Feminists

[Eratosthenes]

What is the true answer then? There is none. Our bodies are against us in terms of equality. Equality can only exist in the absence of discrimination. People will not ever not discriminate. Equality cannot exist beyond abstract thought in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of equality among all people. I don't think feminism is wrong per se. But the equality they desire is impossible. The best thing a feminist can hope for is that the tables turn, and men become the oppressed group.

Ignore your body as best as you can; we all look the same to a blind person.

[Kohan]

Plus...unlike physical strength a man can actually train to be near as flexible as a woman, where a woman can't train and attain anywhere near the strength of a man.

What?

Obviously this thread has already gone into great detail about the differences between the amount of muscle mass men can build versus women, so no need to retread that ground, but seriously?

I guess female body builders don't exist, then.

[Darus Grey]

What?

Obviously this thread has already gone into great detail about the differences between the amount of muscle mass men can build versus women, so no need to retread that ground, but seriously?

I guess female body builders don't exist, then.

It's a good thing body-building is about physical strength! Otherwise...oh...wait.

That's also ignoring that most those women in body-building are...modified...

[Lujei]

It's a good thing body-building is about physical strength! Otherwise...oh...wait.

That's also ignoring that most those women in body-building are...modified...

And the men aren't?

[Kohan]

It's a good thing body-building is about physical strength! Otherwise...oh...wait.

That's also ignoring that most those women in body-building are...modified...

If that was supposed to be a retort, the first half of it doesn't make any sense, and the second isn't important. You said it's impossible for a woman to train and attain strength near a man's. You didn't set any special conditions.

[Septimus]

The funny part about this thread is that all of the guys arguing about how men are stronger than women and that flexibility is so much less important just goes to prove the point of feminists.

Just pointing it out.

[Darus Grey]

If that was supposed to be a retort, the first half of it doesn't make any sense, and the second isn't important. You said it's impossible for a woman to train and attain strength near a man's. You didn't set any special conditions.

You obviously know nothing about bodybuilding if you think it's about obtaining physical strength...because the strongest people in the world certainly are not body builders.

The funny part about this thread is that all of the guys arguing about how men are stronger than women and that flexibility is so much less important just goes to prove the point of feminists.

Just pointing it out.

I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that flexibility comes into play more often(not you, but in general), which is all I was saying, it's a bad example.

[Metah]

In before "It's so hard to be white!".

"us" vs. "them" mentality. I never said it was hard, I just said it always feels like my group is receiving the most hate from everybody else. Its just a feeling.

I find myself much more relaxed by personally believing every person is decent...

Likewise, if someone bumps into me while I'm out and about, I don't mind them; I've had times where I was too pre-occupied to apologize and continued along my way.

I also beleive that every person is inherently good and that every person can contribute to society. I do not beleive every person's beleifs in every regard are reasonable. I also never said anything about treating people poorly or well based on what grouping you give them. From the way you type your post, using only the word "someone" or "them", you're trying to make the assertion that you do not view any sort of groups. Is that really the case? Or were you just not paying attention when you bumped into a person, and did not even look to see who they were? Or they didn't say anything so you associate them to either a male or female group? Or the driver who cut you off, maybe you just didn't care to look at who that person was? If you cannot gather any information on the person from any of your senses, you cannot group them, so you resort to just a general "person". As such, you just treat this neutral object as good. This is not a bad thing, but you are simply excluding all information.

What if the driver who cut you off was a blonde girl in her 20s? Or a teenage boy driving a red car? Or a grey haired woman or man? I don't think you are lying when you would say "this person is a good person", regardless of who they are. I don't think you are lying when you said you wouldn't be mad if any of these people cut you off. But you would notice the difference between them, and you would assign them to a group and certain traits of that group.

"Old people drive slow and make lots of mistakes despite their experience because they are old. They just cut me off by mistake because they are old". "Young guys, especially those who drive red cars, are more aggresive and stupid on the road. He probably just didn't care and cut me off". "She is a young woman driver, she is inexperienced or she is just dumb and did not pay attention to other cars on the road. She cut me off because she wasn't looking". Whether or not any of these thoughts are true for any of the people in this scenario doesn't matter. Are you saying that, without any knowledge of the person except for what happened, you would not think at least one of these things? Would you not create a response based on that thought? I doubt it greatly.

I don't group people; I consider them to be, well, people.

I am sure you do. I would not have typed that huge wall-o-text above if you had not said this. You do group people. You group people, objects, and intangible concepts based on how they are alike. All people do this, except in some cases of something like, people who have an underdeveloped brain or suffer brain damage.

Ignore your body as best as you can; we all look the same to a blind man.

This is true. But looks are only one factor.

[Kohan]

I also beleive that every person is inherently good and that every person can contribute to society. I do not beleive every person's beleifs in every regard are reasonable. I also never said anything about treating people poorly or well based on what grouping you give them. From the way you type your post, using only the word "someone" or "them", you're trying to make the assertion that you do not view any sort of groups. Is that really the case? Or were you just not paying attention when you bumped into a person, and did not even look to see who they were? Or they didn't say anything so you associate them to either a male or female group? Or the driver who cut you off, maybe you just didn't care to look at who that person was? If you cannot gather any information on the person from any of your senses, you cannot group them, so you resort to just a general "person". As such, you just treat this neutral object as good. This is not a bad thing, but you are simply excluding all information.

