UC Berkeley at it again
-
Feminists and their cucks only want gender equality in ways that suits women. They have no fucking interest in real gender equality.
Feminists want 50/50 in the boardroom, but don't fucking dare mention the Sanitation Dept not being 50/50.
Hillary is extremely horrible, especially her idiotic feminist comments. Blame penis all you want on her not getting elected, but it was all her and that crackhead liberal race baiting, identity politics and whatnot that turned so many people off.
The First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, is a feminist and for a decade she has done nothing to bring gender equality to Scotland. Sure, she's brought feminism and feminist laws, but she has refused to give Scotland gender equality. This has happened in other countries too.
Feminists created all kinds of lunatic bullshit like; stare-rape, talk-rape, birth-rape, lie-to-a-gold-digger-for-sex-rape, man-spreading, man-splaining and countless other things just to have something to bitch about and pretend to be victims.
Feminists pull fire alarms to prevent lectures on men's health issues. The riot to prevent a lecture on male suicide. They prevent men from having a safe space on campus.
Feminists hate MRAs, but constantly fight against gender equality and men's issues.
Even feminist cucks occasionally break ranks and admit that feminists/ism has no interest in men's issues. It's only about the vag.
The passion you have for this subject is very obvious… and i respect that but do you have to be so rude about it?
Also.. you use the word "cuck" a lot and just wanted to point out that the word's actual real meaning would actually surprise you on how derogatory it is.. but not to gay men or women - ironically
-
Lol go look at Scandinavia, they already have done the raise people up without issues, support them, education, all that. Letting people just be themselves and follow whatever career path they want and guess what? Women and men even with all that are still choosing different fields, women out ranking men as nurses 20-1, while still more men end up in sciences, the same sort of numbers and things we see today. Nothing is stopping women but the biological factors which you choose to deny. Men and women are different. Your arguments are the same misinformed gender studies drivel always seen on tumblr.
I'll talk with you, since "raphjd" either lacks the intelligence to stay on topic (I could see going off on a tangent here and there as we all do that, but when it's pointed out to him and he is literally just repeating himself over and over again–then there's nowhere for us to go) or knows he can't counter logical arguments based on truth, so he's just relying on reciting the same talking points which have little to do with the points that I brought up.
So you believe gender inequalities occur due to natural biological differences correct? I would argue there's a lot more social and environmental influence overall and certainly much more than you probably realize.
First off, there's no denying that there are differences between males and females (as a whole). Gender studies don't even dispute that. So let's take that out of the equation.
We should both be able to agree that gender is shaped by BOTH biology and environment.
Biology determines an individual's sex (reproductive organs) and other biological factors like their hormones (which influence their personality, physiology, etc.).
However, environment shapes just about everything else (too):
Your values, beliefs, education, tastes, biases, family, experiences, opportunities, etc. All of that are factors no individual has direct control over. You don't choose who teaches you what when you're a baby. You don't choose the peers that you hang around and how they shape your conception of self, health habits, personal psychology, etc.
If males and females were raised in a vacuum where everything was all conditions were 100% the same (a true level playing field), that would be thing. They don't though. Different people have different opportunities in life. We're all shaped and impact by history, politics, economics, social systems, etc. All these non-biological factors influence who we think we are, what we think we're capable of, what opportunities are available to us, the people we meet, etc.
Feminists would argue that among these environmental factors is patriarchy. This really can't be denied by having 0 female Presidents and females getting the ability to vote WAY later than men (among many other metrics). Even later than African-American males whose ancestors came from slavery! History has not treated the genders equally, and that has an impact on the present which is independent of biological factors.
You brought up Scandinavia. But do you not think males/females are not brought up with a specific cultural with their own gender roles, identities, traditions, etc? Scandinavia may be 1 of the most liberal and progressive areas of the world compared to most other countries, but that doesn't mean it has achieved true equality or is free from the influence of patriarchy.
Nothing is stopping women but the biological factors which you choose to deny.
I won't deny that biological factors MAY play a role, but there's no doubt that the environment plays a role as well and probably the bigger one.
The reason why I don't think the argument that biological factors ALONE prevent women from wanting to go into politics, certain occupations, etc. is because they obviously don't. Hillary has run for President. She didn't stop herself. People/voters (the environment/social factors) stopped her–not her biology. There was nothing "natural" about that. We know plenty of women who are very capable in politics, economics, etc. So clearly even if one argues that females in general are biologically less inclined to enter these arenas as a whole (which is an argument I might be able to accept), you can't say that it is THE SINGULAR FACTOR influencing their decision-making.
Also, anthropologists and historians have already found societies in other cultures or in the past where women ARE political leaders or that tribal societies had achieved much more egalitarian social systems. It wasn't until the more militaristic patriarchal tribes started taking over that the dominant social systems of today were established. These are environmental and social systems--not biological.
