|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 18 19 20 21 22 ... 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
posted August 01, 2014 02:23 PM |
|
|
@Steyn
1. Yeah. I guess. But you have to admit, it's still one law women can enjoy men can't.
2. Let me ask you something. Why does it have to be in the washroom? If I know, people can be arrested everywhere if they harass people.
Don't mind that, I'm just criticizing your logic.
No no, you can actually be arrested for being in a woman's washroom. I saw this happened to one guy. The man's washroom was full so he went to the female washroom and a woman freaked out and called the cops and the guy got arrested.
Meanwhile, on another instance, there was a parade. Both men and women's washrooms were full and you have to fall in line to use the washroom. I saw a lot of women using the men's washroom and everyone was ok with it.
3. You think going to the frontlines is a good thing? Trust me buddy, watching your friends die and being forced to kill people while knowing you can die anytime soon is one of the worst situations to be in. I doubt women would even want to go to war anyway.
Still, you can't say the draft will change soon if it hasn't yet. I'd rather not count my eggs before they are hatched, you know what I mean? Who knows, it'll probably take 10 years for that to change. Or 25 years. Or even 50. Or probably never. Who knows?!!
But I guess, since war can be inevitable, because let's me honest here, we can't control how other countries think. We can only do so much with diplomacy. So, the draft has it's purpose but I say it should be equal for men and women. I wouldn't say the same thing 60 years ago (not that I was born 60 years ago, I'm fairly young, hehe) but since women are already taking equal rights and opportunities, I say they should take equal obligations also.
Oh and just for additional information about the draft:
if a man doesn't register for the draft, he'll have to pay a fine of $250,000 or go to prison for 5 years.
I was planning to write all the penalties for not registering but there are many and it varies from different states and trust me, it's something serious.
Oh and about conscientious objector, bottomline is, like the draft, this is something men have to worry about that women don't.
Also, just for the sake of knowledge, another additional information about the draft, as I told mvassilev, men earned their rights to vote with it. Women got their rights to vote by protesting for it. Apparently, men earned their rights to vote with their lives.
4. How did I miss that?!  If that's the case, then good, we're seeing some progress. I wonder if the MRA has anything to do with this. Not that I am one. A lot of my friends are MRA. We share the same philosophies with the MRA but I have no time for activism.
Anyway, like I said, the law is useless if people are not gonna implement it or be bias about it. But let's see what will happen.
5. Well, it should change to Violence Against People's Act. Feminists has already forced society to change fireman to firefighter, policeman to police officer, mailman to what.. femailwoman? just kidding.
6. It might not be a law but it's still something I can bring up whenever feminists say women are more oppressed than men. 
7. The thing with child custody is that standards are much higher for men than women. A woman has to prove she's a bad or violent parent to not get the child. Mothers only need to make mistakes to lose child custody. Fathers has to do a lot.
8. If you think about it in its most basic form,
Women can choose not to be a mother, through abortion, or mother the child and have the man support her through child support. Men do not enjoy the same privilege. Whether he wants to see the child live or not have to worry about it, it entirely depends on the woman.
Of course, you can argue that it's the woman's body, as what feminists keep on saying but I can give the same argument as feminist argument regarding child support: "it takes two people to make the child".
* Discouraged? Yes, that could be a factor but no, not entirely. It's not even a big part of the factor. Your average boys and girls has different interest from the very start. I think you should watch this:
It's long but it tells you exactly what I'm talking about.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOFXLl7eh4[/video]
* Or you can also say that since the Netherlands are progressive, they can afford quotas. Third world countries are not applying quotas because they can't afford that.
Not trying to offend you by any means but I'm telling you that progression isn't in line with quotas, you know what I mean?
By the way, what do you mean by progressive? Is it wealth?
* thanks for the advise fred.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2014 03:44 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 21:49, 01 Aug 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
By the way, what do you mean by progressive? Is it wealth?
No, what I mean with progressive is "(a group, person, or idea) favouring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas." - Google translate
Think of legalized prostitution, semi-legalized soft drugs, gay marriage and the ability for gay couples to adopt.
I don't see why poor countries cannot be progressive...
