Print

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

[Neonivek]

. . . Pseudoscience?  Really?

I'll thank you again for defining feminism for us.

That is because there is no ONE feminism. there are plenty of Pseudo science feminisms.

No one but the blind is unaware of the pseudoscientific feminisms that are based on assumptions asserted to be true with flimsy untested science to prove it.

There are plenty of real genuine feminisms out there.

[Willfor]

On that note, I am done talking to Neon.

[Neonivek]

On that note, I am done talking to Neon.

I've already made my point. I've supported it and defended it.

I won't ever let sexism slide EVER! I don't care if a man or woman is the one who is doing it.

. Institutionally backed, oppressive stereotyping and discrimination based on gender

The "men cannot receive sexism" school is type b., which is said mostly in order to allay arguments that men and women are undergoing things with the same impact.  See unfair hiring practices, etc., blah blah blah

Yes but we already established that even within School B there are institutionally backed sexism towards men.

What Gail is talking about is a more general overall approach. In otherwords nothing can be sexist towards males, as she defines sexism, because men have the advantage over women overall... and that sexism is just the existence of that divide.

If women were more advantaged then men overall. It would fall under Gail's definition of sexism.

Which isn't exactly school B which can divide it.

I will say that I greatly disagree with Gail in using that as a definition because it is very transitory and that it doesn't allow an understanding of how prejudice towards one group (Males) can influence them to thusly be sexist towards another (females) because it is entirely geared towards one. It is a lot like when economics was only Demand or Supply before they found out that Demand and Supply were two parts of a complete picture.

[Nadaka]

I am with Neonivek on this. There is no excuse for sexism, no matter who is performing it or who the victim is.

[Scoops Novel]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself. Vector, despite the possible needlessness of Neovinek's posts, he was including the fringes of feminism, reasonable given the spokesperson. Unless someone has something fresh to contribute, moving on.

[Neonivek]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself. Vector, despite the possible needlessness of Neovinek's posts, he was including the fringes of feminism, reasonable given the spokesperson. Unless someone has something fresh to contribute, moving on.

Before we do I do have to at least state for clarification that when I said feminism was a Pseudoscience/science/philosophy I only meant that feminism is a whole range of their own theories, sciences, pseudo sciences, and philosophies.

It is probably the biggest misconception of feminism is that there is some sort of grand unified doctrine of feminism when really they are extremely diverse in not just what they prescribe to but how they go about to it.

[misko27]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself.

What I say last thread? The Narcissism of small differences.

[Neonivek]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself.

What I say last thread? The Narcissism of small differences.

Well when my anger cooled I sort of realized that Vector wasn't arguing... anything, she/he was explaining. At least I think so >_< the argument is still confusing.

[Scoops Novel]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself.

What I say last thread? The Narcissism of small differences.

More like acclimatised to arguments being the worst possible possibility. My proof is in how no one seemed to know what they were arguing against.

[Neonivek]

Neovinek, this is a case of Bay12 arguing for the same thing with itself.

What I say last thread? The Narcissism of small differences.

More like acclimatised to arguments being the worst possible possibility. My proof is in how no one seemed to know what they were arguing against.

I thought I was arguing against the justification of sexism based on the notion of male dominance.

[Scoops Novel]

You were arguing initially against Vector defending why she might give such a statement, though i doubt supporting it.

[Neonivek]

You were arguing initially against Vector defending why she might give such a statement, though i doubt supporting it.

Yeah I kind of realized that... WAAAAAAAAAAY too late.

[Scoops Novel]

No need to thank me. I'll ascend to Moddom one day.

[Vector]

Yeah, I was gonna say >_> <_<

. . . <3

[Max White]

Ok so I am going to give my opinion on this matter from what I have seen in this thread, and then possible get shouted at for being sexist. Well never mind, rationality dies when we allow that sort of intimidation to stem open discussion of an issue.

This 'Two definitions of sexism' bullshit looks like it was contrived as a work around for feminazis. When a guy is sexist, it is an "Institutionally backed systemic repression of women", but when a woman is sexist it becomes "One persons slightly unfair views". As such, when some hate group calling itself "Feminist" (And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying all feminist groups are hate groups, or that even the majority are) gets called out, they aren't hypocrites because it is a different kind of sexism.

We already established over in the Games Vs. Tropes Vs. Women Vs. What ever it was thread that by some legal definition somewhere (I'm pretty sure it was England?) a woman can not actually be guilty of rape. One cannot be a rapist without a penis. And you want to tell me men "Cannot be institutionally discriminated against"?