We all know social influence exists. Anybody who has ever been influenced by a salesperson or great speaker, who has done something that they didn't necessarily want to do themselves but because somebody else influenced them to do it, etc. knows this. The very language we speak and the concepts that we understand (even "objective" subjects like math) were taught to us by people. Not by biology. Somebody had to teach us. And so you're kidding yourself if you think all the people in the world are the way they are due to biology alone. All of us have been shaped by our environments and by people. You can't be human without being a product of our an interdependent society. Only feral humans living in the wild because they were abandoned as babies or something can claim they are mostly the product of pure biology versus social influence.
-
I'll talk with you, since "raphjd" either lacks the intelligence to stay on topic (I could see going off on a tangent here and there as we all do that, but when it's pointed out to him and he is literally just repeating himself over and over again–then there's nowhere for us to go) or knows he can't counter logical arguments based on truth, so he's just relying on reciting the same talking points which have little to do with the points that I brought up.
I'll ignore the personal attack.
You have no points that are worthwhile and you have no answer for the things I have talked about except "the patriarchy". "The Patriarchy" is you answer for everything.
Why did feminists fight against gender neutral sex crime laws in the UK? THE PATRIARCHY
Why did feminists fight against a gender neutral retirement age? THE PATRIARCHY
You excuse away everything feminists do to prevent true gender equality. You ignore all examples of female privilege, while screaming that everything oppresses women.
-
I'll talk with you, since "raphjd" either lacks the intelligence to stay on topic (I could see going off on a tangent here and there as we all do that, but when it's pointed out to him and he is literally just repeating himself over and over again–then there's nowhere for us to go) or knows he can't counter logical arguments based on truth, so he's just relying on reciting the same talking points which have little to do with the points that I brought up.
I'll ignore the personal attack.
You have no points that are worthwhile and you have no answer for the things I have talked about except "the patriarchy". "The Patriarchy" is you answer for everything.
Why did feminists fight against gender neutral sex crime laws in the UK? THE PATRIARCHY
Why did feminists fight against a gender neutral retirement age? THE PATRIARCHY
You excuse away everything feminists do to prevent true gender equality. You ignore all examples of female privilege, while screaming that everything oppresses women.
Not all criticism is a "personal attack". Sometimes it's constructive criticism or entirely on point observation. But apparently your strategy for dealing with anything you don't like is to "ignore" it. You admitted it. So of course this is not a discussion or even a debate. You want to talk about certain things and ignore the points I brought up. And now I'm doing the same to you.
My whole point was that this whole topic got started because you claimed feminists don't suffer from genuine inequality. When I countered with evidence, instead of addressing that (because you couldn't), you ignored it (your go to strategy with dealing with inconvenient facts), and then created entirely new conversations which never addressed the original tangent topic that YOU started. The original topic of this thread had nothing to do with any of this.
So clearly, you're bringing a whole bunch of new topics into this thread which is okay, but it's probably better in terms of organization to finish the original debates first before opening entirely new massive topics up and creating chaos and confusion. But I suspect that's your life strategy when debating with things you're wrong about and/or you're confused about things yourself so your thoughts literally jump illogically from topic to topic without you actually thinking through the ramifications of your ideas and conclusions. It is what it is.
Learn something from this or don't and continue thinking you're right about everything in life. But we've gone as far as we can go, and you've clearly made up your mind that you're way of thinking is the only valid way of thinking and that anything else should either be ignored, dismissed, etc. You have no room for personal growth with that kind of close-mindedness, arrogance, and delusion.
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
-
If it's not patriarchy, then what? Give an alternative explanation at least.
Here are several points to consider:
-
I think we can all agree that women, in the past, were very much oppressed. Certainly at least up until the women's suffrage movement, at least.
-
Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45. If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1. However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.
-
You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious. Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?
There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution. It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.
Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.
**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has. **
-
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
-
- Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45. If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1. However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.
Even if somehow I think patriarchy would be erased simply because females got the legal right to vote (a claim that is so obviously flawed to me, because that's like arguing gays don't get discriminated against just because we can legally vote), 0/16 is still a ridiculous significant statistic. It's not as big as 45, but it's still a terribly meaningful stat when females aren't even minorities! If you look at it as a simple statistics problem (which is more objective than people voting since it's based on random chance), the chance of 0/16 "heads" or "tails" with a fair coin is:
0.0000152588
http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html
In other words, the odds of having 0 female Presidents in a fair environment is close to 0% and at best rounded up big time is 1%. In other words, something is augmenting pure luck. One can argue females are innately biologically inferior when it comes to politics and/or patriarchy exists (an environment that gives males advantages in the political arena).
- You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious. Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?
There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution. It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.
Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.