Concerning the rest of your arguments:
1. No, it's the difference between child mutilation and an accepted (but ridiculous and unnecessary) surgical practice.
2. Apparently woman have to deal with a lot of unwanted attention from males. A woman's washroom is a place where there are (normally) no males. So if a man intrudes on this woman only space, it is easy for woman to feel threatened (and thus harassed). If you are really bothered by woman entering your washroom, then you should ask them to leave. If they don't, you can also call the police like that woman in your example did. Only normally man don't really seem to bother.
3. No, I don't think the frontlines are a playground, but it were men who decided woman were not allowed there. Apparently woman did want to be able to fight for their country, so gradually the rules changed. First woman were allowed to enter the military and now they are also allowed to go to the frontlines. Following this trend, I think it is safe to say that there will also come a draft for woman.
JeremiahEmo said:
Also, just for the sake of knowledge, another additional information about the draft, as I told mvassilev, men earned their rights to vote with it. Women got their rights to vote by protesting for it. Apparently, men earned their rights to vote with their lives.
And Mvass already explained you why this is bullsnow, but I will happily do it again.
You confuse cause and correlation. Men earning the right to vote with their lives would mean they either earned it in a bloody uprising or that they signed some sort of contract: If you serve in the army you earn the right to vote. As it was neither of these, men did not earn the right to vote.
5. That would indeed be a better name
6. The Duluth model is based on possibly misguided view on the nature of man, but that does not make it oppressive. Or can you give an example of a therapy method that oppresses the man?
7. That's because the mother is the mother. Mother and child tend to have a closer bond than father and child. That has something to with the mother carrying and nursing the child and hormones. Also in our culture the woman is viewed as main responsible in child rearing.
8. Id don't see why "it takes two people to make the child" would give him the right to decide what happens to her body. And if you're willing to leave your girlfriend/wife because raising a child is too difficult for you, don't you think being a single mom then is a higher price to pay than having to pay child support?
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2014 07:04 PM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
* thanks for the advise fred.
that's what i'm here for, man. spreading my vast wisdom. 
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2014 09:30 PM |
|
|
8. Hmm.. correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you believe in both statements:
- it takes two people to make the child. Thus you support child support.
- a man shouldn't have a say to her body. That is in the context of abortion. So, you support the idea of men not having a say whether the woman will have an abortion or not.
There's nothing wrong with either of those statements if you ask me. What's wrong is you support both.
I say,
* if you support child support, then the man must have a say to what happens to the child.
* If you support abortion, then the man should have the decision to raise the child or opt out of raising the child (no fathering, no child support).
Supporting both of the previous argument will give all the power to the woman and giving only obligations to the man.
Yes, you can argue that the man shouldn't have put his peen on the woman but you can also argue, the woman shouldn't have placed her oyster on the man also. Feminism is supposed to be equal treatment for men and women. Let's treat women like adults like how we treat men.
and you say women are oppressed. They have all the power when it comes to child raising.
7.
Steyn said:
Also in our culture the woman is viewed as main responsible in child rearing.
So you do believe we should take culture into consideration. I guess by that, you should have no problems with the only law that a man is privileged and a woman is not, which is, shirtless in public. It should be reasonable for you then.
No, it's not a joke. I'm serious.
Actually, it's not all the time the bond of the mother is stronger than the father. I for one has a stronger bond with my father and so are a lot of people I know. I think it boils down to who is the better parent.
Apparently, in court, it's not always the better parent. If the woman is a decent parent, not the best one, the child will most of the time (if not all of the time) go to her.
6. Well, it is oppression in a way that their vision and statements always imply that women are battered and men are batterers. It is spreading that stereotype. You call any stereotype of women oppression so I don't see how that is any different.
24% of IPV victims are men. That's a significant number. What makes it worst is that when a man calls to report abusive wife/girlfriend, there's a huge chance he'll be the one arrested because he's bigger. When a woman reports abusive husbands, it's almost a sure shot that man will go to jail.
3. Men decided women were not allowed to go to war because a woman's safety is always prioritized. This is the thing you call patriarchy. It's always looking after the woman's well-being. Men on the other hand are the disposable gender. It's been like that all throughout history.
Also, you can look at that in different angles actually. It's like you are this kid and you are grateful to your parents for taking care of you. In return, you mow the lawn, cook food for them and take care of your younger siblings. Your parents supporting your education has nothing to do with you doing those tasks but you feel like you've earned that for giving something to your parents back.
The draft is the same thing. It gives nothing to men as individuals except responsibilities and obligations. The government gave you the rights to vote. It's not related but you earned it.
