Feminist Philosophy

[Ksandra]

While it was a small subset (I believe Maz and a couple others were on the same side), they still pushed that agenda as the only solution. An irrational few can make more noise then a silent majority.

And acting like the irrational is the norm can also be irrational. Do you think all libs are like Notoriousbum?

[Melena]

And acting like the irrational is the norm can also be irrational. Do you think all libs are like Notoriousbum?

Nope, remember i'm the liberal Unicorn. And I wouldn't even call Bum a liberal. He would fall under more of an extreme socialist then liberal. As is, if you have a few irrational people screaming about their subject, the casual onlooker is going to look at them and think it is the norm. If your only knowledge of feminism is what the extreme femnazi's talk about, you will think it's the norm.

[Blubbartron]

Pretty sure you have an unwillingness to see this as anything other than black and white.

It's pretty black and white to suggest that there's absolutely no correlation between someone's ability in navigating a frat party and their ability in leadership positions. There are many completely logical ways in which the correlation makes sense. For one, foresight. It doesn't take a genius to have the foresight that getting wasted at a frat party could have a bad outcome, so someone that elects to do that is unlikely to have the foresight required to make good leadership decisions. Getting into the more philosophical, there are questions as to how much of being a leader is innate talent vs. a learned skill. The more that leadership is innate talent, the more relevance someone's poor decisions in college would have.

Basically, there are a lot of unknowns about this kind of thing (because studying it is hard and there are more important things to study), and your eagerness to describe it as "gross" or "disgusting" or whatever word SJWs are latching onto this week does not detract from the logic of her position.

[Ksandra]

Despite what US law says, most college kids are not "mature adults."

I would not compare a college kid's actions for a basis of anything really regarding what they'd be like in a job at 30.

Hell, most presidents in our living memory have done drugs in college.

[Blubbartron]

Despite what US law says, most college kids are not "mature adults."

I would not compare a college kid's actions for a basis of anything really regarding what they'd be like in a job at 30.

Hell, most presidents in our living memory have done drugs in college.

Indeed, and most of us here have judged the hell out of George W. Bush for being an alcoholic cokehead in college, and a complete failure as a president. A puppet who did nothing but step aside for Cheney to take control. How much do you want to bet Cheney wasn't doing a bunch of drugs in college?

[Ksandra]

Indeed, and most of us here have judged the hell out of George W. Bush for being an alcoholic cokehead in college, and a complete failure as a president. A puppet who did nothing but step aside for Cheney to take control. How much do you want to bet Cheney wasn't doing a bunch of drugs in college?

Bush is the only president in living memory to you?

[Blubbartron]

Bush is the only president in living memory to you?

Subtle Ad Hominem is subtle. No, he's simply a prime example that you can often correctly identify someone as a nitwit based on their actions in college. People change, but they don't often radically change. A useless douche in college will, most of the time, be a useless douche the rest of their lives. This is the entirety of the point being made by the author of the article we've been discussing, and myself.

[Ksandra]

Subtle Ad Hominem is subtle. No, he's simply a prime example that you can often correctly identify someone as a nitwit based on their actions in college. People change, but they don't often radically change. A useless douche in college will, most of the time, be a useless douche the rest of their lives. This is the entirety of the point being made by the author of the article we've been discussing, and myself.

No you can't "often" do so because there is no data to say he was a douche because he did drugs. He was just a douche AND he did drugs. Which made an easy talking point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_cannabis_use

Obama and Clinton are also on the list.

Also for some past/present presidential hopefuls are:

Palin
Gore
Santorum
Sanders

Unless you can show a correlation that these were or are douchy leaders, then your defense falls flat.

[Blubbartron]

No you can't "often" do so because there is no data to say he was a douche because he did drugs. He was just a douche AND he did drugs. Which made an easy talking point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...d_cannabis_use

Obama and Clinton are also on the list.

Also for some past/present presidential hopefuls are:

Palin
Gore
Santorum
Sanders

Unless you can show a correlation that these were or are douchy leaders, then your defense falls flat.

Not really, considering my point to archi was that he was being black and white, as are you at the moment. I acknowledged that there isn't any studying done on this type of thing. Also you're flying off into irrationality when you start comparing pot with getting drunk and coked up and going for a drive in your truck, which Bush apparently did more than once. It shows a pattern of poor decisions.

