First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
So what the point of feminism?
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

sundin13 wrote:
1) As previously stated, I am talking about the climate in the US/Canada/UK.

2) I have done my research and I have used the information gained from that to come to my own conclusion as to the changes that should be made to society to improve the condition of the country in which I live. However, while zero crime is a nice ideal, the only way to achieve it is through totalitarian practices and I do not believe "the end justifies the means" is a valid excuse as a rule. A lot of the steps that feminism is trying to take in my corner of the world are suggestive of authoritarian practices which strip personal freedoms. This is not the path that should be tread for an impossible ideal of eliminating crime.

3). Again, I am speaking about my corner of the world and third wave feminism. It seems that we stand on far too different ground to have a conversation of this nature, but I will gladly defend or explain my beliefs about the way feminism in this corner of the world works. Anti-feminist rhetoric here does nothing to hurt women in your corner of the world, as feminsm here does little to help women in your corner of the world. I think virtually everybody realizes that the there are places around the world where women's rights are needed, we just don't believe that the feminism we see is a solution (and bear in mind that feminism is not the only form of women's rights advocacy).


1. And that's the problem, mate. See below.

2. Let it be noted I never advocated for tyranny. I have no earthly idea why you even went there.

3. I wish that were true. I really, really wish it were, but unfortunately (and forgive me for any offense I may cause) you're being naive. What's worse, I get the feeling you honestly believe your actions do not impact us.

Discourse in the north has no impact on the south? If it weren't such an erroneous statement, I'd honestly laugh. Consider this: where are the world's best universities? Where are the world's highest standards of living? Where are the opportunities? Spoiler alert: it's not in the Global South if you don't have money.

There's a reason why illegal immigrants go to the US and Europe, after all.

And so here's the problem: our standards for "civilised" societies are YOURS. We measure ourselves in comparison to Europe, the US, and Canada! Our elites get sent there for study! And when they do, what do you think they hear, when people argue against feminism? They hear validation of centuries of gender discrimination! And then they come back, and end up ruling our countries! My current president is a Catholic fundamentalist who has defunded our Institute for Culture and donated millions of state money to the Catholic Church. He then proceeded to gut sexual education in our schools and for Carnaval (when most pregnancies happen in this country), which is only being alleviated because teachers and media outlets decided to ignore him and educate people anyway! Guess where he studied? Georgia Tech. Do you know whose policies his match the most? THE SOUTH.

And that's just Latin America (and Panama, for the specific case)!

For Africa, it gets exponentially worse, because American and European ideologies that have no home back in their home countries (and can't communicate in Spanish, thank goodness) get exported there, as ended up being the case of Uganda, whose lax anti-LGBT laws went into overdrive after AMERICAN evangelists came and riled up the people there. You don't need to take my word for it: Google it.

Face it: we get your reject ideologies exported to us, and it's the poor who end up suffering from these ridiculous ideas. This is no longer the 14th century: this is a globalised world we live in, and whenever you Northerners do something repressive or retrograde, it invariably ends up ruining our day down South.


Ranwolf wrote:
For the obstacle course they usually fail the time limit or simply give up half way through, then again so do some of the men. The live fire exercises are designed to test the threshold of endurance and physical pain. They are designed to be hard to pass . Most women fail to last the required time.

And yes SpecOp units do think poorly of Regular Army troops, just talk to one they will give you a polite but pointed discussion about the superiority of their training vs that of the Regular Army troops . And for the most part they would be right, The JTF2 for example which is Canada's SpecOps troopers have much higher physical standards then the regular army. And you usually need five years of service and usually a tour or two of combat duty under your belt before you can even think of applying.

Regular Army troops however expect this, they are the baseline for what a soldier is suppose to be capable of. Lowering that baseline for women however would be frankly something of an insult. Not to mention all the currently exiting combat roles require some level of strength, even if you serve in a tank or as an artillery crewman you would still be required do some heavy lifting. You'd have to create some sort of specialized roles that avoid heavy lifting and I for the life of me can't think of any.

Maybe in the Navy but I am no sailor so I can't comment on that.


1. Most being the operative word there, right? So a select few do? Are these not worthy of respect, then?

2. I can't think of any, either, but that doesn't mean someone smarter than either of us can't. Still, I suppose I could concede the lack of a need to lower standards, especially since it does sound as though some women (even if not all, much like men) can pass the entry tests.

