Jump to content

Equality v. Feminism

Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

There is, (at least as I feel it). At the very heart of feminism, a certain revulsion of men. Do you differ equality of sexes from feminism?

Share this post


Link to post

Feminism is the idea that women are better than men... Never been any different.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

I consider feminism just as bad as machism. True equality is the way to go.

''Almost everything–all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure–these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.'' - Steve Jobs

Share this post


Link to post

True equality is hard to do... I know that many aren't equal to me, and I am not equal to many others.

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a great Polish movie, called "Sex Mission" which shows what happens when an idea (of feminism) is turned into an ideology:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/

 

It's absolutely hilarious but very witty and clever at the same time.

 

Unfortunately, I can only find Polish and Russian versions on YouTube, but there are DVDs with English subtitles available on Amazon...

 

Regards

Share this post


Link to post

When will humanity finally come together in a spirit of understanding and realize the fundamental truth that you are all equal...ly inferior to me?

He just kept talking and talking in one long incredibly unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic so that no one had a chance to interrupt it was really quite hypnotic...

Share this post


Link to post
True equality is hard to do... I know that many aren't equal to me, and I am not equal to many others.

Yeah, that's why it seems utopical for lots of people but it's not that hard once you acknowledge we are kind of the same in the primal way we say all animals are just "animals" people are just monkeys who think they deserve more because they perform better at different tasks. Men are monkeys, in a group of primates there's always an alpha monkey who is beefier than the others but if you look at the big picture, you see just a group of damn monkeys.

 

I think pretty much the same way with humans. You can group a bunch of people, some better than others in some things and some pretty dull does and etc but at the end they're just a group of people. Masses. And anyone who thinks they're not a mass belongs to the mass that doesn't think it's a mass.

 

It has been proven that men and women's brains are very different and one excels the other in different tasks but in the end, they're just people.

''Almost everything–all external expectations, all pride, all fear of embarrassment or failure–these things just fall away in the face of death, leaving only what is truly important.'' - Steve Jobs

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with equality is that it will never be achievable because of our instinctual hard-wiring. From my standpoint, women actually get a LOT of breaks. 99% of people think hitting a woman is morally wrong (not an actual statistic, just a generalization). Women are not frowned upon for taking up jobs or hobbies that are traditionally occupied by men, but the opposite is not even near true.

 

Men are naturally conceived as the strong, bread-winning protector of a family, while women are seen as the infrastructure of te family. It's been that way since before Homo Erectus speciated, and there's not much you can do to change millions of years of genetic code and social thought.

Life is just a time trial; it's all about how many happy points you can earn in a set period of time

Share this post


Link to post

I really do not like the equality talk that people obsess over. The reality is that we are not all equal. On an individual level, some are smarter than others. On certain demographics, some are smarter than others. An example of that would be lower class Britain. Thomas Sowell made an interesting argument, the reason that a lot of them can't even multiply 9x7 is because they make a victim of themselves. Same with the African Americans. A lot of them are poor, but could it be because they always play themselves out to be the victims? Could this give people incentive to not work their absolute hardest?

 

So I really do not like to see any demographic make themselves the victim. It will do nothing good for that group. I am talking of course about feminism. Women have always had the opportunity to work in the factories. They really had to do it during the industrial revolution. So the quality of life soon rose and women were able to stay and home and tend to the kids, who also didn't have to work. This is a better life. We are now at the point in time again where women usually have to work in most families. So why women would want equality to men is beyond me, they have had it for a while. The feminists of today want supremacy.

 

Another thing I would add is that there are physical differences between men and women. Men have more upper body strength. Adding women to the military would require lowering the standards of men. In a combat situation, if someone is hit by a bullet, it is required that he is carried out. Most women can't carry a 190 pound man for 100 or more yards. This lowers combat effectiveness, and would result in more deaths. Also, in the army you have to dedicate in front of others, in bags and bottles. Very difficult for women. Women are only good for defensive combat, like the IDF.