Women on the other hand didn't.
2. I'm not bothered by it actually but there are cases wherein a woman will just be released if a man reports that she's using the men's bathroom.
In fact, there was one case wherein a man sued a woman for using the men's bathroom but the man ended up paying the fine because the judge thinks he was being unreasonable. Apparently, his reason was that he held his bladder in for four hours because he's not comfortable peeing with a woman around. Which is by the way, equally if not more reasonable than a woman freaking out for seeing a man in a woman's restroom if you ask me.
1. ok, look at it this way. Count the number of rights and freedom a woman has and count the number of rights and freedom a man has. You'd see that women have more. Yes, this might sound childish but it establishes the fact that women are NOT more oppressed than men.
* Liberal ideas. Hence, subjective. Purely opinion-based. How you want your country to be differs from person to person. Nothing wrong with that but I'd rather measure "better" with the number of people benefiting from it or measurable benefits. Liberal ideas aren't always the best. There are some conservative ideas that are good too.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2014 10:18 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 00:09, 02 Aug 2014.
|
you know, jmo, i'm starting to think you aren't a troll again. you put a lot of time and effort into your posts, and i can see the reasoning behind it. trolls, from what i understand, wouldn't waste this much of their time trying to make a point. 
(i changed my mind on what i added as a note here before. i'm not going to bother explaining my understanding of someone else, to someone else. the people who argue with me are, more often than not, incapable(or don't even try) of understanding me, let alone anyone else. so it would be a waste of my time to discuss anything with them.)
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2014 10:27 PM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 07:10, 02 Aug 2014.
|
8. You're not wrong, I do believe in both statements.
Both the man and the woman are involved in the childmaking, so both should bear the consequences. I agree that the man should also have a say in whether or not to keep the child, BUT that means he would get to say something over the woman her body, which he cannot. The right of a person to be boss of his/her body is more important.
7.
Steyn said:
Also in our culture the woman is viewed as main responsible in child rearing.
What I meant to say is that because of our culture, woman tend to spend more time raising the children then men. Therefore it is logical for the woman to end up with the children after divorce.
Of course you can have a better bond with your father, but such things tend to come a a later age. An age at which you will also be heard for who you want to live with.
BTW, if he is a good dad and has a decent lawyer, he can definitely get a good access agreement. Mediation of course is always even better.
3. It doesn't matter what the reason is woman were not allowed in war. Men decided woman were not allowed, so you can't hold that against them.
As for your example. I don't know what kind of dreamkid you were, but I certainly did not see it that way. Sure, at some point I started doing some chores, but that was mostly because my parents were busy (and I was adult enough to don't mind helping). Them supporting my education is something I am grateful for, but also something I expect them to do regardless. I mean, they put me on this world, so they also should make sure I have a chance at a nice life 
Besides that your argument is flawed on two points:
1st, the fact that it feels as if you earned the support of your parents, they don't give it because you did those chores.
Again you are confused about the meaning of causality.
2nd, the woman in your example would be the younger sibling who does the laundry, goes grocery shopping, cleans the house, etc. She will also get her education supported.
That woman didn't go to war does not mean they did nothing. They are as much a member of this society as men are.
2.
JeremiahEmo said:
Apparently, his reason was that he held his bladder in for four hours because he's not comfortable peeing with a woman around. Which is by the way, equally if not more reasonable than a woman freaking out for seeing a man in a woman's restroom if you ask me.
No, it's not, because men are much much much less frequent harassed by woman then vice versa, so woman have more right to be freaked-out then men when someone of the opposite gender enters the area where they do private stuff.
Also, 4 hours, seriously  First of all, that's not possible when you already have to pee. Secondly, couldn't he just have gone home or to another toilet by then? And thirdly, did that woman really stay there 4 hours to troll him, and the judge called HIM unreasonable?! I'll have to call fake on this, sorry.
PS
Steyn said:
No, what I mean with progressive is "(a group, person, or idea) favouring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas." - Google translate
You picked the wrong part of the definition
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2014 09:49 AM |
|
|
8. Wait wait, so what's your stand? Do you believe a man has the right to say if he wants the baby to live or not? But you disagree with it when you said he shouldn't have the right to her body?
By the way, by "right to her body", I only mean the part about abortion, nothing else.
