Feminism Thread

[Charismatic]

Well, thanks for "proving" her wrong.
Another thread "Plow'd".

[Plow]

Ok, fine. For that one single argument, because it's the very first one she's presenting (after the skip).

Prove to me that any meaningful quantity of feminists believe that "patriarchy" means all of society has always been men exclusively acting in the interest of men at the expense of women.

Prove to me that men don't have access to birth control.

Prove to me that the pill and abortion only benefit women.

Prove to me that running water, sewers, etc. are things that only benefit women.



This is the first fucking minute, of her first fucking argument.

There's another 30 minutes, every one filled with as much ridiculous idiocy.

[Plow]

Anyone with the ability to reason... most likely.

also this statement is fucking hilarious because legit logical reasoning absolutely destroys her arguments because they're so incredibly full of implication

[Charismatic]

Prove to me that any meaningful quantity of feminists believe that "patriarchy" means all of society has always been men exclusively acting in the interest of men at the expense of women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
I mean sure I can call myself a republican but if I don't believe what they actually believe... am I one of them?

Prove to me that men don't have access to birth control.

They do, that statement was something I thought was strange given the prevalence of the condom; I don't think this really detracts from her main argument in any way shape or form though. Either way, I felt she was off-base there just like you do.

Prove to me that the pill and abortion only benefit women.

Prove to me that running water, sewers, etc. are things that only benefit women.

You're arguing something she didn't say. Supposedly the "patriarchy" benefits men at the expense of women. This benefits women and also gives fringe benefits to men and in some ways disadvantages men, assuming you believe in this patriarchy, because when you are oppressing anything that gives the oppressed more opportunity is to your detriment.

You really ought to continue watching the video because you don't even have proper context for these statements yet. She ties it all together after she's done with that part. (This is the problem with not actually fully listening to opposing viewpoints, you can't properly argue against them even if you are in the right.)

[Plow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_theory
I mean sure I can call myself a republican but if I don't believe what they actually believe... am I one of them?

Right, can you show me the part in there where it says "all feminists believe patriarchy serves purely to advance the advantage of men at the expense of women"?

You can't. In fact there's a specific statement in that particular page about this very next thing:

They do, that statement was something I thought was strange given the prevalence of the condom; I don't think this really detracts from her main argument in any way shape or form though. Either way, I felt she was off-base there just like you do.


You're arguing something she didn't say. Supposedly the "patriarchy" benefits men at the expense of women. This benefits women and also gives fringe benefits to men and in some ways disadvantages men, assuming you believe in this patriarchy, because when you are oppressing anything that gives the oppressed more opportunity is to your detriment.

First and most importantly, capitalism describes the rise of modern birth control much more accurately than any sense of goodwill. As mentioned in the wiki, there are many that consider patriarchy simply an extension or byproduct of capitalism. Given the opportunity for an advantage, somebody is going to take it.

Further, the argument that birth control is something that benefits women but not men is absolutely absurd. Even if there weren't multiple options for men (the implication that there's not something as "simple" as the pill for men because nobody cares enough is retarded as well), the simple availability of women capable of having sex without reproduction is a big fucking deal.

You really ought to continue watching the video because you don't even have proper context for these statements yet. She ties it all together after she's done with that part. (This is the problem with not actually fully listening to opposing viewpoints, you can't properly argue against them even if you are in the right.)

I've watched the whole video. As I said, it's filled with straw men and straight up idiocy, hence why I figured people like Church would love it and anybody with a brain would dismiss it without a second thought.

Because I'm not willing to subject myself to that shit twice in order to go through and point out all the mistakes for you when there are multitudes made every minute she keeps running her mouth doesn't mean I didn't give her a chance in the first place. If you can't see the constant giant flaws throughout everything she says, you're probably just watching it looking for someone to confirm what you want to believe.

[ronin sparthos]

I worry for her points if she can't even make them without erupting into Fbombs everywhere.

This isn't standup comedy.

[Milkster]

So, is this sexist?

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has apologized to California Attorney General Kamala Harris for "the distraction" he caused by calling her "by far the best-looking attorney general," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday.
The president called Harris on Thursday night to "apologize for the distraction created by his remarks," Carney said.
"He fully recognizes the challenges women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance," Carney said. "They're old friends. He certainly regretted that [his comments] caused a distraction."
The president caused quite a stir with his remarks, which he made during a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Atherton, Calif. Numerous people in the media wondered aloud what he was thinking, with some calling his comments "stupid" and "sexist."
"Look, I'm a 68-year-old guy and I do notice, honestly, the way that women look sometimes. But you've got to learn to sort of keep your opinions to yourself," Democratic strategist James Carville said on MSNBC. "I doubt if he'll do it again."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D294432

[Churchill]

plow has argued against something, now you know you're in the right

[Charismatic]

He's arguing things that don't make sense or that aren't being stated. I don't really understand how to even approach this.
I mean, he doesn't seem to have a grasp on what feminists believe Patriarchy even is.

"Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination"

This is the core of the arguments that support that the patriarchy is the cause of all the world's ills as feminists often claim. (you need only look at the argument video to see one such example, these examples are not by any means rare either... and I don't mean the hysterical feminist but rather her arguments)


Then the whole thing about anything benefiting women and not men... I don't even know where that came into play. I just don't get it.

[noblemountain]

You do realize you're trying to use logic on something Plow said, right?

[Tyrath]

So, is this sexist?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...6pLid%3D294432

Welcome to last page.

And no, it's only sexist in butthurtville.

[Mazmaz]

Is Plow the new me or something?

[BaneTheBrawler]

No, Plow is just Plow. We all have our full-retard modes, just some use it less often than others.

[Aristio]

Anyone mind explaining to me what MRA is? I'm only guessing Male Rights Activist?

[Charismatic]

Anyone mind explaining to me what MRA is? I'm only guessing Male Rights Activist?

Men's Rights Activist/Advocate whatever. Basically, yes, someone who is after men's rights.


Also:

[Kuya]

Probably hot, but clearly not the cutest chick on my friendlist.

[Nirokun!]

Anyone mind explaining to me what MRA is? I'm only guessing Male Rights Activist?

Yes (Men's Right's Activist). I was having a long discussion with a gf today about feminism and men's rights, equality, the whole deal. She said she was afraid I might be a republican because I even discussed rape and the gender pay gap, instead of immediately agreeing. I always thought the gender pay gap business was BS, women not earning as much as men do because bitches get pregnant and leave their professions, then their earnings are reported as a statistic, and feminists claiming shit is unfair.

We mostly agreed (she was getting huffy with me), stating that there should be equality in opportunities/programs for advancement, but she felt as though there should be "extra stuff" for women to get into traditionally male-dominated fields, to equalize male/female employee ratios, right now, just because. The argument was used that boys have an unfair advantage in IT because they often get into classes/programs in high school, and are more experienced from that point and through college, making them more marketable than women, edging them out in the IT field. She feels as though girls/women should receive targeted advertisements for these classes and programs in school (she said she never saw the classes being available in school, I said I didn't either, but only knew about them because my brother was in that Votech computer stuff.) We got stuck, because she thought if girls knew more about it, they would participate, and I thought that the opportunity already existed for all students to participate, and it's nobody's fault that boys were more interested. I asked her if she was interested in computers at that age, and she said she used AOL instant messenger and stuff, and I told her that I wasn't, and had already had my mind set on being a doctor (and later became a nurse, she a teacher.)

Idk, it was just messy (I felt as though her opinion of me dropped a few notches, but oh well. lol) I felt as though everyone should do what they want to do, if boys want to do science/math/engineering/computers, and girls want to become teachers/nurses/moms, then we should let them do that. She wanted to implement "stuff" just to make sure that employee rosters were uniformly diversified, just because, because that's a sign of equality. I thought that would be harmful, taking away opportunities that people worked for, just to give them to someone else for the sake of diversity in the workplace. Idk what to say to her.

[Plow]

He's arguing things that don't make sense or that aren't being stated. I don't really understand how to even approach this.
I mean, he doesn't seem to have a grasp on what feminists believe Patriarchy even is.

"Patriarchy is a social system in which the male is the primary authority figure central to social organization and the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property, and where fathers hold authority over women and children. It implies the institutions of male rule and privilege, and entails female subordination"

This is the core of the arguments that support that the patriarchy is the cause of all the world's ills as feminists often claim. (you need only look at the argument video to see one such example, these examples are not by any means rare either... and I don't mean the hysterical feminist but rather her arguments)


Then the whole thing about anything benefiting women and not men... I don't even know where that came into play. I just don't get it.

Ok, so what you're saying is that you don't understand why people believe there has been a historical structure of male dominance over women while arguing on behalf of a chick whose historical argument is based around "men work harder so they deserve to be rewarded by controlling everything."


And that would explain why you can't grasp how incredibly flawed it is to list things that benefit men at least as much as women as evidence that said societal imbalances don't exist, simply because those things also happen to benefit women.

[Plow]

It's seriously amazing to me that people actually bite on that shit. I mean, it's absolute comedy gold.

The part where she talks about how wimpy women are impressed by some woman doing some weakass work like shoveling coal and how that's nothing compared to what men did... and then like 30 seconds later is talking about how hard her grandpa had it... paving roads... You know, driving steamrollers and shoveling nasty heavy carbon-y shit.

[Plow]

Like, does dude honestly believe the concept of patriarchy means there would have been a committee in charge of medicine that would weigh exactly how much benefit women would gain from the pill, and if it was past a certain threshold they'd say NOPE THROW IT AWAY cuz patriarchal society can't ever be allowed to benefit anyone but men?