Which seems to be a ball in my favour (I am not gloating!), as it does mean that women who pass the test as is are deserving of their place among the Armed Forces, no?
Posted 3/2/16


Well I see two solutions. US army exoskeletons or genetic enhancement. I could also mention biomechanical augmentations but that is even less realistic.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:
2. Nothing "went wrong with it." No more than in any other ideology, anyway. The only problem feminism has, just as any other philosophy out there, is that radicals have attempted to hijack its message for their own extremist ends.
much ramble on abotu stuff, but then agian I don't think we should have feminists doing what they please and to the point "changing" history (how its told or fake articles? like how MTV likes to provide us with) things to just "force" them to join as if its the only right thing to do either out of guilt, depression/anger and so on.

7579 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 3/2/16
These feminism threads are more repetitive than the end to "Message in a Bottle."
33377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Online
Posted 3/2/16
Triggered

24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

Freddy96NO wrote:


MarquisBlack wrote:
2. Nothing "went wrong with it." No more than in any other ideology, anyway. The only problem feminism has, just as any other philosophy out there, is that radicals have attempted to hijack its message for their own extremist ends.
or some of that has been inside of it from the day it was "born" -__-
true that its well about women and all and it does not really care about helping men as its towards womens rights etc, even though its often getting one sided like few of those who started the women liberation movement?



even though things like this just seems like the events they want to make is rather to relive stress or anger towards something either expression of womens beauty as some of it seems like it just nailes some of those joining feminism with sexy nails into sexism makes em frustrated and from what I hear often about women then treating other womens like TRASH.. just because she is acting sexy or doing it "better" then her with males.
as much of the movement likes to push out such feelings or hatred and some because of a good reason like how it easly becomes one sided or creating "systems of oppression that can only act in this way towards women that sounds plausable".


Oooh, nice picture! (...damn that sounds so sarcastic. Sorry about that; I've honestly never seen that one before.)

As I mentioned, radicals are nothing new in any ideology. I'm sure there are anarchists, for example, who would really rather we didn't associate them with Gavrilo Princip or any of the other anarchists of the 19th century and early 20th century, who gleefully carried out political murders. They would've existed from within the movement from the beginning, too, and I can assure you that they would've looked down upon their fellow anarchists as well.

The people you describe are not, I believe, true believers of the ideology, but merely people seeking an outlet for their hate. In the case of feminism, misandrists seek to identify with the movement because they perceive it to provide some sort of umbrella from criticism. However, of all the feminists I know (which include basically every female relative I have and coworker and student), not one of them has espoused the misandrist ideology you refer to.

Of all the feminists I follow on Facebook, not one of them says the things you say these women do.

I just think we're all getting exposed to radically different feminist ideologies.

EDITED FOR CLARITY
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:

[

1. Most being the operative word there, right? So a select few do? Are these not worthy of respect, then?

2. I can't think of any, either, but that doesn't mean someone smarter than either of us can't. Still, I suppose I could concede the lack of a need to lower standards, especially since it does sound as though some women (even if not all, much like men) can pass the entry tests.

Which seems to be a ball in my favour (I am not gloating!), as it does mean that women who pass the test as is are deserving of their place among the Armed Forces, no?


I said all the combat roles require heavy lifting, not most. As for the passing of the tests yeah. You pass your a soldier, I admire anyone who can. A soldier is a soldier in my mind. I am just stating the failure rate is much higher among women than it is men. Due pretty much to their overall lack of physical strength and endurance. There are those who do rise above it and at least pass the standard set for women. Then there is the rare few who pass the standard for men. Those are the kind of women that do their gender proud.
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

Ranwolf wrote:


MarquisBlack wrote:

[

1. Most being the operative word there, right? So a select few do? Are these not worthy of respect, then?

2. I can't think of any, either, but that doesn't mean someone smarter than either of us can't. Still, I suppose I could concede the lack of a need to lower standards, especially since it does sound as though some women (even if not all, much like men) can pass the entry tests.

Which seems to be a ball in my favour (I am not gloating!), as it does mean that women who pass the test as is are deserving of their place among the Armed Forces, no?


I said all the combat roles require heavy lifting, not most. As for the passing of the tests yeah. You pass your a soldier, I admire anyone who can. A soldier is a soldier in my mind. I am just stating the failure rate is much higher among women than it is men. Due pretty much to their overall lack of physical strength and endurance. There are those who do rise above it and at least pass the standard set for women. Then there is the rare few who pass the standard for men. Those are the kind of women that do their gender proud.