Share this post


Link to post
Another thing I would add is that there are physical differences between men and women. Men have more upper body strength. Adding women to the military would require lowering the standards of men. In a combat situation, if someone is hit by a bullet, it is required that he is carried out. Most women can't carry a 190 pound man for 100 or more yards. This lowers combat effectiveness, and would result in more deaths. Also, in the army you have to dedicate in front of others, in bags and bottles. Very difficult for women. Women are only good for defensive combat, like the IDF.

 

I can't agree with this. Upper body strength is not required to carry a person. You "fireman carry" a person (over the shoulder) so all the weight is on the back and legs. Considering military personnel are thoroughly conditioned and trained REGARDLESS of sex, a woman in the forces would easily be able to carry someone. 100 yards, by the way, is nowhere near how far you have to carry a downed soldier. You simply have to get him to cover, continue the firefight, and wait for a med evac.

 

Also, I'm a man and I have less upper body strength than a lot of women, but I have very strong legs (squat 450+ lbs).

 

As far as your second to last statement, I'm assuming you meant "defecate," and that's just ridiculous. Unless you're in a multi-day battle, there are portable bathrooms at any and all bases. And when it's THAT necessary to relieve yourself in the field, no sane human would have a second thought about dropping a load wherever needed.

 

Honestly, what you wrote there comes off as VERY sexist and ignorant.

Life is just a time trial; it's all about how many happy points you can earn in a set period of time

Share this post


Link to post

I can't agree with this. Upper body strength is not required to carry a person. You "fireman carry" a person (over the shoulder) so all the weight is on the back and legs. Considering military personnel are thoroughly conditioned and trained REGARDLESS of sex, a woman in the forces would easily be able to carry someone. 100 yards, by the way, is nowhere near how far you have to carry a downed soldier. You simply have to get him to cover, continue the firefight, and wait for a med evac.

 

Also, I'm a man and I have less upper body strength than a lot of women, but I have very strong legs (squat 450+ lbs).

 

As far as your second to last statement, I'm assuming you meant "defecate," and that's just ridiculous. Unless you're in a multi-day battle, there are portable bathrooms at any and all bases. And when it's THAT necessary to relieve yourself in the field, no sane human would have a second thought about dropping a load wherever needed.

 

Honestly, what you wrote there comes off as VERY sexist and ignorant.

 

Women are physically weaker than men. There are exceptions of course, since it is a bell curve. The "Fireman Carry" is still extremely difficult for a woman lifting a 190 lb person. And I said AT LEAST 100 yards. That would kill most women. For the sake of equality I guess you are okay if he just dies. What you are essentially asking for is to lower the standards so women can get into the military. If you didn't lower the standards then you same people would be complaining that there are no women in the military. People who cant lift other people shouldn't be in the military. I don't care about your anecdotal fallacies, women have about an average 45% less upper body strength alone, let alone legs and arms.

 

If you didn't know, in the army you are expected to piss in bottles while driving. There are no bathroom breaks, and they drive for long distances. It is the modern era, mobile warfare is the thing. And when you are not shitting in MRE bags you are still with the rest of the men squatting, shitting, and moving on. It is not the appropriate place for a woman. What the fuck, you look at a battle field, lets say in the harshest conditions like Stalingrad or Leningrad and you think women should be fighting there? The fucking dogs don't even stay there. You can look at Iraq and think a woman could fare well in there, but war is hell. You are talking about killing other people. Death, murder, shell shock. I'm not a white knight, I just think that it is no place for a woman.

 

I'm not the ignorant one here. You are the one who is ignoring reality for the sake of equality.

Share this post


Link to post

Interestingly, both feminists and masochists, no, machoists, err, no... whateva...

 

Anyway, they all like to resort to a strawman argument, which they then dramatically demolish to prove their respective points. Even more interesting is that they use the same strawmen in the process.

 

It's usually about the numerical equality - the feminists would claim that you must have parity in numbers in any and every aspect of human affairs in order to achieve equality, regardless of objective differences between genders. The anti-feminists (like Akeuw here) would claim that, because of these obvious objective differences, the numeric parity - and therefore the equality - isn't possible and would be undesirable even if it was.

