Thread: What's the issue with feminism?

Originally Posted by DorkdoltConservative

It can absolutely not increase standards or productivity because positive discrimination rewards people on the basis of sex, color, etc.

The problem is that you've destroyed your own argument by using the vocab positive discrimination. By definition, that refers to an attempt to remove inefficient discrimination. By definition, the law of large numbers will therefore inform us that productivity will increase. You may not like that, but you should have started by using terms correctly (rather than shooting yourself in the foot)

Perhaps that's what feminism really is about? Showing good sense!

Originally Posted by greatamerican128

First, a definition,

"feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm|
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."

-The Oxford Dictionary, 2nd Ed.

What is so controversial about that?

Feminism has brought us birth control, women's work protections against harassment, and progress towards equality with men in general. What's so horrible about these things?

Certainly, there are some "feminists" who tend to exaggerate problems with men and be hostile towards them, but they go beyond the standard definition of feminist; most feminists criticize patriarchy and how it favors men over women which fits the definition.


So, what's the problem with feminism?

For the last three years at this forum, I've watched a group of bitter, twisted men bashing women in this so-called 'Women's Rights' section. I think my understanding from reading the bitter, twisted posts, is that they don't want women to have ANY rights. Like subjugate them or some other dumb inane thing they rant about.

Profiles on these strange men:

One wants to take away a woman's right to vote... while ranting about lesbos feminzai commie BULLDUST!!

One wants to screw lots of women and call them sluts.

One claims date rape doesn't happen.

And then there's all those rape threads... where I've been horrified how some men blame women for being raped.

Backward, sexist, irrational TROLL posts.

Thank Christ it's 2012... and the hands of time will never revert.

Let them whine. They show themselves for the misery-guts people they are.

Perhaps the big bad feminists must make them feel insecure and threatened. Poor little diddums.

I'm over it. They really need to close this section. Let them bash women somewhere else. On a Men's Rights section. They can congregate there and whine in the wind to their hearts content.

Originally Posted by Gwendoline

For the last three years at this forum, I've watched a group of bitter, twisted men bashing women in this so-called 'Women's Rights' section. I think my understanding from reading the bitter, twisted posts, is that they don't want women to have ANY rights. Like subjugate them or some other dumb inane thing they rant about.

Profiles on these strange men:

One wants to take away a woman's right to vote... while ranting about lesbos feminzai commie BULLDUST!!

One wants to screw lots of women and call them sluts.

One claims date rape doesn't happen.

And then there's all those rape threads... where I've been horrified how some men blame women for being raped.

Backward, sexist, irrational TROLL posts.

Thank Christ it's 2012... and the hands of time will never revert.

Let them whine. They show themselves for the misery-guts people they are.

Perhaps the big bad feminists must make them feel insecure and threatened. Poor little diddums.

I'm over it. They really need to close this section. Let them bash women somewhere else. On a Men's Rights section. They can congregate there and whine in the wind to their hearts content.

There will always be idiots. For every man you just described there's an equivalent crazy feminist woman with just as dangerous opinions. What I'm concerned with in regards to feminism, is over correction and their sentimentalization of flat out wrong statistics...i.e. 76 cents to the dollar, some domestic abuse stats etc. I also despise the idea of quotas. Men and women are different, in certain jobs or industries there will never be true parity. I don't understand why we can't accept that.

If there's too many male secret service agents its a security threat and discrimination against women, if there are too many female nurses, it's because men aren't emotionally secure enough to be nurses. Not a very equal mindset, huh? Men and women will never occupy EXACTLY the same positions in society because they're different. The only way they can is with damaging and sick over correction. I also don't like how feminism doesn't address the blatant discriminatory divorce system in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Reiver

The problem is that you've destroyed your own argument by using the vocab positive discrimination. By definition, that refers to an attempt to remove inefficient discrimination. By definition, the law of large numbers will therefore inform us that productivity will increase. You may not like that, but you should have started by using terms correctly (rather than shooting yourself in the foot)

Perhaps that's what feminism really is about? Showing good sense!

You assume that there already is a discrimination going on (men being hired over woman because they're men) which is not true. Even if it was true "positive discrimination" would not increase productivity, it would only bring more injustice.

Originally Posted by DorkdoltConservative

You assume that there already is a discrimination going on (men being hired over woman because they're men) which is not true.

Actually you did! Positive discrimination, by definition, assumes the existence of negative discrimination. As I said, its an application of the theory of the second best. And, as I said, you shot yourself in the foot with your choice of vocab

Even if it was true "positive discrimination" would not increase productivity, it would only bring more injustice.

This makes no sense. Positive discrimination, by definition, will increase productivity and reduces injustice (as, whilst the 'first best' is unachievable, it reduces the impact of negative discrimination)

I'll give you my answers.