What if the driver who cut you off was a blonde girl in her 20s? Or a teenage boy driving a red car? Or a grey haired woman or man? I don't think you are lying when you would say "this person is a good person", regardless of who they are. I don't think you are lying when you said you wouldn't be mad if any of these people cut you off. But you would notice the difference between them, and you would assign them to a group and certain traits of that group.

"Old people drive slow and make lots of mistakes despite their experience because they are old. They just cut me off by mistake because they are old". "Young guys, especially those who drive red cars, are more aggresive and stupid on the road. He probably just didn't care and cut me off". "She is a young woman driver, she is inexperienced or she is just dumb and did not pay attention to other cars on the road. She cut me off because she wasn't looking". Whether or not any of these thoughts are true for any of the people in this scenario doesn't matter. Are you saying that, without any knowledge of the person except for what happened, you would not think at least one of these things? Would you not create a response based on that thought? I doubt it greatly.

No, I don't do those things. I've read many stories of physically fit and extraordinarily aware elderly people, so why would I automatically assume all of them are senile and helpless? I've driven sports cars myself, but not necessarily recklessly; why am I going to assume someone else who's driving one is naturally careless? I started driving when I was fifteen years old, and attained a certification in addition to a "Safe Driver" notation on my license; why does youth necessarily indicate a lack of ability?

However, many people in my life are already aware of my not grouping people and often call it weird. I've never been that way. When I was a child and I watched sitcoms, I didn't think most of them were funny. Instead, I sat there and thought, "why does that kid act badly? Why don't they listen to their parents? Why did they do that?"

My mind has always balanced people out. For every stereotypical classification someone can come up with, I can come up with an argument. It especially happens a lot in my current area of residence, Los Angeles, where I overheard people making derogatory comments about Mexicans for being stupid or what have you. I've often replied to that, "Someone from Mexico in casual clothes could be a university graduate but not speak English, and you wouldn't even know." After all, it's true; you don't know how they really are without knowing the person.

I accept that this doesn't sound normal, as I know it isn't normal and I've been told this many times. I've even had people yell at me for not getting mad and being too accepting of others, as apparently it's better to adhere to stereotypes and not be objective. Surely it helps that my mother raised me without instilling any stereotypes in me, including telling me to follow whatever religion I wanted to, letting me do whatever I wanted to for sports and hobbies and other things, and so on.

I group people as people, sure, but I don't often truly and deeply think terrible things of them or make deorgatory associations.

[Septimus]

I don't see how anyone could seriously claim that flexibility comes into play more often(not you, but in general), which is all I was saying, it's a bad example.

How often in your daily life do you have to use your full physical strength? In office work and even retail/service industry work, people generally do not have to lift more than 50 pounds. (Since more than that risks physical injury/workman's comp claims.) Sure, jobs like construction or sports will be more physically demanding, but how many people on a video game forum are construction workers or professional athletes? Besides, my step-mother worked road construction for nearly two decades, she was able to shovel asphalt and work a sledgehammer like the men. (And she was in better shape than most of them.) That doesn't mean that men or women are better than anyone else, just that we should let people do jobs on their merit.

[Darus Grey]

How often in your daily life do you have to use your full physical strength? In office work and even retail/service industry work, people generally do not have to lift more than 50 pounds. (Since more than that risks physical injury/workman's comp claims.) Sure, jobs like construction or sports will be more physically demanding, but how many people on a video game forum are construction workers or professional athletes? Besides, my step-mother worked road construction for nearly two decades, she was able to shovel asphalt and work a sledgehammer like the men. (And she was in better shape than most of them.) That doesn't mean that men or women are better than anyone else, just that we should let people do jobs on their merit.

Well the honest answer is almost never..but strength is not an absolute value.

If you're carrying around even just 10-20lbs(like if you're a heavy business traveler), the stronger you get, the lighter it feels to carry it around. My claim isn't that being able to move hundreds of pounds on a daily basis is normal, but more strength is better even if the task you're using it for hasn't change. My point isn't about gender equality, just that saying flexibility is the equal counter-point to strength is just wrong. Strength has implications on every facet of moving your body in daily life and flexibility isn't that important(normally) outside the flexibility needed to move normally.

[Kohan]

How often in your daily life do you have to use your full physical strength? [...] That doesn't mean that men or women are better than anyone else, just that we should let people do jobs on their merit.

He's arguing semantics, you might not want to waste your time.

[Churchill]

Hi everyone I know of an example that totally blows logic out of the water because a few anomalies mean that your reason and science are dumb! (Not necessarily at Septimus)

Also, bodybuilding isn't about strength and both sides are taking steroids.