So...and I'm being very cautious here...we can agree that if women pass the tests everyone else has had to before them, they deserve their place in the armed forces, free of discrimination due to their gender?
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

KarenAraragi wrote:



Well I see two solutions. US army exoskeletons or genetic enhancement. I could also mention biomechanical augmentations but that is even less realistic.


I've seen those exoskeletons in person..and they are far from combat ready. Sure it augments a person's physical strength but at the same time their motions are jerky, slow, and utterly predictable. And unless you add some sort of amour plating on the thing the slow cumbersome nature of the thing is just going to make you a bullet magnet. And even if add armour you are still this slow lumbering thing that anyone with half a brain can run up to and slap a grenade on and make you go boom.

Genetic enhancement is a more viable path but that kind of thing would have to be done while the woman is still a fetus to have maximum effect. And not to mention right now genetic experimentation on human beings is forbidden by international law.
Banned
17503 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:



So...and I'm being very cautious here...we can agree that if women pass the tests everyone else has had to before them, they deserve their place in the armed forces, free of discrimination due to their gender?


Of course I am not going to turn down somebody with the will and ability to fight in a combat situation.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 3/2/16 , edited 3/2/16

MarquisBlack wrote:
The people you describe are not, I believe, true believers of the ideology, but merely people seeking an outlet for their hate. In the case of feminism, misandrists seek to identify with the movement because they perceive it to provide some sort of umbrella from criticism. However, of all the feminists I know (which include basically every female relative I have and coworker and student), not one of them has espoused the misandrist ideology you refer to.

Of all the feminists I follow on Facebook, not one of them says the things you say these women do.

I just think we're all getting exposed to radically different feminist ideologies.
or that they take advatage over lonely kids or radical adults?

and yeah many of them aren't that social to begin with or was until seeing the "destruction done by__" and so on, sure there is also many of the feminist that is quite calm now and know as being not that bad, until you see some stirred up discussion where somethings getting agian abit one sided, and I wouldn't say its different or exposed to rather then this is what it can be like if not focused else where (aka africa, china, india etc) and not using the label as a gate way or think it helps anyone... as it doesn't...I wouldn't call myself a feminist even though I would want to protect females but thats nothing really a reason to be calling my self a feminist unless I was working for females not acting for females (one thing I would do more natural vs a more job/fighter for their/her) or something like that.

else I would just go humanist/Egalitarianism and its easier to stay "stable" in that or just don't care about any of this and don't call anything.
23413 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / F / Always my room
Offline
Posted 3/2/16
Not all feminists are assholes though…
14099 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 3/2/16
So, I'm gonna have to address this because it's a real pet peeve of mine when people bring this issue up.

When people say that on average women earn 79 cents to every man's dollar, they are quoting a MASSIVELY DISCREDITED FACTOID. In fact, they EARN (not PAID) 79 cents per every man's dollar for every man and woman working full-time. It does not account for occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week.

It is a factoid that many political figures have cited to address a pay gap in America that realistically is closer to a 5 cent difference.
24034 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Panama City, Panama
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

Ranwolf wrote:
Of course I am not going to turn down somebody with the will and ability to fight in a combat situation.


I'm glad we can come to an agreement on the worth of women in the military, then!


Freddy96NO wrote:or that they take advatage over lonely kids or radical adults?

and yeah many of them aren't that social to begin with or was until seeing the "destruction done by__" and so on, sure there is also many of the feminist that is quite calm now and know as being not that bad, until you see some stirred up discussion where somethings getting agian abit one sided, and I wouldn't say its different or exposed to rather then this is what it can be like if not focused else where (aka africa, china, india etc) and not using the label as a gate way or think it helps anyone... as it doesn't...I wouldn't call myself a feminist even though I would want to protect females but thats nothing really a reason to be calling my self a feminist unless I was working for females not acting for females (one thing I would do more natural vs a more job/fighter for their/her) or something like that.




Umm...what? Lonely kids and radical adults?

Again: these are phenomena you're describing I've never once heard about. Are you referring perhaps to the fact that kids will swarm to feminism to be "cool" on the social networks? If so, I don't doubt some might do exactly that, but I'm sure many more truly believe in the cause.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the second half of your post (about not identifying as feminist unless certain conditions are met), so I can't, in good conscience, respond to that.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 3/2/16

fairy_tail175 wrote:
Not all feminists are assholes though…
I think most of us know, but many would say atleast if you are you most likely over the year taken in some radical/false claims/info from others either by other feminists/friends/groupes (hench gender studies) -__-

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.