stirring the pot >:)

Post Reply New Topic

You see very few dames working in the construction industry (carpenters, plasterers, bricklayers, etc.). These jobs are much more male dominated than those listed by Jezebel. Yet, one never hears feminists whine about the lack of gals on building sites. Are the feminists tacitly conceding that ladies can't swing hammers as skillfully as the gents? Or, are feminists elitists who consider construction jobs to be beneath their dignity?

It's not that bad, guys. Other feminists have said way worse.

Well, now that the prescribed dose of memetic backside pain has been administered, lets look at a few statements from the article which caught my eye:

Part One: Why Feminism Has "Fem" in the Name, or, Why Can't We All Just Be Humanists?

Very good question. Unfortunately, the author actually fails to actually *answer* it (and introduces some odd Dr. Seuss/Freddy Krueger references, but let's try to stick to sanity).

I can easily think of groups that face more persecution and discrimination than women.
- Like the Ahmadiyya Muslims and the Ba'hai, who barely even have a right to live in several countries.
- Similarly, homosexuals in several Islamic and/or African countries.
- Or a multitude of political/ethnic groups at risk of genocide that no one in the West has even heard about.

Yet, all of these instances of discrimination and oppression on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status - to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - (and more recently, sexual orientation) are generally handled within the fundamental framework of human rights...

Oh, wait. Not all. *Feminism* needs its very own legal, political and scientific framework. Why?

Part Two: Why Claiming that Sexism Isn't Real Is a Sexist Thing to Say

... followed by *this* statement:

A classic. If there isn't a 50/50 gender representation within a given field, it must be due to discrimination, right?

Lets look at a more rigorous approach. If you want to assess actual gender inequality in a given profession, you will probably need to look at (at least) the following:

- Possible physical requirements necessary (this may be mostly irrelevant for pencil-pushers like myself, but essential for Air Force Pararescue, for instance)
- Possible gender differences in preference for that particular field of work
- The education necessary for the field (not just a crude measure of years, but the specific skills acquired. If you want to be a CEO, engineering > humanities.)
- Work experience (especially relevant for leadership positions. And once again, not just a crude measure of years, but specific experience)

Ideally, this would produce a "baseline" gender distribution in the applicant pool. On the basis of this baseline, one could compare the actual gender distribution in a field and evaluate if women were equally/over/under-represented in that field.

But apparently, feminism completely skips these steps (I guess the scientific method is patriarchal too, or something) and bases its conclusion on a crude measure of gender ratios in a specific field. That's just poor science, plain and simple.

Ruveyn, Sweetleaf was trying to get to the essence of what the author was stating. Sweetleaf never made the illogical statement. The author in the article did. Sweetleaf, you and I all agree on this. This would be a violation of the law of identity in logic.

conveniently ignores the measurable, glaring inequality in the homeless population, which is also dominated by men. To claim that there is no systemic inequality keeping men out of having a place to sleep at night is to claim that women (people like the author) are just naturally better.

That's like blaming LGBTs for the hatred and prejudice against them, and then claiming that that they must deserve it anyway.[/quote]
Come to think of it ... that's EXACTLY how bullies treat their victims - abusing them physically or socially (or both), and then claiming that their victims somehow deserved to be abused ... because if they didn't deserve it, they wouldn't be victims, right?



Feminism + Bullying = Pathetic

Last edited by Fnord on 02 Apr 2013, 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

True, but it more or less reinforces all the issues I see with feminism....Its not the idea of getting rid of systematic processes or laws or whatever that may limit womens oppurtunities or rights that I have a problem with. Its all the other crap that goes along with it just a couple examples:



Here the author goes on about how men are starting to make feminists hate them by feeling discriminated against or hated by women, well there are plenty of sexist women who discriminate against males....the author has no authority to claim no males have problems in their lives caused by such sexism as they very well could. But yeah not sure how its a social justice movement wanting to take the side of alienated and marginalized men even, when it worded in a way to further alienate males.




I think there is a difference between being mean and simply not liking someone, hell if I go to the store I might not like the cashier but that doesn't mean I should be mean to them..........I still should be civil and not cause any trouble. A female being 'mean' to a male isn't a woman just not liking them personally one doesn't have to be mean to people they don't like.

