Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

How the Hell did you get that from what he said?

[Neonivek]

How the Hell did you get that from what he said?

Because "Vast Majority" this isn't Majority this is vast majority.

In order to obtain his statistic we have to create a situation where Men are poor but not oppressed. Since a situation where men are oppressed but not poor tends to hit women equally in amount.

So we need situations where men and women are both poor. Easy enough. Now we need to apply a situation where men wouldn't be oppressed but women would. The easiest way for this to happen is if the poor men were oppressing the poor women.

How could this be done? Simple, make it a Patriarchical society.

It is either that or I go by the assumption that these women are poor because they are oppressed. Which is easy enough to do, but it may not achieve "Vast majority" because of the socio-economic situations this creates when a large portion of a regions women are poor.

[misko27]

I see what's going on here.
 
Granorke thinks that feminism is biased against men. It isn't. In the same way Abolitionists weren't biased against whites. IF men were being judged based on theirsex negatively, ther would be a movement on that, but by and large women have it harder across the board. And that simply isn't okay. SO, you shout, WHAT ABOUT POOR PEOPLE THEN?!? YOU HATE POOR PEOPL! No. It is simply unacceptable that EVEN AMONGST POOR PEOPLE, women have it harder.
 
The only thing men have against them is, of course, Their expendapility.

[Neonivek]

The only thing men have against them is, of course, Their expendapility

Yep nothing. It isn't like men also have many of the same disadvantages women face except in a different and sometimes form.

Yep men sure have it great except for that whole expendability thing.

[Frumple]

... this has gone a sadly long way from, "What is love?"

Just... throwing that out there.

[Neonivek]

... this has gone a sadly long way from, "What is love?"

Just... throwing that out there.

I think it actually fits rather nicely

"Why don't women date nice guys?"

"BECAUSE MEN ARE SCUM! And WOMEN ARE SCUM! EVERYONE IS SCUM!

Now lets prove it ironically!"

This only goes into the topic of "Why do women like anyone? and why do men like anyone either?"

[misko27]

The only thing men have against them is, of course, Their expendapility

Yep nothing. It isn't like men also have many of the same disadvantages women face except in a different and sometimes form.

Yep men sure have it great except for that whole expendability thing.

Feminism is still focues on the economic and legal outlook, which is biased towards men, as well as the generral stereotypes.
 
 However, it doesn't mean there can't be a change in the "men shouldn't need help, so if they do, they deserve to die" versus the "women should always get help if needed". As mentioned, Hyper-masculinity hurts men too.

EDIT: ALSO., RELEVANT

[Neonivek]

The problem is Misko27 is that there is such a strong perception that women have it so bad that even talking about any issue men face is tentamount to being sexist.

It is why discussions on the double standard tend to only give lip service to males if at all. It is why men are often considered completely incapable of understanding women and any of their issues even if it is something perfectly relatable.

[misko27]

The problem is Misko27

I disagree with this highly.

/joke

[Neonivek]

The problem is Misko27

I disagree with this highly.

I would go further and say that the ONLY time a "Man's" issue is brought up is when it indirrectly or dirrectly affects a woman.

It is the only context in which it can be applied without allegations of sexism.

Everytime I turn on a comedy channel and hear "What all men want" and "What all men think" and I want to smack the comedian is immense... and the kicker is... Everyone believes it. If they don't believe it, they believe it is an acceptible statement to make.

[Tack]

^ I love that you're opinionated.
Don't use that as an excuse to rampantly leapfrog-post.
Nobody likes that.

As far as I saw it, Feminism related to elevation of females, and Chauvinism related to the elevation of males.

There is actually a word that is the opposite of Chauvinism and it isn't feminism but I can never remember the word. Chauvinism is about the clear supperiority of males.

Feminism can be anywhere from women being supperior to being equals.

Actually you're wrong. Feminism is actually related to, elevating women, yes.
Chauvinism is actually 'a blind bias towards a certain party'. It's just taken on the connotations of being entirely related to men now.
You may be thinking of Misogyny, which is just a hatred of women.

Isn't it funny that there isn't actually a word for people who want the elevation of men in society.

With that in mind, I say that I am an anti-feminist.
It is true that women were victimized in the past. But I feel that now, with the past and current changes that are happening, women have just as many rights as men do (Regarding, of course, first world countries). Don't believe me? Ask the Australian Prime Minister.

However, that in mind, in developing countries, and countries with religion-based laws, there is definitely a lack of women's rights. Men, as a whole, are stronger and faster than women, and also, again on average, have a vastly lower sense of empathy. That combination means that rape is almost certainly going to occur in places of lawlessness. Civility is unfortunately hard to come by. However, people are making efforts to fix this, and I believe that we have no right to decree how another country governs its own people. If it's inhumane enough, there would be a revolution, and then first world countries would have the right to meddle in their affairs.


My points here are all pretty fuzzy and badly worded, but that's what I feel. I'm not apathetic about gender-equality, i just feel that in places like Australia, America and the UK, there's no real threat of forced female subservience (unless it's SSC). I'm not sure about other first world countries, as I'm not geographically knowledgeable, but I assume that it isn't a problem there either.

[misko27]

^ I love that you're opinionated.
Don't use that as an excuse to rampantly leapfrog-post.
Nobody likes that.

As far as I saw it, Feminism related to elevation of females, and Chauvinism related to the elevation of males.

There is actually a word that is the opposite of Chauvinism and it isn't feminism but I can never remember the word. Chauvinism is about the clear supperiority of males.

Feminism can be anywhere from women being supperior to being equals.

Actually you're wrong. Feminism is actually related to, elevating women, yes.
Chauvinism is actually 'a blind bias towards a certain party'. It's just taken on the connotations of being entirely related to men now.
You may be thinking of Misogyny, which is just a hatred of women.

Misko can vouch for this. Stalin was known as the "great Russian Chaivanist" during his time as director as minority affairs. Oddly he was a Georgian.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

-snip-

You would argue such a thing when the United States is in the midst of a Republican political movement that has been named the War on Women?

[Tack]

Oh man, it's a shame the Republican party got into power.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's mostly a state thing, and there are lots of states where the Republican party is in power.

And furthermore, it's not like the Republicans being in power is some remote possibility. They're one of our two major political groups!

Even if they are on the losing side, you can't make the argument that this is totally not an issue when this kind of thing is present in the mainstream.