Feminism Thread

[Kohan]

I wouldn't be and am not. I'm pro-equality (of opportunity unlike 'feminists' and not outcomes) and that is precisely why I am actually anti-feminist.

By being equal opportunity, you agree with feminist ideals. You may want to say that you are anti-feminist, but you are not. You are against the words "feminism," "feminist," etc., but not what they stand for.

This is the stupidest question you have ever asked.
Sorry I don't believe in the patriarchy fairy, not agreeing with that means I fundamentally disagree with most of what is being said even though I don't think men should lose custody of their children and so on. Put on your dunce cap.

Your response doesn't quite make sense. The page is an explanation of what feminism aims for—that is, equality for all parties—and that patriarchy, which is a very real and historically established social system, is harmful to both men and women. You believe that those things should not exist, correct? Then you agree.

If you wish to be abrasive because this is an uncomfortable topic for you, that is your choice, but it does not change the fact that you agree with feminist ideals, and would therefore be classified as a participant in feminism.

[Charismatic]

No, Kohan.
Any group of people who believes affirmative action should be a thing is not a group I agree with.
Any group of people who opposes no-fault divorce is not a group of people I agree with no matter how much you want to say I do. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

And linking a wikipedia page on "patriarchy" does not change my opinion on it. I know what it supposedly is and I don't believe that it exists. Period.

Also, can't agree with the second link since it also implies that there's a gender wage gap that has much of anything to do with discrimination and that is just blatantly false.

[Plow]

Not sure what you're getting at. If you're laughing at the idea of legitimate criticism being contained in youtube comments, yeah I understand. But it still reinforces the argument that she manipulates the avenues of communication to suit her narrative that the only people who are criticizing her are doing so because they have some vendetta and not because her arguments are shallow and flawed.

I feel like allowing the youtube comments unmoderated would be far better support for that argument than blocking them.

[GoggleHead]

If you agree with what's mentioned within, you would be. Do you believe that a popular negative connotation tied to a word is significant enough for you to deny association, even when you know better? If so, that is unfortunate; it would mean that you bend to whatever the popular uninformed opinion is.

I believe language changes over time.

[Correction]

Also, can't agree with the second link since it also implies that there's a gender wage gap that has much of anything to do with discrimination and that is just blatantly false.

Surely your disagreement stems from data you've seen and can share?

[Charismatic]

Surely your disagreement stems from data you've seen and can share?

Look it up yourself, our government has already hired people to research it and they concluded that there's no such thing.
I don't have the link on hand and I'm not going to do a google search for it for you.

[Kohan]

No, Kohan.
Any group of people who believes affirmative action should be a thing is not a group I agree with.

Fortunately, feminism is on the same side as you.

Any group of people who opposes no-fault divorce is not a group of people I agree with no matter how much you want to say I do.

No-fault divorce originated due to the oppression caused by the church, and has largely been endorsed by men throughout history. No-fault divorce also ensures that neither party must be at fault, meaning that they are equal in the proceedings.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

In fact, I do, as the various posts made previously and the content within this one demonstrates. I do not know why you choose to be angry, but as mentioned, I suppose that the presentation of facts versus your presentation of opinion is uncomfortable for you.

And linking a wikipedia page on "patriarchy" does not change my opinion on it. I know what it supposedly is and I don't believe that it exists. Period.

You may fortify your understanding of patriarchy through other encyclopedic means, but I cannot hand them to you as easily as I can provide a Wikipedia link. The knowledge exists elsewhere, should you wish to pursue it, however.

Regardless as to the specific source, it is as acceptable for you to not believe in something factually proven as it is for someone to believe in God, or to deny that the Holocaust ever happened. Anyone who relies upon thoroughly-researched and factually-proven arguments will not agree with you, as you would not have credibility, but that cannot stop you from believing in whatever you choose.

Also, can't agree with the second link since it also implies that there's a gender wage gap that has much of anything to do with discrimination and that is just blatantly false.

It elaborates that the image of men being required to care for women is a damaging aspect, and that this is unfair to men, as it places burden on them. You would agree, would you not? That image does still exist, though it decreases day by day. Further, it is generally accepted that the gender wage gap is related to the aggression with which promotions and positions are pursued in the workplace, and this is related to other issues. In fact, the gap is a very complex affair, as anyone who values a deep understanding of such issues would tell you.

Analysis aside, though discrimination against women surely exists, so does it for everyone, be they male, black, white, straight, gay, or of any other flavor combination. Feminism does not support any of those, as established.

[Charismatic]

So... you realize that feminists by and large helped to push the implementation of AA in the first place, right?
And you do realize that the NOW opposes no-fault divorce legislation (actively outright opposed it in NY as I recall), right?