Seriously, what is so controversial about saying that shitty decision makers in college aren't going to magically become really excellent decision makers after their frontal lobe develops just a little bit more?

[Ksandra]

Seriously, what is so controversial about saying that shitty decision makers in college aren't going to magically become really excellent decision makers after their frontal lobe develops just a little bit more?

1. Because it puts people into a shitty stereotype based on nothing where you assume they won't change. When I'd easily say most people are not the same at thirty+ as they were in college.

2. It's not too controversial for random people on BG. But it's not random people on bg who stated it to begin with.

[Ksandra]

Also you're flying off into irrationality when you start comparing pot with getting drunk and coked up and going for a drive in your truck, which Bush apparently did more than once. It shows a pattern of poor decisions.

I should also point out Obama did coke on multiple occasions whenever he could afford it, and his only reason for not doing heroine was because he didn't trust his dealer enough.

[Blubbartron]

I should also point out Obama did coke on multiple occasions whenever he could afford it, and his only reason for not doing heroine was because he didn't trust his dealer enough.

You're seriously getting wrapped up in the drug abuse comments as if I'm some kind of Puritan that thinks "drugs are bad, m'kay." Calm down. Drugs are fine, when used responsibly. I brought up Bush because of his well-known penchant for using them irresponsibly.

[archibaldcrane]

If a guy makes poor decisions about when and where to use too much of a mind altering substance, he can be president. If a woman does though, she's not going to be a leader in the future.

[Charismatic]

Pretty sure you have an unwillingness to see this as anything other than black and white.

So, are you denying it then?

[archibaldcrane]

What is "it"?

[Charismatic]

lol, I don't have time to play games. Good night.

[Byrthnoth]

Here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...arge/77416928/

Was it raep?!

[Karbuncle]

Seriously, what is so controversial about saying that shitty decision makers in college aren't going to magically become really excellent decision makers after their frontal lobe develops just a little bit more?

It's not, to me at least.

I want you all to understand, at the very least, me a bit more clearly. I can't cover all my bases here because it feels like every time I address something I've given 3 more hypothetical rape situations to analyze so you can all call me a misogynist or something, but I'm legitimately trying to elaborate so we can at least come to an understanding, even if its agree to disagree.

I absolutely know people do mature as they get older, and sometimes those people do in fact change. They are less likely to make the same mistakes over and over, thats part of learning. However, not all, and I would say certainly not a majority of them, and if any of you were serious with yourself you would know that while some people get smarter as they get older, there is no denying the average persons personality are usually very consistent things, and a person will usually fall into line with his consistent traits. This includes decision making, assertiveness, passiveness, and so forth. If someone is prone to bad choices, they will likely continue to make bad choices without outside help. If someone never speaks up because they're nervous or a bad public speaker, they're like to remain this way until they acknowledge it and work on it.

So I'm admitting that people can change, sometimes alone but often times requiring outside help with someone more experienced. I also know there are some personality traits that die hard, this from personal experience.

I'll be the an example, though you could all be examples. Its no secret I'm sure to anyone who pays attention to my posts, I'm not good with conflict, I don't take it well, I often have a short temper and take things more personally than I should, I tend to worry over things when I don't think I got my point across clearly (Hint>I edit a lot<). Thing is I recognize these flaws, and I work on them, but they are hard to change and while my temper I think has gotten better, many of these flaws remain with me today. Especially the worry over not clearly articulating my thoughts. That said, these have been dominant reoccurring flaws in my personality since I was little, and while I've learned to control a few of them and try to get out of my shell more, these traits will likely stay with me til I die. You ALL have traits you know are dominant and present in most of your life.

Know it or not, you demonstrate them very often here too. Each one of you could probably be summed up with a character trait if you asked your fellow BG mates, I'm sure each of them would line up to paint a clear picture of you.

