Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why are their radical sects of rights groups?

themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:30:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Just curious as to what you guys think about this, but as far as I can tell, there are radical sects to every rights group out there (which none of them are technically rights groups, but they are self-proclaimed rights groups).

Just some examples:
Women's -> Misandrists
Animal -> PETA
(Whatever the gay/bi/whatever community is calling itself) -> People that feel that gays/bi's are special, and therefore above straight people
African-American -> Black Panthers

Why can't some people stop at equality?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:59:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:30:24 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Just curious as to what you guys think about this, but as far as I can tell, there are radical sects to every rights group out there (which none of them are technically rights groups, but they are self-proclaimed rights groups).

Just some examples:
Women's -> Misandrists
Animal -> PETA
(Whatever the gay/bi/whatever community is calling itself) -> People that feel that gays/bi's are special, and therefore above straight people
African-American -> Black Panthers

Why can't some people stop at equality?

They feel like they need to balance out the injustices that spawned the movement, they are passionate and think taking the perfect opposite of their persecutors position on all things is the only way to show that passion.

In the end they usually end up justifying the historical (or still ongoing) oppression more than opposing it. They send the message "you've got the right idea but the wrong direction" to bigots.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:42:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:30:24 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Just curious as to what you guys think about this, but as far as I can tell, there are radical sects to every rights group out there (which none of them are technically rights groups, but they are self-proclaimed rights groups).

Just some examples:
Women's -> Misandrists
Animal -> PETA
(Whatever the gay/bi/whatever community is calling itself) -> People that feel that gays/bi's are special, and therefore above straight people
African-American -> Black Panthers

Why can't some people stop at equality?

I wonder if there is any evidence for the "equality" that these groups are said to have with the political power structures that we see in the US. The oppressed groups listed here might also be curious as to the location of their equality.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:47:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:42:47 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:30:24 AM, themohawkninja wrote:
Just curious as to what you guys think about this, but as far as I can tell, there are radical sects to every rights group out there (which none of them are technically rights groups, but they are self-proclaimed rights groups).

Just some examples:
Women's -> Misandrists
Animal -> PETA
(Whatever the gay/bi/whatever community is calling itself) -> People that feel that gays/bi's are special, and therefore above straight people
African-American -> Black Panthers

Why can't some people stop at equality?

I wonder if there is any evidence for the "equality" that these groups are said to have with the political power structures that we see in the US. The oppressed groups listed here might also be curious as to the location of their equality.

In this day and age, women are basically equal (yeah, yeah, I know that they don't have equal pay, but that isn't soley due to sexism).

Animals... are their own category of rights to debate.

African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

Gays/bi's/whatever are really the only group left in the developed world that doesn't have fully equal rights, and I doubt it will even be an issue in a decade.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In this day and age, women are basically equal (yeah, yeah, I know that they don't have equal pay, but that isn't soley due to sexism).

I see. Are we only talking about the United States here? Is unequal pay a symptom of equality?

Animals... are their own category of rights to debate.

Animals are very much more delicious than people. Probably.

African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.


Gays/bi's/whatever are really the only group left in the developed world that doesn't have fully equal rights, and I doubt it will even be an issue in a decade.

I also doubt that LGBT marriages will be an issue in a decade. This is a happy thing.

But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

Perhaps you are arguing that these oppressed groups should keep quiet - and not try to advance their cause?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:
In this day and age, women are basically equal (yeah, yeah, I know that they don't have equal pay, but that isn't soley due to sexism).

I see. Are we only talking about the United States here? Is unequal pay a symptom of equality?

I am only referring to the U.S. here, since that is the only place that I have a good knowledge of equality. The unequal pay, as I understand it, is part sexism, and part things like maternity leave and women not being as naturally stronger than males (it is a problem in physically demanding jobs like firefighting).

Animals... are their own category of rights to debate.

Animals are very much more delicious than people. Probably.

They can't exactly vote on any educated level either.

African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.


Gays/bi's/whatever are really the only group left in the developed world that doesn't have fully equal rights, and I doubt it will even be an issue in a decade.