 

They are both totally wrong, of course, because equality is not about numerical parity. It's about equal treatment of males and females with all other factors being equal.

 

In the case of Akeuw's mobile sanitary unit the fact that there are fewer women meeting the body size/strength requirements does not matter at all. What matters is would a woman who meets the all requirements have an equal chance to be selected?

 

So, when you remove that pseudo-equality strawman (in this case the woman-candidate is as strong and skilled as men and no lowering of standards is needed), then it's down to the ridiculously unconvincing "can't piss in a bottle" thing (hint: they can, Akeuw, they can :-P ).

 

As to whether we have equality now - no, clearly we have not. And I am not talking about how many women are allowed to beat the crap out of men in front line army units. But when you have a woman doing the same job as a man but paid 30% less for that - I believe that it's not right. And contrary to Akeuw's another suggestion, I do not think that this is because the woman in question has spoiled her own chances by being in a "victim mentality" funk, either.

 

Regards

 

P.S. "What the fuck, you look at a battle field, lets say in the harshest conditions like Stalingrad or Leningrad and you think women should be fighting there?" - this really made me wonder, are you jesting? Of all theatres of war, the Russian front in WWII and these cities in particular are the prime examples of untold number of women fighting alongside men on the front-line. And a huge %% of sanitars and corpsmen in the Soviet Army were women as well...

Share this post


Link to post
But when you have a woman doing the same job as a man but paid 30% less for that - I believe that it's not right. And contrary to Akeuw's another suggestion, I do not think that this is because the woman in question has spoiled her own chances by being in a "victim mentality" funk, either.

 

Actually when you look at per hour women make more. It is a matter of how much you work.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, you absolutely disregard the concept of training. To pass US Army basic training, you have to run I believe 2 miles in 15 minutes with a 50 lb duffle bag on your back. You also have a weight lifting routine you have to do.

 

And in case you weren't aware (considering the "let alone legs..." statement), the lower body strength of a woman is typically MUCH greater than her upper body.

 

You're also making a lot of hollow statements with no backup:

It is not the appropriate place for a woman. What the fuck, you look at a battle field, lets say in the harshest conditions like Stalingrad or Leningrad and you think women should be fighting there? The fucking dogs don't even stay there. You can look at Iraq and think a woman could fare well in there, but war is hell.

 

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. War is hell, yes. What makes that unsuitable for a woman who wants to be there? How is any of that statement true? Prove me wrong. Use some actual evidence.

 

You have it in your mind that a woman just isn't capable of going to the bathroom in public when it's necessary. Why? Is she mentally incapable? All women are too shy to relieve themselves

in front of someone else? How can you even begin to prove that?

 

All in all, that counterargument you used there, no matter how many swears and rhetorical questions you use, was unbelievably idiotic. You sound like a toddler who was just told Santa Claus isn't real. Your spewing illogical garbage at me after I gave you factual information. I'm no feminist. I simply believe that any person who wants to do something should be allowed to do that so long as they are physically and mentally capable. You obviously aren't close with many women, because I think you'll find they're much stronger (both mentally and physically) than you seem to believe.

 

By the way Vap, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that post. It's always mentally refreshing to read something produced by someone with good debating skills and an intellect to match.

Life is just a time trial; it's all about how many happy points you can earn in a set period of time

Share this post


Link to post

I must say, as a man who thinks women are superior, that feminism is often confused with masandry (don't know if I spelt that right). Feminism is the idea to make all sexes equal not just through laws, but also socially and economically. For example: there are laws in place that basically say this: John (a man) has a master's degree, no publications, is a third year college professor he is paid $50,000 therefore Mary (a woman) who has a master's degree, no publications, and is a third year college professor must be paid the same: $50,000. Of course this is one example and it's far more complex than that but the idea is the same. Now what isn't the same is how often John and how often Mary actually reach said position. It is much harder to fight subtle discrimination than clear-cut discrimination. That is a huge reason feminism exists: to change the way sexes are viewed not just by law, but also socially. Now there are gaps in this argument along with assumptions but I hope what I'm trying to say is clear

100% is going to be a cut-rate clown

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.