The other option is, he doesn't have a say about abortion but he should have the right to opt out of child support, no payment, no fathering. If abortion is applied in marriage and the man still doesn't have a say on what will happen to the baby, then, the man should also have the right to opt out of fathering and child support in marriage as well.
The woman shouldn't be the sole decision maker of abortion AND force the man to pay child support at the same time. That would make it very unfair for the man.
7.
Steyn said:
What I meant to say is that because of our culture, woman tend to spend more time raising the children then men. Therefore it is logical for the woman to end up with the children after divorce.
If feminists has no problems saying this, then feminists should have no problems understanding companies when they pay women less compared to men for doing less time at work because of maternity leaves and whatnot. That and other logical things the patriarchy does. The patriarchy works in mysterious ways.
This is the same logic you apply to pay gaps, glass ceilings, etc. The only difference is that companies hasn't been proven to pay women less/promote women less for reasons like stereotypes and oppression. Men's child custody issue already has (and you've clearly stated that).
By the way, it's not all the time young children has better bond with mothers. I've seen that happen. But yeah, I have to admit, most children has better bond with their mothers. Which probably explains why there are a lot of white knights and society favoring women.
And yes, fathers can win child custody, there's no doubt about that. However, the point I'm making is that dads need way more work than moms to win.
3. Yes, it doesn't for you but it gives you a pretty good idea that women were not that great of a victim as feminists made it seem.
Ok, maybe the education thing was a bad example.
No, women doing chores isn't comparable to the men's draft. It is comparable to men do work for a living, chop lumber, fix the car, etc. Not the draft. The draft is an added task that doesn't help them as individuals. Plus it gets you into a mental trauma, risk your life and all that for something that will not benefit you individually. And it's forced.
Ok, let's have another perspective of this. Consider men doing the state a huge favor. The state needs to repay that favor, hence they granted them their rights to vote.
2. Well lookie here, I found the article.
Glaser said:
Glaser said he checked “six or seven” other men’s rooms, finding women present in all of them, and that he “had to hold it in for four hours” because he was unwilling to urinate with women present.
Your logic is like saying: men get murdered much much more frequent than women, therefore men have more right to be prioritized when a serial killer is on the loose.
And by the way, 85% more or less murder victims are men and we don't see organizations spreading awareness for that either. At least not like the number, dedication and support of domestic violence and rape organizations get.
Also, I don't see how that is impossible. There are people who live like an hour or 2 hours away from work. How would he know it's gonna last 4 hours? And yes, there are some people who can hold it in that long. I have no doubt that if it was a woman who made that complaint, the judge would have done something about it.
Speaking of which, number 4 seems it got lost from all these mess, which is by the way, my favorite part in this discussion. Let me quote what I said and I'd like to know what's your opinion on that.
JeremiahEmo said:
4. Yes, there is no law about it but what use is a law if you can't do it anyway?
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt5BRcsOyy0
You can watch the first 11 minutes of it. The first 10 minutes was Earl's story, the rest are Karen's opinion.
If you don't have the time for it, I'd gladly summarize it for you.
Karen Straughan talks about Earl Silverman who tried to open a man's shelter but when he asked funding from the government, he was told "providing services for male victims was not their mandate".
Because of this, he used his own money and donations to run the man's shelter. To make the long story short, he did everything he could to run the man's shelter but later became too in debt. So, he sold his house and everything he owned and committed suicide.
You really should watch it, Karen said it very nicely. You'd get a good idea of why myself and a lot of people think feminism is such a bad name.
Another thing.
Erin Pizzey, the first person to open a woman's shelter attempted to open a man's shelter but got lambasted by militant feminists. She received death threats and they even went as far to shoot her dog.
Erin Pizzey said:
Erin Pizzey goes on describing her experience attempting to set up a male shelter
Erin Pizzey said:
For her efforts she was picketed by a group of British shelter workers, who referred to themselves as "feminists." These militant extremists staged demonstrations against her, and she and her family members received death threats. "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS," "ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS," read the placards. She was advised to travel with a police escort during her promotional tour. The book disappeared from the shelves of libraries and book stores alike. The publisher went bankrupt in the process.
The harassment of Erin Pizzey became so bad that she was driven into exile in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey
http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-63.htm
I think number 4 deserves a separate post cause you'd really get a good idea why many people are against feminism.
I don't hate women. I am an anti feminist.