I also doubt that LGBT marriages will be an issue in a decade. This is a happy thing.

Those are the rights that I was referring to. Are there any others that they don't have?

But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

Perhaps you are arguing that these oppressed groups should keep quiet - and not try to advance their cause?

I am arguing that the radical groups shouldn't advance their cause. True equal rights groups should be encouraged to carry out their aims, but the aforesaid radical ones need to really stop... they rarely ever have any objective/empirical evidence, and any that they do have is heavily skewed/misinterpreted to go to their side.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:
In this day and age, women are basically equal (yeah, yeah, I know that they don't have equal pay, but that isn't soley due to sexism).

I see. Are we only talking about the United States here? Is unequal pay a symptom of equality?

I am only referring to the U.S. here, since that is the only place that I have a good knowledge of equality. The unequal pay, as I understand it, is part sexism, and part things like maternity leave and women not being as naturally stronger than males (it is a problem in physically demanding jobs like firefighting).


Excellent, then we can leave the discussions of Saudi Arabia out for now. We also agree that women are paid less than men, and are promoted to managerial positions far more rarely. With or without maternity leaves.

Animals... are their own category of rights to debate.

Animals are very much more delicious than people. Probably.

They can't exactly vote on any educated level either.

African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.



Gays/bi's/whatever are really the only group left in the developed world that doesn't have fully equal rights, and I doubt it will even be an issue in a decade.

I also doubt that LGBT marriages will be an issue in a decade. This is a happy thing.

Those are the rights that I was referring to. Are there any others that they don't have? Quite a few. A woman can be fired from her job for having met a quiet girl in the library that she took a fancy to. LGBT persons can be denied health care and insurers are often permitted to deny them survivors benefits. Hospital visitation and adoption rules may also discriminate. There are many more unfair laws that are used to make LGBT persons suffer unfairly.

But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

You will need to give some examples of this in reality. I feel that you are simply speaking wildly here. You have also redefined "radical" to mean any group that seeks social acceptance at all. It is far to broad to describe anything remotely radical.


Perhaps you are arguing that these oppressed groups should keep quiet - and not try to advance their cause?

I am arguing that the radical groups shouldn't advance their cause. True equal rights groups should be encouraged to carry out their aims, but the aforesaid radical ones need to really stop... they rarely ever have any objective/empirical evidence, and any that they do have is heavily skewed/misinterpreted to go to their side.

I honestly cannot understand what you mean to say with this comment. Your view seems totalitarian; perhaps it could be clarified.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.

I took a look at the law according to the U.S. Department of Labor website (http://www.dol.gov...). While it doesn't explicitly state quotas it does state goals that should me met. Some are not defined, but others (like women employed by construction contractors) are defined (In that case, it is 6.9%).

So the law actually does tell companies to hire certain percentages of certain minorities.


But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

You will need to give some examples of this in reality. I feel that you are simply speaking wildly here. You have also redefined "radical" to mean any group that seeks social acceptance at all. It is far to broad to describe anything remotely radical.

I am not defining 'radical' as any group that seeks social acceptance, I am defining it, as those who want to be superior to other people while proclaiming equality.

A nice example would have to be the embedded video as that is so-called feminism at its worst.


Perhaps you are arguing that these oppressed groups should keep quiet - and not try to advance their cause?

I am arguing that the radical groups shouldn't advance their cause. True equal rights groups should be encouraged to carry out their aims, but the aforesaid radical ones need to really stop... they rarely ever have any objective/empirical evidence, and any that they do have is heavily skewed/misinterpreted to go to their side.

I honestly cannot understand what you mean to say with this comment. Your view seems totalitarian; perhaps it could be clarified.

I don't see how it's totalitarian at all.

What I am saying is, if you claim to promote equality, and do just that, good for you. If you claim to promote equality, but you promote dominance over the other side, shame on you.

