I hate feminazis

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed, just trying to make the point more obvious. I don't think the protective instinct can be said only to extend to prospective sexual partners, or it would have...disturbing implications for people who have saved children and the elderly. Now, the reaction may be more viscerally felt if it's an attractive woman in danger (for biological reasons), but it's not like anyone would say "I'll untie you from these train tracks, but only if you have sex with me. Boom! I win at evolution."

We aren't all that far come biologically from cave people, and the protect and provide tasks were probably handled primarily by men, so that's shaped our instincts. I'm not overcome by it, either. It's not like I give the women in my life all my money and then go club a seal for them to eat. It's more that the urge to comply is stronger when a woman is asking for something.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!! !



Seriously, I think most of my posts in social justice threads could be paraphrased that way.

That should be no worse morally than just leaving her tied to her death. Noöne has any obligation to save her, and she has the option of refusing to have sex with the man by rejecting his offer. In fact, if she considers him so morally abject, she should be proud to die rather than give him what he wants.

No I do not.

If you draw that conclusion as the only possibility based merely on what I said, then you aren't being expansive as far as deductive reasoning is concerned in that instance.

Clearly you want to find fault with something I said, label me as some kind of bigot rather then someone who likes to think about these things. Well be my guest I'm not going to humour you.

If you read the whole context, you would know why gender comes into it. We were talking about those to conform to gender stereotypes. She by own admission conforms to some gender stereotypes willingly. It has nothing to do with anything else.

If I thought you were a bigot, I'd say so. I'm just not sure of your evidence.

Well you accused me of thinking "that all women share her interest in glamour magazine", that would be pretty ignorant if it were true. Where did you draw that conclusion?

But I agree why not just give the benefit of the doubt? Offense is not always necessary.

When people say "that's telling" they are trying to insinuate the subject has backwards attitudes. I have been around long enough to know that.

I interpreted the above to be a description of women in general. If I've got that wrong, sorry. This all comes back to the "personality" comment, which I still don't fully understand. But what I'm hearing you suggest is that women's personalities are based on gender, which I don't agree with. Earlier you mentioned that some women choose to conform to female gender stereotyping. This is true. It seems like women go out of their way these days to sexualize their appearance. (Don't even get me started on yoga pants.) This really doesn't help to even the playing field. Doing up one's appearance this way seems so manipulative to me. Like a tease. The media reinforces it too. But I think it is a weakness to use one's sexuality to manipulate others.

Ok not a problem. I never made this point though.

The point about personalities was about individualism.

It is an interesting question thought from a neutral standpoint: How much personality is based on gender or anything?

The obvious hypothesis to make first is pretty much anything that goes into development and makeup may have some influence. This include imprinting, genetics, other congental factors, chaos, etc.

In order to test this we have to define what is meant by personality, which is not so easy. We can only really test accurately against something that can be properly defined.

Then we need to decide what we mean by gender. Are we talking physical traits, gender identity? Also that can be tricky becuase both are not always clear cut.

Also choice is different from personality, personality may influence choice but so may thing outside of out definition of choice.

My hunch is gender's influence varies, and it may be either direct or indirect influence. I would say the bulk of personally is not really to do with gender, but as gender may shape the personality to less or greater extent leading to certain preference.

However you could say almost the opposite, you could say that the personalty itself could influence gendered or stereotypical interests exclusive of gender.

It is really not clear, it would be a very difficult thing to find out.

QFT for Hippiepanda here!

OMG i been looking for such a vid for so long! She speaks the truth 100 fold!

There are others like that.

I think there is sometimes a perception of people who are critical of radical feminism, that they must be some country hicks or ultra-Conservative. When actually many of them had direct experience of these movements, they are liberal minded, but more in the classical sense.

"kill all men?" Seriously? That's hate language - I'm not even sure it would be allowed under Canada's hate speech laws. And "rape culture;" she's right when she says that anyone is vulnerable to rape. Male rape needs to be taken far more seriously than it currently is.

When I was in university there were a lot of feminists. Academia seems to attract this thinking. Personally I think feminism is old news. The feminists of today don't realize how bad things were in the past, they are taking up a banner that is no longer useful.

But feminism is not the only plague of university campuses ... the other I will call, "frat mentality." Otherwise known as PUAs. Rather than encouraging hormonally peaking males to engage as many women as possible, maybe they could spend some time learning that women offer more than a hole.

My view: feminism equaled the field, but with it came a loss. Women in previous generations have been valued as carers for children and other members of the family. They provided the food and held a respectable role in the family. Now women are in the workplace with men. Caring for the family rests in the hands of fast food and public education. Women are valued for the money they bring in and nothing else. Even sex is not special. It is available without commitment. To my mind, this makes the idea of family obsolete. If the only link between man and woman is earnings, then why bother?

The potential societal effects of feminism are interesting, in some ways we as a culture have progressed over the last 40-50 years but in others areas there as been a real regression so the question is are we as a people overall better off? Nobody can deny that there has been a disintegration of the American family and I don't think the dysfunction that has replaced it is better. I do not think we live in a healthy society, I do not think we live in a society that is sustainable, if ours does not change soon I do not think it will exist as we know it much longer.

Things seem to be in a state of flux ... interesting times, so to speak. Technology, health care and societal roles have changed so much in such a short time. The change has already happened, now it's a matter of acceptance and going in a positive direction.

I'm not sure acceptance is going to move us in a positive direction, I do not have much hope for the future of this country politically or socially. Western civilization seems to be in a state of almost total collapse, it will be washed away in a few generations by the rising tide of Asia and Africa. All the "progress" will be for naught; enlightenment, democracy, women's rights, what do these mean to those on the other side of the globe that will inherent this planet?