I did consider the point, and I follow your logic. However, the difference between us is this:
A possible explanation you have given for Presidential results is that the "best" males of our population (in terms of being able to win in politics) are more competitive than all the females in our population. That is possible. But then I must ask…why? What causes those pre-dispositions for both males and females? To me the answer is: biology and environment. For those who are religious, they may feel there's spiritual or God-given programming too. But pre-disposition comes from somewhere right?
And in the case of politics, which is a non-nature-based talent/skill and is completely social (people voting for people, people influencing people, etc.), that's why much of the "merit" or "qualification" involved in that must necessarily be environmental and not biological. That means the inequality is at least partly and largely coming from society itself. Which means patriarchy exists.
**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has. **
I agree with you on that. But at the same time, where there's smoke there's often fire.
Given both the historical context, the incredibly extreme nature of the statistically unequal and highly improbably outcomes, and obvious facts that all societies (even the more egalitarian ones) contain people with different statuses, powers, and privileges–it requires a ridiculous amount of naivety and benefit of the doubt to assume that we have somehow achieved complete equality among the 2 genders.
If indeed the unequal outcomes is the product of PURE LUCK, then one needs to come up with amazing explanations for all the clear indicators of inequality and have them make sense. When you can do that, then I could get more on board with the argument of ridiculously improbable luck.
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
As Trudeau said, it's extremely difficult to get women to run for office.
If women wanted a woman President, it would happen. There would be nothing men could do to stop it.
This is where you blame "patriarchy".
Now refute my points.
-
Your only point is no female US President. The rest of it is a bunch of crap.
You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused. Typical SJW bullshit.
You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.
There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else. So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify. That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making. AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right. You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc. Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points. It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.
As Trudeau said, it's extremely difficult to get women to run for office.
If women wanted a woman President, it would happen. There would be nothing men could do to stop it.
This is where you blame "patriarchy".
Now refute my points.
There's nothing to refute. You still haven't given an alternate explanation to why enough women don't want women as President. I said the reason is patriarchy. You have offered absolutely no other explanation and want me to refute…what? We both agree that not enough women have wanted a woman as President (or want to run as President). I obviously don't have to refute the parts that we already agree on.
This is exactly why I don't believe you understand what patriarchy is or at least the definition I am using. You're not being active in THIS argument. You're arguing with demons from your past, instead of addressing the points that I specifically raised.
SUMMARY
Conclusion = This country hasn't achieved complete fairness or equality and isn't even close to it
Conclusion based on evidentiary support that this country has had no female Presidents (unequal outcome) which is a ridiculous statistic assuming this country was "fair" in gendered politics. Therefore, this country is not "fair" in terms of gendered Presidencies
WHY IS THAT?
Both of us agree = Less women run for politics and women don't automatically vote for women
I would add = Overt and subtle sexism plays a role as well, but let's just stick to the above explanation which we both agree on anyways*** You seem to stop here in this argument. I am already at the next step (which I already addressed and you ignored):
THE NEXT QUESTION: WHY IS THAT? Why don't women run for politics or why don't women vote for women?
My explanation = Agree with feminist argument that patriarchy exists = social structures/systems that give males more power in this area of life which include culture, traditional gender roles, social programming, the old boy clubs and other male dominated networks, lack of historical female role models in politics compared to males, outright sexism, etc.
- Thus, females are discouraged and/or not encouraged to WANT to try becoming President
- When the minority of females do want to become President, other females have been programmed to not want/trust/believe/etc. females should or can become President
Your explanation = So far nothing. I'm still waiting for your answer
-
Instead of blaming women for their failings, you blame some made up crap. You believe women have no agency.
You ignore female privilege.
You ignore feminists fighting against gender equality.
You are a sexist.
-
Instead of blaming women for their failings, you blame some made up crap. You believe women have no agency.
Because according to you, people raise themselves apparently. Everybody has individual accountability for themselves of course. That's a given. But society as a whole has accountability as well. We all affect one another. Not surprising though that you have no sense of social responsibility and don't understand the basics of how life works though.
-
More pathetic left bullshit because they can't have a debate on issues.
–-------------------------Those on the left can and often do have such discussions.
The problem with most of those on the far-right – such as you -- is that they are willfully-ignorant and -stupid, as well as too ethically immature, and thus cannot understand what those on the left are truly saying -- not what you foolish believe we are. Those are very, very far apart.
It is the plank in your eye that you do not see is there.
I always finding it amusing that you include in your posts that same photo about being who your dog thinks you are, because you most certainly are not. :cheesy2: You are just another hate-filled, right-wing whiner.
yawn
. . .
-
WOW, who would have thunk it. A liberal with no argument, just personal attacks.
You proved my point about liberals refusing to have any discussion. THANK!!!! :cheers:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login