The former should be encouraged, since they are actually practicing what they preach, while the latter need to be somehow disbanded/taken down/discouraged. I am not referring to 'encouragement' and 'disbanding/taking down/discouraging' in a legal sense, but more of a 'how the society should come to view them/act towards them' sort of way.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:22:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

LOL. Please do some basic research on the subject of minority discrimination, before spouting complete and utter nonsense like that.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 3:27:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:22:01 PM, HPWKA wrote:
African-Americas are totally equal as far as opportunity is concerned, and actually, they have a bit of an advantage when it comes to Affirmative Action.

LOL. Please do some basic research on the subject of minority discrimination, before spouting complete and utter nonsense like that.

I did. See the comment above yours. The law explicitly states that goals be set for hiring minorities, and even specifies numbers for women. Since the law is about all minorities, I would assume that African-Americans also have this same advantage.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:40:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I did. See the comment above yours. The law explicitly states that goals be set for hiring minorities, and even specifies numbers for women. Since the law is about all minorities, I would assume that African-Americans also have this same advantage.

Blacks are severely disadvantaged in America today.

They are imprisoned at incredibly high rates, despite committing these actual crimes (drugs/weapons) at the same rate as whites.

They are less likely to be granted a job interview then a white-man, even if both have equal resumes, and the white-man has a criminal record.

They are less likely to be given a loan then whites, even with identical credit histories/info.

They tend to live in urban areas, with the worst schools available.

Affirmative Action is a Band-Aid on top of a gaping wound, that doesn't begin to address the inequalities Blacks face, much less give them "equal opportunities".
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 4:47:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 4:40:18 PM, HPWKA wrote:
I did. See the comment above yours. The law explicitly states that goals be set for hiring minorities, and even specifies numbers for women. Since the law is about all minorities, I would assume that African-Americans also have this same advantage.

Blacks are severely disadvantaged in America today.

They are imprisoned at incredibly high rates, despite committing these actual crimes (drugs/weapons) at the same rate as whites.

I agree, but we are discussing rights, not wrongful imprisonment.

They are less likely to be granted a job interview then a white-man, even if both have equal resumes, and the white-man has a criminal record.

Is this primarily due to racism, or due to the fact that there are a lot less blacks than whites in America?

They are less likely to be given a loan then whites, even with identical credit histories/info.

Well, they tend to have a higher poverty rate, so even though their history says one thing, their poverty says another.

They tend to live in urban areas, with the worst schools available.

Okay, point being?

Affirmative Action is a Band-Aid on top of a gaping wound, that doesn't begin to address the inequalities Blacks face, much less give them "equal opportunities".

I'd think of it more as iodine, but I do agree with that conclusion.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

This is a problematic argument on several levels.

I suspect that a more honest complaint might have Ninja explaining that he simply does not like these groups, or their advancement.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 5:58:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM, James.Price wrote:
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

Well, if you had asked for me to EXPLAIN why radicalism is bad, I would have answered.

Radicalism, in the sense of equal rights is bad, because as I have stated already, such radical approaches to alleged equality, does not promote equality, but rather promotes the opposite inequality.

Perhaps if I were to explain the example video I showed, you will understand. Ideological feminism promotes equality for women. Ideological feminists want to have the same pay, same opportunities, and to basically be treated the same way as men are within the realms of common sense (common sense in this case, being along the lines of not trying to be totally equal in physically demanding jobs, because women are naturally disadvantaged here). Radical feminism says it promotes equality (in that it uses the term 'feminism'), but promotes the idea that women are better than men. Radical feminists will always view the world as a patriarchy unless women are in control, and will view violence against women (especially rape) in such a way that the idea that the person is innocent until proven guilty as a horrible misogynistic problem.

This is a problematic argument on several levels.

How so?

I suspect that a more honest complaint might have Ninja explaining that he simply does not like these groups, or their advancement.

I simply don't like radical groups. That is what I am trying to get across here.

Radical rights groups are bad for society. Equal rights groups are good for society.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 9:50:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 5:58:47 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM, James.Price wrote:
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

Well, if you had asked for me to EXPLAIN why radicalism is bad, I would have answered.

Radicalism, in the sense of equal rights is bad, because as I have stated already, such radical approaches to alleged equality, does not promote equality, but rather promotes the opposite inequality.