And, I think the vaginification of "work" makes it pretty easy for women to do almost any job there is, and beyond that if they are qualified for the job they shouldn't be glossed over in their application. To give a job to a man or a woman who isn't qualified, or to change their pay unduly, is wrong. To deny the fact that there are jobs that women can't do, is silly. To force certain jobs to make room for women when there is no need or their presence would detriment the whole is also silly. I'm thinking "GI Jane" here, which was Hollywood bullshit anyway lol.

[Darus Grey]

He's arguing semantics, you might not want to waste your time.

So are you...so is everyone....all speech is semantical.

[Kohan]

Also, bodybuilding isn't about strength and both sides are taking steroids.

I know this also, but of course it's silly to say that a woman who bodybuilds isn't stronger than an everyday man who doesn't. Because of the physical training involved, a bodybuilder is certainly stronger than someone who doesn't do muscle training or anything remotely similar.

That's why I said he's merely arguing semantics, and it gets back to the whole matter of things being situational rather than universal, despite the fact--as also aforementioned--that men can obviously build greater muscle mass and are, by default you could say, stronger than women.

It's wrong to say it's impossible for a woman to come anywhere close to having the strength of a man, thus my argument. Semantics are irrelevant, it's not impossible or nearly impossible, it isn't as if men are the Incredible Hulk and all women are pitiful fairies.

[Metah]

No, I don't do those things. I've read many stories of physically fit and extraordinarily aware elderly people, so why would I automatically assume all of them are senile and helpless? I've driven sports cars myself, but not necessarily recklessly; why am I going to assume someone else who's driving one is naturally careless? I started driving when I was fifteen years old, and attained a certification in addition to a "Safe Driver" notation on my license; why does youth necessarily indicate a lack of ability?

I never said any of those things are true. Its just that they are common groupings people make with any kind of person who is driving any vehicle. And yes, we all know that there are plenty of examples as to how any of those examples I gave are not true, etc etc. My sister is the best driver I know, she's 25. However, when you say you make absolutely no groupings whatsoever, I am inclined to not beleive you.

My mind has always balanced people out. For every stereotypical classification someone can come up with, I can come up with an argument. It especially happens a lot in my current area of residence, Los Angeles, where I overheard people making derogatory comments about Mexicans for being stupid or what have you. I've often replied to that, "Someone from Mexico in casual clothes could be a university graduate but not speak English, and you wouldn't even know." After all, it's true; you don't know how they really are without knowing the person.

It is good to think like that, but many people do not. This is why inequality will always exist. A person cannot be bothered to know how every person they encounter in every situation actually is. So they make groupings and assign certain traits to those groupings, and respond to each different group differently.

I've even had people yell at me for not getting mad and being too accepting of others, as apparently it's better to adhere to stereotypes and not be objective.

It is good that you are accepting. I hope you are not misunderstanding my intentions with my posts here.

I group people as people, sure, but I don't often truly and deeply think terrible things of them or make deorgatory associations.

That's all I needed to hear.

[Darus Grey]

I know this also, but of course it's silly to say that a woman who bodybuilds isn't stronger than an everyday man who doesn't. Because of the physical training involved, a bodybuilder is certainly stronger than someone who doesn't do muscle training or anything remotely similar.

That's why I said he's merely arguing semantics, and it gets back to the whole matter of things being situational rather than universal, despite the fact--as also aforementioned--that men can obviously build greater muscle mass and are, by default you could say, stronger than women.

It's wrong to say it's impossible for a woman to come anywhere close to having the strength of a man, thus my argument. Semantics are irrelevant, it's not impossible or nearly impossible, it isn't as if men are the Incredible Hulk and all women are pitiful fairies.

And I'm the one arguing "Semantics"? lol, apparently the only problem you had with my statement was that I used a down-ward entailing statement as opposed to up-wards...even though they have the same semantic inclusions and the cognitive implication is the same. Of course...I wouldn't want to argue semantics(I at least know what semantics are...and body-building).

Fine, the strongest woman can't rival the strongest man, their maximums aren't close. We now have a explicit clear statement. Happy?

[Kohan]

That's all I needed to hear.

It's essentially what I meant to say earlier when I said "I don't group people; I consider them to be, well, people"--that just wasn't being clear on my part, really. You could essentially say that I don't break it down into smaller groups, unless someone gives me a reason to through direct interaction with me.

Summing it up: I don't judge a book by its cover. Sometimes, I don't even judge it by the first few pages. But after I've waded in a bit and it's clear its tone is not changing, I know whether or not I'm going to like it and I make my decision: carry on or walk away.

[Kohan]

And I'm the one arguing "Semantics"? lol

The reason I got into semantics was because your response required it. I'd have preferred not to, but apparently my lack of thorough explanation in the beginning was not sufficient.

Fine, the strongest woman can't rival the strongest man, their maximums aren't close. We now have a explicit clear statement. Happy?

Yes, that's much better.

[Metah]

I wonder if any of these serious discussion topics actually changes what anyone thinks here, or at least makes them look at it on a different light?

What the fuck its 4:18 AM already? INTERNET ARGUMENTS YOU'VE SCREWED ME AGAIN