Point is, If this hypothetical person Has a personality that lets other people walk all over them, to the point of becoming intimate with someone you do not wish to be and are completely incapable of preforming in social interactions, example given a college party, will likely retain this trait into adulthood unless they acknowledge and attempt to change it. You should all know this from just the bickering around here, social awkwardness rarely goes away on its own. It can, of course, not saying it can't. But this will effect them in many places in life, perhaps not speaking up to voice their opinion when they want too, or being looked over for a promotion for not standing out, or not asking someone out or getting out of a relationship because you don't have the power to speak up, or losing a business deal because they weren't as forceful as the competitor. Its not to say this will be true for absolutely everyone, but humans, all of us, have these defining personality traits. You can change some of them, with hard work, patience, and time... though often time outside help is needed and you absolutely need to acknowledge them as flaws.

But the problem is, By the unfortunately loud minority of Feminists' logic they do not want to change this about them as they do not see these or acknowledge them as flaws, they want others to change so they don't have too. If this is to be believed then these people will not acknowledge their shortcomings, and instead try to change the world around them to accommodate to their passive traits. Which is why they're trying to ban "Wage negotiations", because apparently statistically men are more forceful with their wage negotiation and therfor often times get higher wages, which is apparently sexist. "Yes mean Yes" is another example. "No means No" Is a perfectly fine law, if you don't want sex, tell them no, if they persist you have a case for rape. By changing it to "Yes means Yes" it means the person who is raped no longer requires the power or ability to assert themselves just enough to say "No", now all they have to do is simply not say yes, even if their body language and such leads the other on and they both have, at the time, consensual sex.

So by that line of thought alone the only way these hypothetical "women" feminists want us to believe exist to actually succeed in the real world, the real world would need to drastically change. But for real and I think people as missing this bit as mentioned in my first or second response... i don't think the Author believes these types of women exist, not in the large number feminists would have us believe, Its that Feminists paint these types of women as very common, common enough perfectly valid working laws and social behaviors should change to accommodate them. Microaggressions, banning certain "problematic" words, the two examples I gave above... so forth.

I think these types of womens we use as examples are very few and far between, and the ones who retain that level of social skill into adulthood are likely equally as low. It certainly does not apply to all women or people.

Summarizing it: Personality Traits are hard to change, and everyone has them. Its not impossible to change, nor do I think people in college don't have room to grow. but social anxiety and such are real problems that really exist, and psychology happens to be a thing too. But this is all about a hypothetical person that you people keep adding straws too so I can't cover all my bases here, sorry.

And for the record, I don't view quiet personality traits as an issue or a flaw, nor do I find passiveness a flaw. But letting people walk over you to the point you're being fucked by someone you want to say no too but don't have the courage, so your solution is to change the law from "No means No" to "Yes means Yes" so you can charge them with rape? Theres a flaw somewhere there.

If a guy makes poor decisions about when and where to use too much of a mind altering substance, he can be president. If a woman does though, she's not going to be a leader in the future.

Bruuuuuuuuh, really. Not a single person here has stated this other than you. In fact, There would be a vast, many of people who consider Bush to have been a shit president who made a lot of bad choices that cost many people their lives...

Frankly put man, he's the antithesis to your entire argument....

Here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...arge/77416928/

Was it raep?!

I heard about this on the radio.

Hopefully theres a bribery investigation because this smells like bullshit.

[Churchill]

The article is certainly written to make you think that.

[Gredival]

Actually, feminism did that all on its own by turning everything into rape

so now when we talk about rape we're talking about 1/4 women

I'd be more than happy to agree that my previous statements would have no merit if we actually took rape seriously; but rape is no longer exclusive to the violent physical overpowering and unwillful penetration of a person... so, welcome to the feminism thread indeed

Why should it be exclusive to violent and forceful unwilling penetration? Is there a problem with having a standard based on freely given consent and no meaning no?

I mean one obvious problem with your desired standard is that quid pro quo in the workplace wouldn't be rape despite being coercive, but it's problematic besides that. Do we want a society where people are supposed to be selling others on sex like used car salesmen? Nah she really wants it, I just gotta pitch it for the 20th time. Or where the goal is to go out and get someone hammered enough that they have no clue what they are doing simply so you can get your rocks off? I don't have to get someone to actually want to sleep with me, I just have to get them to start drinking.

And this is a problem that applies to both sexes. There's plenty of males that are raped, but male victims grossly under-report due to gendered notions of sex and victims (guess what that is... it's sexism!)