Perhaps if I were to explain the example video I showed, you will understand. Ideological feminism promotes equality for women. Ideological feminists want to have the same pay, same opportunities, and to basically be treated the same way as men are within the realms of common sense (common sense in this case, being along the lines of not trying to be totally equal in physically demanding jobs, because women are naturally disadvantaged here). Radical feminism says it promotes equality (in that it uses the term 'feminism'), but promotes the idea that women are better than men. Radical feminists will always view the world as a patriarchy unless women are in control, and will view violence against women (especially rape) in such a way that the idea that the person is innocent until proven guilty as a horrible misogynistic problem.

As the very fiercest of feminists, I disagree with your assessment of the goals and successes of feminism, as well as your characterization of it. Simply put (you do not seem to realize) the world will indeed always be a "patriarchy" unless women are in control of some portions of it at the very least. So the radical feminists are, according to you, correct in condemning the current system as "patriarchal."


This is a problematic argument on several levels.

How so?

Because the oppression of women and minorities cannot morally be defended. The powers claimed by the white men to limit the freedom of nonwhite men and women was achieved by exactly the villainy that your argument states as being the tool that the oppressed are employing in order to gain equal rights. Effectively, you are suggesting that radicalism is a worthwhile tactic if it is being used to oppress women, but not if it is being used to advance them.

I suspect that a more honest complaint might have Ninja explaining that he simply does not like these groups, or their advancement.

I simply don't like radical groups. That is what I am trying to get across here.

Radical rights groups are bad for society. Equal rights groups are good for society.

I am glad that we agree that equal rights groups are good for society.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 9:59:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 9:50:50 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:58:47 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM, James.Price wrote:
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

Well, if you had asked for me to EXPLAIN why radicalism is bad, I would have answered.

Radicalism, in the sense of equal rights is bad, because as I have stated already, such radical approaches to alleged equality, does not promote equality, but rather promotes the opposite inequality.

Perhaps if I were to explain the example video I showed, you will understand. Ideological feminism promotes equality for women. Ideological feminists want to have the same pay, same opportunities, and to basically be treated the same way as men are within the realms of common sense (common sense in this case, being along the lines of not trying to be totally equal in physically demanding jobs, because women are naturally disadvantaged here). Radical feminism says it promotes equality (in that it uses the term 'feminism'), but promotes the idea that women are better than men. Radical feminists will always view the world as a patriarchy unless women are in control, and will view violence against women (especially rape) in such a way that the idea that the person is innocent until proven guilty as a horrible misogynistic problem.

As the very fiercest of feminists, I disagree with your assessment of the goals and successes of feminism, as well as your characterization of it. Simply put (you do not seem to realize) the world will indeed always be a "patriarchy" unless women are in control of some portions of it at the very least. So the radical feminists are, according to you, correct in condemning the current system as "patriarchal."

Either you are sarcastic, or there is no hope for you.


This is a problematic argument on several levels.

How so?

Because the oppression of women and minorities cannot morally be defended. The powers claimed by the white men to limit the freedom of nonwhite men and women was achieved by exactly the villainy that your argument states as being the tool that the oppressed are employing in order to gain equal rights.

What 'villainy' are you referring to?

Effectively, you are suggesting that radicalism is a worthwhile tactic if it is being used to oppress women, but not if it is being used to advance them.

How many times do I have to say it! Radicalism is bad for society! I am not defending radicalism at all!
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:07:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 9:59:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 9:50:50 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:58:47 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM, James.Price wrote:
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

Well, if you had asked for me to EXPLAIN why radicalism is bad, I would have answered.

Radicalism, in the sense of equal rights is bad, because as I have stated already, such radical approaches to alleged equality, does not promote equality, but rather promotes the opposite inequality.

Perhaps if I were to explain the example video I showed, you will understand. Ideological feminism promotes equality for women. Ideological feminists want to have the same pay, same opportunities, and to basically be treated the same way as men are within the realms of common sense (common sense in this case, being along the lines of not trying to be totally equal in physically demanding jobs, because women are naturally disadvantaged here). Radical feminism says it promotes equality (in that it uses the term 'feminism'), but promotes the idea that women are better than men. Radical feminists will always view the world as a patriarchy unless women are in control, and will view violence against women (especially rape) in such a way that the idea that the person is innocent until proven guilty as a horrible misogynistic problem.

