Now listen here, feminism...

[Queen Victoria]

[skyblue1]

nice

[awiddershinlife]

['andersom']

Scrap, will you be sharing some more deep insights on the subject?

[benjimanbreeg]

"Feminism is a wonderful project, the emancipation of women from stupid restrictions, preventing them from going to University, stopping them from voting, stopping them from holding property, who can disapprove?  This isn't about feminism, this is the mad project that says men and women are the same.."   

I call it new feminism.  Of course there's a lot of women with sticks lodged up their arses from failed relationships, and basically hate men, who are only too happy to latch onto this lunacy.  It's a bit like the fireman tests being made easier so women could pass them, which could actually end up being fatal.  Now the PC label is "firefighter".  It's all purely to cause rifts between the people so they blame each other rather than the powers that be. 

[Jack]

[RageBeoulve]

I'm tired of having the institution of social justice filled with professional failures at life. I hate them.

[benjimanbreeg]

lol

[odeon]

Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.

Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.

If this place didn't talk in cycles or circles every now and then, might run out of things to talk about.

True, of course. When is it time to bitch about Alex Plank?

[odeon]

The "income gap" is largely a myth. If women were actually paid that much less than men for the same work, then employers would be scrambling to hire them to save money. Companies (for the most part) are motivated by the bottom line, not mythological bigotry.

The "income gap" is produced when women take time off work to raise kids while the men keep working. A mans career continues to advance where a woman has to start from square one again after being out of the work force.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303532704579483752909957472

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

Haven't we been down this road before? Maybe not you and me, but certainly this board.

Search the board; I can't be arsed to look up the relevant links right now. It's morning and I'm still only on my second cup.

I distinctly remember you backing me up on the fact that there is an income gap and misogyny in the upper ranks of companies with first-hand experience from your job.

Correct.

[odeon]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

weak.

Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.

That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.

I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.

OK, to clarify, then:  That is what you're saying your main point is, then?  When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.

Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.

Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.

One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:

A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.


Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.

Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.

I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".

['andersom']

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

weak.

Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.

That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.

I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.

OK, to clarify, then:  That is what you're saying your main point is, then?  When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.

Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.

Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.

One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:

A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.


Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.

Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.

I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".

Even if legislation was being completely universal, it will not mean that people are being treated fair. Looking at things focusing on gender, race and things like that will show where things are not fair, despite the universal legislation. If a company can get away with, in general, paying people belonging to one group less than others, they will. There are always ways to do that, despite legislation. Does not have to mean that you have to make exceptions for groups in legislation.

Critical checking will always be needed.  Seeing where things have not had attention too. Right now, heart conditions in women are becoming a trending topic. Apparently men have completely different symptoms, when having a heart-attack than women. And lots of women get sent home with nausea, diarrhea or menopausal verdicts, when it is their heart about to give up. Legislation will not help there. Studying the differences will.

[RageBeoulve]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

weak.

Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.

That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.

I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.

OK, to clarify, then:  That is what you're saying your main point is, then?  When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.

Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.

Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.

One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:

A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.


Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.

Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.

I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".

While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off.

Why?

There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.

Yes... there is, isn't there? Don't you think that is basically what I mean?

[RageBeoulve]

On the whole, feminists are angry and toxic.

Is this just your opinion or can you back it up?

There are a lot of feminists, man. What do you really expect me to do here?

Back up your words, or answer this, which you really haven't yet, IMO:

What do you want to accomplish, here?  Do you just want to whine about how the mean feminists have done bad things and have a pity party under the pretext of moral outrage?  To you want to learn something?  Do you want to teach something?  Do you have a goal at all?

You've obviously skimmed all my posts and only read the parts where I was critical of feminism.  I stated very clearly what my position was, otherwise. I'm not even going to address your aggressive comments which have begun to resemble ad-hominem, rather just tell you that I have been very clear about what my goal is.

If you wish to have a discussion, perhaps you could calm down and address me as a friend rather than an enemy. 

weak.

Skimming people's posts and clinging to ideology without considering what they have to say is pretty weak, IMO. I can tell by the questions you asked that you did not read them.

That aside, if you do read them you will probably realize that I am not as opposed to your goals as it would seem on the surface. My goal is to empower ALL people. I am of the opinion that feminism on the majority in the west no longer tries to do that, especially with trans folk.

I think feminism has run it's course. Mras are a silly joke (although they are universally more inclusive, but that's not good enough). I don't know how much more simply I can present my views. If its not about all people, its bullshit.

OK, to clarify, then:  That is what you're saying your main point is, then?  When reading your posts, I wasn't sure if that was a tangent, or a new issue you had picked because some of your initial statements were going to be too hard to back up.

Ok. I will try and put things as simply as I can once more.

Unless a rights movement is universally inclusive, it is an effort to justify exception. Because of this, Feminism or Male rights advocacy are efforts to justify exceptions on the whole. They are both generally geared towards dealing with male or female issues.

One can move goalposts and say that they themselves do not feel that way as much as they like, but there is no utility there. I'll state my position one more time:

A rights movement MUST be universally inclusive, geared towards the empowerment of ALL. If it isn't, its horse shit. End of.


Join as one, or you are the problem. I apologize if that is not diplomatic enough, but that is my point of view.

Your approach is fundamentally flawed. While empowering all is noble and just, if every movement advocating the rights of a minority needs to be all-inclusive it's just never going to lift off. There's too much to do, too many different groups to track.

I fail to see why you shouldn't be able to say "I think group X should have the same rights as group Y".

Even if legislation was being completely universal, it will not mean that people are being treated fair. Looking at things focusing on gender, race and things like that will show where things are not fair, despite the universal legislation. If a company can get away with, in general, paying people belonging to one group less than others, they will. There are always ways to do that, despite legislation. Does not have to mean that you have to make exceptions for groups in legislation.

Critical checking will always be needed.  Seeing where things have not had attention too. Right now, heart conditions in women are becoming a trending topic. Apparently men have completely different symptoms, when having a heart-attack than women. And lots of women get sent home with nausea, diarrhea or menopausal verdicts, when it is their heart about to give up. Legislation will not help there. Studying the differences will.

Legislation isn't enough, Hyke. I'd like kids to stop being taught these divides and exceptions, and people to be aggressively ostracized when they display such points of view.

Not just legislation, but complete change socially as well.

['andersom']

Legislation isn't enough, Hyke. I'd like kids to stop being taught these divides and exceptions, and people to be aggressively ostracized when they display such points of view.

Not just legislation, but complete change socially as well.

You're more optimistic about the human race than I am, Rage.

No matter how perfect legislation and social construction, no matter how open and honest kids are raised, if corporations, or golddigging individuals get the chance to treat one group of people a bit less than others, for their own gain, they will.

There always needs to be awareness, a watchdog, looking out for that, and acting upon it, when it happens. .