I wonder if the author feels that men should be mean to any woman they don't particularly like? and it's just them not liking that woman. No one has to like everyone, but people should still be civil.



Also I am confused, I am pretty sure the 'other minorities' include males.........yet it differentiates from them and 'men' perhaps we are referring to specific kinds of males than perhaps 'white' males. Well that has nothing to do with feminisim or oppression of females that would probaby have more to do with racism and issues surrounding that or depending on the area it could be there happens to be more white people per capita or whatever. Like I assume in Norway there's going to be less non-white people then where I live in Colorado where there's a more even mix of different ethnicities. I just don't see the term feminism as a good thing for a movement that claims to want to get rid of systematized gender inequalities as well as other sorts of systemized inequalities because well feminism indicates a focus on females and if the focus is not on females why call it feminism? Perhaps humanism is a better term.

Yeah pretty much, hence why I don't see what the author of the article is trying to solve by justifying hate towards males for being males, while at the same time denying the hatred even exists. It seems it can be summed up with 'join us feminists, so we don't hate you.' not a very good way to earn support.

Feminists to Men ... Christians to Gays ... Muslims to Infidels ... Republicans to everyone else ... "Become one of us, and we'll stop hating you!"

That is a good point, in my city when it comes to the homeless population there is a lot more help and resources for women in that position than there are for men.

Fields like garbage collection, street-cleaning, assembly lines, construction, yard maintenance, and busing tables ... I hear no female voices complaining that they're being kept out of these fields and others involving pure manual labor, only those complaining that they're not in management or leadership positions ... that require advanced maths and sciences ... which women generally avoid in high schools and universities as "too difficult".


A man has to be physically disabled, mentally ill, recovering from addiction, or an ex-convict to get "preferential" care as a homeless person.

A woman just has to be homeless.


Politicians see homeless women as victims of whatever made them homeless, while they consider homeless men as somehow deserving of their homeless condition. I know this because I was once homeless and experienced it first-hand, and I witness this kind of discrimination nearly every time I volunteer at the shelter. When a woman comes in, one of the first questions asked is "What happened to you?" When a man shows up, one of the first questions asked is "What did you do?"

The author's run of the mill smug BS is actually more worth addressing than the ravings of some crazy extremist.

That explains why feminists are so insistent on labeling anyone who believes in equality for both men and women but don't identify with the movement as feminists in denial. Because that's what the dictionary says right? The definition of feminism as a movement and an ideal are two separate things in the dictionary.

Just because people believe in egalitarian ideals doesn't mean they want to be part of the movement. Also, defining someone as a feminist implies that their beliefs revolve entirely around sexual equality so it's obviously not fitting to label someone a feminist when it isn't even their main interest.

I don't know who the author is supposed to be talking to but I assume it's not me just because I happen to be male. I was too TL:DR to get through the whole thing but I'm guessing the author is just asserting that the total amount/degree of discrimination against women on the basis of sex is still higher than that which goes the other direction, at least on a statistical basis, and that it's insulting to say things are equal or men are discriminated against just as much or more. I can agree with that point, at least partially, but the whole tone of arguing over who is the bigger victim, has had it worse, etc... is just bound to piss people off. If you haven't literally walked in someone else's shoes its ugly to have this attitude.

I believe the feminist position is that more girls would try to pursue maths and sciences further if they weren't discouraged by people trying to maintain the patriarchy. I have a friend who used to attend a girls school and she insists that most of the girls there wanted to be engineers and scientists. At my school, there are many ambitious girls who don't have the ability (particularly wanting to be doctors despite getting Cs in Biology) and the most gifted girls aren't so interested in STEM subjects (three are going to Oxbridge, to study Geography, Languages and PPE, so they clearly not dense). I am not sure how much evidence there is to support either position.

I think the entire article reeks of "The Culture of Victimhood."

I'm not sure why so many people are obsessed with defining themselves as "victims." Maybe they think being a "victim" of society is a free license to behave like a twat?

Anyway, "The Culture of Victimhood" can go get stuffed.

... martyr with an over-developed sense of entitlement?

Yes, I believe that THIS is true.