As the very fiercest of feminists, I disagree with your assessment of the goals and successes of feminism, as well as your characterization of it. Simply put (you do not seem to realize) the world will indeed always be a "patriarchy" unless women are in control of some portions of it at the very least. So the radical feminists are, according to you, correct in condemning the current system as "patriarchal."

Either you are sarcastic, or there is no hope for you.

I am sarcastic, and I am hopeless. I am also correct; you state that feminists will always see the world as patriarchal unless women have leadership roles within it. I respond by saying that you are correct that we will. For good reason.


This is a problematic argument on several levels.

How so?

Because the oppression of women and minorities cannot morally be defended. The powers claimed by the white men to limit the freedom of nonwhite men and women was achieved by exactly the villainy that your argument states as being the tool that the oppressed are employing in order to gain equal rights.

What 'villainy' are you referring to?

I am sure that we are talking about radicalism.

Effectively, you are suggesting that radicalism is a worthwhile tactic if it is being used to oppress women, but not if it is being used to advance them.

How many times do I have to say it! Radicalism is bad for society! I am not defending radicalism at all!

Yet you do. The oppression that prevents disenfranchised social classes from achieving equality cannot be sustained without radicalized oppression from the Boss-Man. You will say that you do not support his radical oppression, but your statements allow someone to think that you do. You certainly do not support minorities and women "getting in the way," and ending his radical degradation of their rights.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:35:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:07:27 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 9:59:20 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 9:50:50 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:58:47 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 5:35:41 PM, James.Price wrote:
The MohawkNinja has presented a confused message, suggesting that groups that feel themselves to have been oppressed or harmed by institutional inequities should take no meaningful action to remedy their grievances. He agrees that these groups are harmed, just not that they should do much in answer. He characterizes their social activism as "radicalism," without explaining why being a radical is bad.

Well, if you had asked for me to EXPLAIN why radicalism is bad, I would have answered.

Radicalism, in the sense of equal rights is bad, because as I have stated already, such radical approaches to alleged equality, does not promote equality, but rather promotes the opposite inequality.

Perhaps if I were to explain the example video I showed, you will understand. Ideological feminism promotes equality for women. Ideological feminists want to have the same pay, same opportunities, and to basically be treated the same way as men are within the realms of common sense (common sense in this case, being along the lines of not trying to be totally equal in physically demanding jobs, because women are naturally disadvantaged here). Radical feminism says it promotes equality (in that it uses the term 'feminism'), but promotes the idea that women are better than men. Radical feminists will always view the world as a patriarchy unless women are in control, and will view violence against women (especially rape) in such a way that the idea that the person is innocent until proven guilty as a horrible misogynistic problem.

As the very fiercest of feminists, I disagree with your assessment of the goals and successes of feminism, as well as your characterization of it. Simply put (you do not seem to realize) the world will indeed always be a "patriarchy" unless women are in control of some portions of it at the very least. So the radical feminists are, according to you, correct in condemning the current system as "patriarchal."

Either you are sarcastic, or there is no hope for you.

I am sarcastic, and I am hopeless. I am also correct; you state that feminists will always see the world as patriarchal unless women have leadership roles within it. I respond by saying that you are correct that we will. For good reason.

I'd disagree on the "for good reason" part. To pseudo-quote one of the people I subscribe to on YouTube: "You could easily make the argument that there was a patriarchy 200 years ago. Even 50 years ago you might be able to make that argument, but nowadays that just isn't true".

High-ranking U.S. government officials are women, women are almost equal in the job force, and some world leaders are even women. You can't really make the claim for a patriarchy in this day and age.


This is a problematic argument on several levels.

How so?

Because the oppression of women and minorities cannot morally be defended. The powers claimed by the white men to limit the freedom of nonwhite men and women was achieved by exactly the villainy that your argument states as being the tool that the oppressed are employing in order to gain equal rights.

