminist Tactics Fill in the blanks. " Look at the website of the Fawcett Society. Plenty of info on aims, achievements, research. Likewise the Women's Equality Party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminist Strategy Feminist Objectives Feminist Tactics Fill in the blanks. Look at the website of the Fawcett Society. Plenty of info on aims, achievements, research. Likewise the Women's Equality Party. " Thanks. I'm going to soldier one but straight away it's irritating and smacks of bias. Am I wrong or is there not workplace discrimination legislation? You wouldn't believe so from the following extract ********************** Women across different distinct groups experience multiple forms of inequality both within and outside protected characteristics under the 2010 Equality Act. According to the Fawcett Society and Young Women's Trust report on Invisible Women, ‘factors such as race, faith, ethnicity, age, disability, sexuality, location and employment status can combine with gender to create distinct and particularly troubling experiences of discrimination and inequality’. This means that women are placed in the unenviable and tenuous position of having limited or no recourse against multiple discriminations they experience ************ Also note how they took every category of discrimination and then did some "combined with gender" trick to separate potentially marginalised men (presumably bastards) from the women's right issues at hand. Weird | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was having an interesting discussion about it today, especially whith the #metoo campaign they have, whats your view? "The #metoo campaign is not just for women though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I'm going to soldier one but straight away it's irritating and smacks of bias. Am I wrong or is there not workplace discrimination legislation? " Shocking - shocking! - that an antifeminist wouldn't like a feminist website. I'm sure you have no bias, though. There are laws against murder too. I guess all the recent killings must have been my imagination. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Feminist Strategy Feminist Objectives Feminist Tactics Fill in the blanks. Look at the website of the Fawcett Society. Plenty of info on aims, achievements, research. Likewise the Women's Equality Party. Thanks. I'm going to soldier one but straight away it's irritating and smacks of bias. Am I wrong or is there not workplace discrimination legislation? You wouldn't believe so from the following extract ********************** Women across different distinct groups experience multiple forms of inequality both within and outside protected characteristics under the 2010 Equality Act. According to the Fawcett Society and Young Women's Trust report on Invisible Women, ‘factors such as race, faith, ethnicity, age, disability, sexuality, location and employment status can combine with gender to create distinct and particularly troubling experiences of discrimination and inequality’. This means that women are placed in the unenviable and tenuous position of having limited or no recourse against multiple discriminations they experience ************ Also note how they took every category of discrimination and then did some "combined with gender" trick to separate potentially marginalised men (presumably bastards) from the women's right issues at hand. Weird "Re the "smacking of bias", would you expect the Conservative Party website to list their beliefs and then say. "on the other hand the Labour Party think we are completely wrong and this is what they believe"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Re the "smacking of bias", would you expect the Conservative Party website to list their beliefs and then say. "on the other hand the Labour Party think we are completely wrong and this is what they believe"? " I guess my innocent side wants non profit organisations to be better than politicians. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. " What argument? All you said was that they have bias. Of course they do. And so do you. Do I buy that gender combines with other personal characteristics to create a range of personal experiences? Yes, that seems like basic logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Re the "smacking of bias", would you expect the Conservative Party website to list their beliefs and then say. "on the other hand the Labour Party think we are completely wrong and this is what they believe"? I guess my innocent side wants non profit organisations to be better than politicians. " Political parties are non profit organizations. You really expect a feminist organisation to give anti feminist arguments on its website? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. " You attack someone for having a go at the person making the argument and not dealing with the argument itself and then proceed to do exactly the same. Brilliant! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. What argument? All you said was that they have bias. Of course they do. And so do you. Do I buy that gender combines with other personal characteristics to create a range of personal experiences? Yes, that seems like basic logic. " Do you think the men should be ignored in favour of the women? By a group striving for equality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. You attack someone for having a go at the person making the argument and not dealing with the argument itself and then proceed to do exactly the same. Brilliant! " I already had a go at their argument and I'm supposing how someone could become so confused to make it in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. You attack someone for having a go at the person making the argument and not dealing with the argument itself and then proceed to do exactly the same. Brilliant! I already had a go at their argument and I'm supposing how someone could become so confused to make it in the first place. " So you don't think calling the people making the argument "intellectually abused women's studies graduates" is exactly the sort of ad hominem argument you were criticising? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You really expect a feminist organisation to give anti feminist arguments on its website? " I expect them to at least try to keep up appearances about acting in the interests of the greater good (equality for all). I expect liberal organisations to look at things holistically and see that not all men are hotshot CEOs and to work in the interests of all marginalised people. Not just those with vaginas. But what would I know what sexism in action looks like? I'm dripping with my own biases to be fair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. What argument? All you said was that they have bias. Of course they do. And so do you. Do I buy that gender combines with other personal characteristics to create a range of personal experiences? Yes, that seems like basic logic. Do you think the men should be ignored in favour of the women? By a group striving for equality?" Feminism is by definition about improving and advancing the situation of women. Complaining that it doesn't have anything to say about men is like complaining that gay rights groups don't help straight people. There are groups who do address male issues - such as CALM and ManKind. I wouldn't criticise them for not including women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. You attack someone for having a go at the person making the argument and not dealing with the argument itself and then proceed to do exactly the same. Brilliant! I already had a go at their argument and I'm supposing how someone could become so confused to make it in the first place. So you don't think calling the people making the argument "intellectually abused women's studies graduates" is exactly the sort of ad hominem argument you were criticising? " I knie we are navel gazing when I see "as hominim" trotted out here. I already attacked the argument before I attacked the people stupid enough to make it. That's fair surely? A double pronged attack to be sure that I'm serious about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Any chance you might attack the argument and not who made it? Do you buy that "combined with gender" guff? This is what happens when intellectually abused women's studies graduates have to find jobs. You attack someone for having a go at the person making the argument and not dealing with the argument itself and then proceed to do exactly the same. Brilliant! I already had a go at their argument and I'm supposing how someone could become so confused to make it in the first place. So you don't think calling the people making the argument "intellectually abused women's studies graduates" is exactly the sort of ad hominem argument you were criticising? I knie we are navel gazing when I see "as hominim" trotted out here. I already attacked the argument before I attacked the people stupid enough to make it. That's fair surely? A double pronged attack to be sure that I'm serious about it. "I would say that any ad hominem attack on an argument is pointless and should be avoided. And it was you who raised the ad hominem issue by criticising another poster for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