Actions speak louder than words. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Correction]

No such thing as the gender pay gap or no such thing as pay discrimination? Because in both cases the Bureau of Labor Statistics and even Warren Farrell disagree with you.

[Charismatic]

>being this retarded

Warren Farrell 100% agrees with me. He does not think that the pay gap is primarily due to discrimination, there may be some instances of discrimination but they are few and far between and not any indication of any sort of systemic issue.

Don't take my word for it though, watch this series of videos and hear it from the man himself.

[Correction]

"Welcome to the Cato Institute"

oh dear...

[Charismatic]

Do you really think it matters where he gives his talks?
Wow.

[Kohan]

So... you realize that feminists by and large helped to push the implementation of AA in the first place, right?

No, because that is not correct. The NAACP has long been one of its supporters, and it was largely instated to help facilitate equality for blacks.

And you do realize that the NOW opposes no-fault divorce legislation (actively outright opposed it in NY as I recall), right?

To the best of my memory, various chapters of NOW actually disagree on this matter, which does not surprise me. The NYC chapter you refer to was in support at first, and I believe it was pressure from opponents that their stance changed. Further, the strongest opposition to no-fault divorce also exists not within neo-feminism, but within the same organizations that it was meant to take power away from: the churches, and those of moderate to far-right belief.

Actions speak louder than words. Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

You have yet to disprove me, though I do not know why you want to.

[Correction]

Do you really think it matters where he gives his talks?
Wow.

I think the seven minute introduction he gets frames the discourse, but I am watching it so unbunch thy panties, fag.

[Charismatic]

No, because that is not correct.

Bzzt. Wrong. Stopped reading here.

[Helm]

Rejecting statements without evidence? Not on my internets.

[Charismatic]

It isn't my job to educate you and I already know for a fact that women/feminists made a large push to get AA implemented.

[Correction]

Well I watched all 90 minutes of the speech and I'm not seeing a very strong case against 'pay discrimination against women is why they make less than men.' Two larger points here. Some of the 'choices' he says women can make to enter the higher paid job market don't strike me as choices at all, including "20 years of experience in current occupation," "10 unbroken years with current employer." This seems to assume that such long, unbroken careers are the result of agency on the part of men, something I find very hard to believe. The speech is from 2005? Using data from 2003? For a woman to stand up to these questions, they would have had to stand on equal footing with men in the labor pool and workplace since Reagan was president, and it was their decisions, without exception, that denied them access to high paying fields that come as a reward for such tenure. Smells fishy.

Other prompts seem tailored to suit industries that are known to have been hostile to women, like firefighting: "does your job make you work in the rain, does it put you in danger, etc." And then there are the 'wtf kind of choice is that' decisions like 'is your job less fulfilling than winning the lottery?' which is a rephrased 'hey is money the same as self-fulfillment?' personality test more than something that causes you to consider the opportunities you get in life. In the end you can really pare down his huge list of 'choices' to 'what must someone sacrifice to enter a high paying job, and why is there a gap in such sacrifice taken between men and women?' I can actually see where he's going with this, and accept the notion that sacrificing things like the work/life divide, time at home and comforts like short commutes and amenable neighborhoods are decisions men make more often than women, and this can account for some of the pay gaps. Fine and dandy.

All that still doesn't annul the notion that pay discrimination works against women in a lot of fields, and it comes out near the end of his speech. There's the intellectual dishonesty of asserting that men face pay discrimination in fields normally dominated by women, like primary or preschool education, based purely on anecdotal evidence. He gives full-throated support to the idea that pay discrimination based on gender exists, and that it works against men attempting to get work as primary school educators. And at the end of the talk when asked about how on the one hand it can work against men in education, but not against women in, say, finance, he only answers the first half of the question. If I give him the benefit of the doubt and don't assume that he's lying or dodging the second half of the question, this can only mean that Warren Farrell must believe pay discrimination exists and it works against women, right alongside men. If he believes otherwise (i.e. in only one half of that equation) then he is a hypocrite. If you claim he believes otherwise, then you are calling him a liar.

I only think he's afraid to say out loud at the Cato Institue that pay discrimination works against both genders because it might brush up against the fact that in general the deck is stacked against middle-class america. And we can't have free enterprise looking bad in front of Libertarians. The equivalence itself is on shaky grounds unless I can see hard data that demonstrates the jilted male k-6 teacher is losing as much as the woman who can't land a job at Goldman Sachs.

[Andalusian girls]

So where are all the level headed feminists hiding? I only ever see the crazy ones, so my assumption is that they've all just migrated to the banner of gender equality.

sup

[Vandalhart]

I just watched the 2nd part of the video. I'm not really sure how to go about sounding off on what I saw.