Feminism has a good theory in its core. I mean yeah, a lot of the feminist problem is something easy to deal with. I mean, you really can't compare family courts (which I'll discuss later), law enforcer bias and the draft to not being able to not wear your shirt. The problem with feminism is, the radical ones are the ones in power and they are quite destructive.
@fred
The internet is truly diverse isn't it? It's not black and white actually.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2014 10:21 AM |
|
|
I'll reply to your #4 here. The rest has to wait till tomorrow, because I don't have that much battery left.
I didn't watch the video, so I'll trust your summary. Maybe I'll watch it tomorrow, 'cause I'm interested in Karen's opinion
I seems like he was in a really ****ty situation. It is a shame that the government apparently did not think a man's shelter was something worth financing.
As for the story of Erin Pizzey.
Imagine what must have been done to those woman for them to become so angry at the thought of a men's shelter...
It is a shame that a couple of radicals ruin your image of an entire movement. But isn't that how it is for every movement? Muslims have a bad name because of those jihadists, Christians because of creationists, etc. Don't let your aversion of the actions of a few radicals blind you for the general idea of feminism, that male and female should be valued equally.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2014 10:37 AM |
|
|
Steyn said:
It is a shame that a couple of radicals ruin your image of an entire movement. But isn't that how it is for every movement? Muslims have a bad name because of those jihadists, Christians because of creationists, etc. Don't let your aversion of the actions of a few radicals blind you for the general idea of feminism, that male and female should be valued equally.
it's a better idea, just to have your own beliefs, than try to channel them into an organization that is bound to be rife with radicals.
think about it: if there was an organization that was solely formed under the idea that conspiracy theories could, and were being proven; would it be worth it to possibly be associated with the more extreme kinds of people who wear tin foils hats and think they've been abducted by aliens?
my guess is, no.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2014 09:30 AM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 12:25, 03 Aug 2014.
|
No Fred, but if you want to actually change the world a bit it is very useful to have supporters who share your idea. Therefore it is necessary to be member of an organization which, unfortunately, also attracts people with a more radical view than you have.
@JEmo:
JeremiahEmo said:
3.
Ok, maybe the education thing was a bad example.
No, women doing chores isn't comparable to the men's draft. It is comparable to men do work for a living, chop lumber, fix the car, etc. Not the draft. The draft is an added task that doesn't help them as individuals. Plus it gets you into a mental trauma, risk your life and all that for something that will not benefit you individually. And it's forced.
Ok, let's have another perspective of this. Consider men doing the state a huge favor. The state needs to repay that favor, hence they granted them their rights to vote.
You seem to have one misconception: people are not there for the state, but the state is there for the people. The state organizes those things that are not directly benefit the people individually, but without which our world would succumb to chaos. So it's the state that does the people a huge favour, which we make possible by paying taxes. Then to make sure the state has also your interests in mind, you should be able to vote. So voting is a way to influence how the state spends your tax money.
To protect the states interests, which are also the interests of its citizens, the state needs soldiers. Here the draft comes in play.
Going back to what you said about men gaining the right to vote after introduction of the draft. Imagine what would happen when you have a large number of people who are unhappy with the state's policy and the fact they cannot influence it and these people have been trained for war on your ordinance...
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2014 11:46 AM |
|
Edited by Steyn at 11:46, 03 Aug 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
8. Wait wait, so what's your stand? Do you believe a man has the right to say if he wants the baby to live or not? But you disagree with it when you said he shouldn't have the right to her body?
By the way, by "right to her body", I only mean the part about abortion, nothing else.
The other option is, he doesn't have a say about abortion but he should have the right to opt out of child support, no payment, no fathering. If abortion is applied in marriage and the man still doesn't have a say on what will happen to the baby, then, the man should also have the right to opt out of fathering and child support in marriage as well.
The woman shouldn't be the sole decision maker of abortion AND force the man to pay child support at the same time. That would make it very unfair for the man.
7.
Steyn said:
What I meant to say is that because of our culture, woman tend to spend more time raising the children then men. Therefore it is logical for the woman to end up with the children after divorce.
If feminists has no problems saying this, then feminists should have no problems understanding companies when they pay women less compared to men for doing less time at work because of maternity leaves and whatnot. That and other logical things the patriarchy does. The patriarchy works in mysterious ways.