First, feminism has made the sexualization of women more possible than in the past. In the bad old days, you didn't go out of the house dressed in nothing but strategically placed strips of cloth. Why? Because most intelligent people knew that men would be tempted by a woman so dressed. Now we encourage girls at very young ages to do exactly that. 4-year olds dress like prostitutes, and women not only proudly dress like prostitutes, but go to bars and clubs in search of men and booze. It's a recipe for disaster. If I wanted my daughter to be raped, I'd dress her in "modern fashions" and send her to a "dance club" so that she could simulate sex acts with men while drunk. Then turn the guy down. He's going to be OK with that -- you've sent no "signals" other than humping his leg for the past 2 hours.

Second, feminism has put a huge wedge between men and women. In the past, while men and women were not equal, they didn't make this a cause for division. Guys had their things and girls had theirs. Guys played sports, drank whiskey, and talked politics over cigars. Women played bridge, had tea parties, and talked about kids. Men went to work, women kept the house. It was a partnership -- all of the things that needed doing got done, and the chores each person did weren't constantly argueing about how to get the man to load the dishwasher or how to get the woman to cut the grass. It wasn't political -- people did what they did. And I think that's a better way to run a family. The Feminist ideal is that women go to work as men do, and they split the chores down the middle -- except that this is impossible. Cutting the grass is hard work, so the guy works all day, cooks his own dinner and then goes and cuts the grass. It's not possible to split a houshold 50-50 and not have someone feel like they got the short end.

Third, feminism has destroyed families. Since both partners expect to be working, it's now pretty much impossible to raise a family on a single income. This makes kids a problem, rather than a joy. Since mom now has to work to make ends meet, she has two choices on the discovery that she's pregnant. First, she can put the child in daycare and let him be raised -- at best -- by carefully chosen strangers. Second, she can cut the families earning power in half by raising the child herself. Any other option essentially boils down to "not having the child" either by killing the child, or by giving him up for adoption. So this cuts into the population -- rather than try to have lots of kids because they want to, most Western families go out of their way NOT to have children. They may have a kid or two, but no more. Kids are a burden, not a joy, so you don't want a big family, because it would be too much trouble.

Fourth, it's led almost directly to the nanny states of the West. When men were in charge, they didn't expect that the government would come in and rescue them when something went wrong. That notion would have been seen as an insult. A man with any sort of dignity would avoid taking help. So we didn't have bail-outs, we had bankruptcies. We didn't have unemployment, you just got your lazy ass out of bed and went looking for a job -- any job -- so as to feed your own family. Now, a lot of beta males don't really even try to make it anymore. More men are content to be slackers.

Fifth, if you think illegals are driving down wages, what do you think essentially doubling the workforce did? Yeah, your wages are lower because you aren't just competing with men, but women. Yet all things being equal the woman gets hired more often then the man to prove that the company isn't sexist.

Sixth, it's lead to an abandonment of women's work fields. A smart woman in 1930 had a few choices -- teacher, nurse, or something like that. So the woman who today is in the boardroom cutting deals in 1930 would have been educating the children. That's why teachers suck now -- any woman of actual talent today goes into business and teaching is left to those women who are too stupid to get a job in business. Nurses were the same thing. Some very bright women were nurses before feminism -- basicly any woman who liked science in the 1940's was a nurse. So the nurses were smart. Now they're mostly the washouts of society -- people who literally can't do anything else. If they were smart they'd be in medical school, not nursing school.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Actually you did! Positive discrimination, by definition, assumes the existence of negative discrimination. As I said, its an application of the theory of the second best. And, as I said, you shot yourself in the foot with your choice of vocab


This makes no sense. Positive discrimination, by definition, will increase productivity and reduces injustice (as, whilst the 'first best' is unachievable, it reduces the impact of negative discrimination)

Just because i use the term positive discrimination to identify a type of discrimination doesn't mean i assume that the theory behind it is true.

Originally Posted by DorkdoltConservative

Just because i use the term positive discrimination to identify a type of discrimination doesn't mean i assume that the theory behind it is true.

Without the existence of discrimination it cannot be 'positive discrimination'. It is an exact term that refers to the second best. You probably meant to refer to AA, but got yourself all confused.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

What I'm concerned with in regards to feminism, is over correction and their sentimentalization of flat out wrong statistics...i.e. 76 cents to the dollar, some domestic abuse stats etc. I also despise the idea of quotas. Men and women are different, in certain jobs or industries there will never be true parity. I don't understand why we can't accept that.

I know about the discrimination and sexism in the past towards women in the workforce. We've come a long way from the days of women being discouraged from going to university but encouraged to go to secretarial school instead. I feel proud for teenage girls today to have so much scope and opportunity to go after the career they want and enjoy.

Men and women will never occupy EXACTLY the same positions in society because they're different. The only way they can is with damaging and sick over correction.

The society is changing. The positions in society are changing. It's not about over correction... it's about more and more women occupying greater, varying positions and roles in society. SOCIETY IS CHANGING.

Originally Posted by Reiver

Without the existence of discrimination it cannot be 'positive discrimination'. It is an exact term that refers to the second best. You probably meant to refer to AA, but got yourself all confused.

It seems that my only mistake is that i didn't put positive discrimination in quotes.