This is the same logic you apply to pay gaps, glass ceilings, etc. The only difference is that companies hasn't been proven to pay women less/promote women less for reasons like stereotypes and oppression. Men's child custody issue already has (and you've clearly stated that).
By the way, it's not all the time young children has better bond with mothers. I've seen that happen. But yeah, I have to admit, most children has better bond with their mothers. Which probably explains why there are a lot of white knights and society favoring women.
And yes, fathers can win child custody, there's no doubt about that. However, the point I'm making is that dads need way more work than moms to win.
8. My stand is that someone can NEVER decide what happens to someone else's body (except in some extreme case where that person is unable to do so him/herself. for example because of a coma).
You could argue that when there is no consensus about whether or not to keep the baby, the man should not have to pay child support. I see some sense in this, but still think it is not a good idea for the following reasons:
a) If the woman can't afford raising the baby on her own, the man would still force her to have an abortion by not paying child support.
b) This puts all the responsibility for contraception at the woman, because it makes it too easy for the man to opt out of fatherhood.
c)How can you in good consensus decide to take a baby? As soon as the father gets cold feet he can run away without further consequences.
d) When the child is unwanted it will be a hard choice for the mother between keeping it or killing it. If the man has to choose between raising a child without wanting to, or be able to leave without consequences, his choice is (almost) a no-brainer. This is not fair considering both parties are responsible for making the child.
7. First of all, it is not feminists saying this, but me. I can understand that companies do not want to pay for maternity leave, but the time woman are not on leave their work is of the same quality as that of man. Therefore you cannot pay them less for that work than you'd pay a man, that would be discrimination.
The reason maternity leave exists is because we want the threshold for taking children to be as low as possible. Without maternity leave couples will have less income when getting a child, while they need it even harder. Also woman would lose their certainty of being able to go back to work after getting the child, making it even less attractive. This would mean that without maternity leave far less children would be born, which would be bad for our society.
So if we agree that maternity leave is necessary and paying woman less for the same work as we pay men is unfair, you end up with the maternity leave we have now. So to improve upon this system the maternity leave could be payed by the government instead of the company. Oh, wait, that's already how it works! (at least here in the Netherlands). So the company only has to miss an employee for 16 weeks without being able to fire her, but makes no substantial extra costs.
As for the woman spending more time raising their kids then men. That is possible with them not working fulltime or spending more of her free time on the kids, both of which make no difference for the employer. I think the explanation I've given clearly shows that men's child custody issue has nothing to do with oppression and, if not also nothing, hardly anything to do with stereotyping. Besides, when did I say stereotyping was only bad for woman? I think there was already a post before in this thread, or it was the other feminist thread, which showed that men can also be harmed by stereotyping.
As for stereotyping playing a job in hiring, a quick search already gives me plenty of examples:
[url=http://restructure.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/this-is-an-example-of-sexism-in-tech-recruitment/]Woman can't do tech[/url]
Sexism inhibits diversity
Woman who can do math still dont get hired
Research on gender bias, and corresponding news article
And much more. How again is it not proven?
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 03, 2014 06:41 PM |
|
|
@Steyn
8. So basically, your stance is:
- The woman should be the sole decision maker when it comes to abortion.
and at the same time,
- The man should be forced to pay child whether he wants it or not.
and I get it, you've explained that. However, there are a lot of points wrong with your idea. First things first, let me explain my solution clearly. I'm sorry if I haven't explained it well in my previous post but here it is:
* If your philosophy is: The Woman is the Sole Decision Maker of What Happens to her Baby.
then the man should have the right to opt out of child support.
I do think that the man running away from child support everytime he impregenates someone is fair because he doesn't have a say whether the child lives or die anyway.
The key thing to remember is that this law is woman-centric. The life of the baby depends entirely on the woman. Hence, consequences should be entirely on the woman as well.
I know of the woman's consequences for keeping the child but she should know better to make the right decisions.
I hear feminists keep saying "the man shouldn't have placed his peen on her in the first place". I can give the same argument: "the woman should have said no to sex in the first place". I mean, feminists wants women to be treated like men right? Let's give them obligations. We shouldn't treat them like kids.
Personally, I am not in favor of this idea. I like the second one better.
* If your philosophy is: It Takes the Man and the Woman to Make the Child
then, the Man should have a 50% say to what will happen to the child. I mean, it takes two people to make the child, afterall, right?
If it's a tie then the baby should live by default. Or die. Depending on what this proposed law states (which is determined by the people of course).
That way, we can guarantee a fair treatment between men and women.
And also, whoever wants to keep the child will get to raise the child. The other party will pay child support regardless if he/she wants it or not.
7. Actually, it is feminists saying that. I keep on hearing that when debating with feminists over and over again. I also see that on feminist videos.
Second, yes, I do get the value of maternity leaves payments. However, as what yo suggest the thing wrong with government paying maternity leaves is that it takes money from people paying taxes. What if we have a man or a woman or even a couple, or gays or lesbians, that has no plans of having kids? Wouldn't that be unfair for them to pay that extra load of tax?
I remember Lexxan complaining about the tax and from what I know, he's from the Netherlands (or was it Belgium? But hey, from what I know, Belgium and the Netherlands are socially and politically almost the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.). Gee, no wonder your tax is high, isn't it Lexx?
What I am suggesting is that companies should be able to choose if they'll include maternity leave as benefits or not. I've seen this happen in the Philippines and it actually works. I don't think child raising will be less attractive to women. That country is still heavily populated populated by the way. The whole family court system is entirely bias against men and it didn't stop men from marrying.
There still are quite a lot of companies that lists maternity leave as one of their benefits. I think the logic behind it is that they have more freedom in choosing the best possible candidates. Without maternity leave, the job will be less attractive to women thus they will look for another company.
By the way, that country also has paternity leaves as well.
Third, you said most women (not all but most) spend more time with their child, hence, it's the reason why women have the upper hand in child custody. It is true but it's stereotyping. Not all women spend the most time with their kids in every relationship.
On the other hand, the example I've given, maternity leave. Let's assume the company didn't list maternity leave as one of its benefit. Most women, not all but most, spend less time at work because they get pregnant. It is true but it's stereotyping. Hence, the man is better looked up for promotion. I'm talking about promotion. I don't think women who do not take maternity leave is paid less than men.
Grasp the logic of my two examples. If you do not think one is oppression, that's fine. As long as you think the exact same thing on the other one. If you think one is oppression then I do not see how the other isn't.
I have a hard time believing feminist websites since various documentaries have proven feminists are bias and sometimes manipulate facts (Karen also mentioned this in her video about Earl Silverman) but for the sake of this topic, let me analyze that.
* First link not working
* Second link, I think it talks about how e-recruitment is bias towards women because interviewers tend to hire someone who are close to their image and because women are underrepresented in Senior management levels.
Interviewers hiring someone close to their image..
what's their basis for this conclusion? Is it representation?
Equal opportunities doesn't equate equal results.
Just because there are not more women in CEO positions doesn't mean they are oppressed. It could be because of choice. There could be a lot of reasons and I doubt oppression is one of them. I'd rather think of companies as innocent until they've clearly proven they oppress.
* Third link, Let me tell you a little story.
I have a friend is very smart. He always topped in exams. Entrance exams in the interview process is a piece of cake for him. However, he still had a hard time getting through job interviews. The reason was that he was shy and he had confidence issues. That has to do with his upbringing, not his school performance.
The moral of the story is that being the better candidate in terms of booksmart doesn't always get you the job. They will also look at your personality. As clearly stated, men tend to exaggerate their performance while women downplay their's. Believe me, his career was computer programming. It has nothing to do with confidence. Sometimes, managers are just too busy that they don't care about every little detail of what both candidates can do. For all we know, they listed confidence as one of their standard.
Also, the picture experiment doesn't explain anything. Giving managers only pictures of the man and the woman and nothing else is like making managers flip coins and see how many times it lands woman.
* Fourth link. I don't get this. From what I understand, I think employers were given a randomly-generated male and female names, nothing else and the employers hired the faculty with the male name? I s that right??
I will address the other points later. Right now, I have to rest. .
By the way, did you watch Karen's video?
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 05:16 AM |
|
|
4.
Steyn said:
Imagine what must have been done to those woman for them to become so angry at the thought of a men's shelter
Saying this is like saying.. "Imagine what must have been done to these whites to warrant why they are sexist towards black"
or
"Imagine what must have been done to these misogynists to make them hate women like that".
Personally, I can understand the racists', misogynists' and misandrists' position, like you, as long as they don't do anything destructive. That's the difference between the feminists protesting against Erin and your typical racist and misogynists.
Steyn said:
It is a shame that a couple of radicals ruin your image of an entire movement. But isn't that how it is for every movement? Muslims have a bad name because of those jihadists, Christians because of creationists, etc. Don't let your aversion of the actions of a few radicals blind you for the general idea of feminism, that male and female should be valued equally.
It's not just a couple of radicals. These radical feminists are the ones in power.
There are a couple of difference between feminists and creationists. One thing, feminists can get away with publicly saying hateful things towards men. I'm actually ok with that as long as there is no double standard. If misandrists can get away with publicly saying hateful things towards men, then misogynists should also get away with publicly saying hateful things towards women also. And I don't think creationists have that much power to impose radical laws in our society. Radical feminists has.
3. Yes I agree. People are not for the state, it's the state that is for the people. The state is there to manage what is good for the many. Personally, I don't agree with everyone having their rights to vote. There are countries wherein total democracy is a bad thing. I've seen this happen. I say only the tax paying citizens should be allowed to vote. Or take an exam about politics and if you pass, you're allowed to vote.
Yes, that's discrimination in some way but it follows the good for the many logic. There are just a lot of dumbasses who'll vote a movie star for President rather than someone who's had a good record in politics. Yes, this happened in at least one country.
Going back on topic, let me ask you this.
We both know that both men and women were not allowed to vote before the draft, right? In your opinion, can you give me a list of possible reasons why the state suddenly allowed men to vote right after the draft?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 08:55 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
4.
Going back on topic, let me ask you this.
We both know that both men and women were not allowed to vote before the draft, right? In your opinion, can you give me a list of possible reasons why the state suddenly allowed men to vote right after the draft?
Basically, that's the wrong question.
Strangely enough, there is no general right to vote in the US. "Voting" is not a federal thing, but in the authority of the States. Basically every US State has the right to exclude people from voting - say, "convicted criminals who've done a specific amount of time" - except where the constitution explicitly says, via amendment, they can't.
So, basically, in the US you can see by looking at the exclusions who were considered citizens 1st class and who citizens 2nd class or no citizens at all, until a specific amendment officially said something like, "from now on you can't treat people of this and that kind as citizens 2nd class anymore".
Now, "the draft" has been institutionalized in the American Civil War - at a time when all white men already had the suffrage: Until 1820 the right to vote had stopped being coupled with tax or land. That's the point where Jackson's Democrats split off due to their visions of the "common white man voting".
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 06:18 PM |
|
|
good point JJ. I have never looked at it like that way before.
I want to read about where you got this idea that all white men were allowed to vote before the draft though.
I think the draft is unfair. It's necessary but unfair. I don't believe women should be drafted. I mean they can join the army but not drafted.
Not all women are physically as strong as men. I might sound sexist but let's face it. It's the truth. There are women who can keep up with a man physically but the vast majority just can't.
I say the draft should still be there incase USA is going into a surprise war but there should be more benefits to it. Something women doesn't have access to.
But yeah, I guess that will be oppression in feminists' eyes but it's the best solution I can think of.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 10:09 PM |
|
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 10:36 PM |
|
|
Why is the draft necessary, JE? It's disrupting people's lives and enslaving them to the State.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 10:58 PM |
|
|
So you'll be sure to have enough soldiers in case of war.
Here in the Netherlands we also have a draft, but you will only be called to arms if a serious war will break out. Not for peace missions and the like.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 10:59 PM |
|
|
Why not just pay people to fight?
Regardless, the draft is morally wrong, but I think that's a topic for a different thread.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 04, 2014 11:00 PM |
|
|
People are already owned by the state, but are too ignorant to ever admit it, thus try to ignore the fact that there's a higher power with authority above them, authority to regulate their lives and impose on their freedoms, (surveillance is one that immediately comes to mind) but by doing so they empower the state to exist without a proper mandate.
Modern armies are more about strength of will, rather than strength of the arm, besides with enough training and determination a woman could reach the same combat efficiency as any man (albeit would require more time and energy to reach it). A good soldier is one who follows orders, (which is simple at hindsight, but incorporates every situation, a soldier doesn't have the full picture, s/he is a tool, a means to an end, one which is rarely disclosed, so has to lock up morality without a real justification) and not one that can punch the hardest.
Or so I've been led to believe.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