What 'villainy' are you referring to?

I am sure that we are talking about radicalism.

Ah, but I don't see your point. I agree with that statement, so I don't see how it's a problem in my argument.

Effectively, you are suggesting that radicalism is a worthwhile tactic if it is being used to oppress women, but not if it is being used to advance them.

How many times do I have to say it! Radicalism is bad for society! I am not defending radicalism at all!

Yet you do. The oppression that prevents disenfranchised social classes from achieving equality cannot be sustained without radicalized oppression from the Boss-Man.

Right... there wouldn't be much disenfranchising if there wasn't oppression.

You will say that you do not support his radical oppression, but your statements allow someone to think that you do. You certainly do not support minorities and women "getting in the way," and ending his radical degradation of their rights.

Just because I don't support radical rights doesn't mean I am defending the oppressors. The logic of "if you aren't with me, you are against me" is false.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
James.Price
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:44:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
you state that feminists will always see the world as patriarchal unless women have leadership roles within it. I respond by saying that you are correct that we will. For good reason.

I'd disagree on the "for good reason" part. To pseudo-quote one of the people I subscribe to on YouTube: "You could easily make the argument that there was a patriarchy 200 years ago. Even 50 years ago you might be able to make that argument, but nowadays that just isn't true".

High-ranking U.S. government officials are women, women are almost equal in the job force, and some world leaders are even women. You can't really make the claim for a patriarchy in this day and age.


I agree with you that feminism has made great strides, and has accomplished a great deal of good. I hope that we agree on the merits of feminism, since we agree that these results are revolutionary.

Effectively, you are suggesting that radicalism is a worthwhile tactic if it is being used to oppress women, but not if it is being used to advance them.

How many times do I have to say it! Radicalism is bad for society! I am not defending radicalism at all!

Yet you do. The oppression that prevents disenfranchised social classes from achieving equality cannot be sustained without radicalized oppression from the Boss-Man.

Right... there wouldn't be much disenfranchising if there wasn't oppression.

You will say that you do not support his radical oppression, but your statements allow someone to think that you do. You certainly do not support minorities and women "getting in the way," and ending his radical degradation of their rights.

Just because I don't support radical rights doesn't mean I am defending the oppressors. The logic of "if you aren't with me, you are against me" is false.

Well, certainly not. I am fully a polemicist, and always try very hard to suppress this black and white thinking. This is why I am certain that I am not guilt of doing that here. The flaw in logic that I am spotlighting is your suggestion that radicalism in support of oppression is more tolerable than radicalism in opposition to oppression.

All radicalism is not identical; some can be harnessed for good ends, and employ nonviolent, effective means. Other radicalism may be violent, totalitarian and oppressive. In opposing the gentle "radicalism" on the one side, you strengthen the other.
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:50:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 3:03:45 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.

I took a look at the law according to the U.S. Department of Labor website (http://www.dol.gov...). While it doesn't explicitly state quotas it does state goals that should me met. Some are not defined, but others (like women employed by construction contractors) are defined (In that case, it is 6.9%).

So the law actually does tell companies to hire certain percentages of certain minorities.

I am looking at the policies right now, and it doesn't say anything like that. Can you copy a quote?


But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

Ok, well, I am a feminist - and serious about it. You would never say that I am like that, would you?
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 10:59:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:50:25 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:03:45 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.

I took a look at the law according to the U.S. Department of Labor website (http://www.dol.gov...). While it doesn't explicitly state quotas it does state goals that should me met. Some are not defined, but others (like women employed by construction contractors) are defined (In that case, it is 6.9%).

So the law actually does tell companies to hire certain percentages of certain minorities.

I am looking at the policies right now, and it doesn't say anything like that. Can you copy a quote?

Section C, Sub-Section ii: "OFCCP issued specific national goals for women. The female goal of 6.9 percent was extended indefinitely in 1980 and remains in effect today."

I may be misinterpreting that though, as in Section D, Sub-Section i, it states that: "The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota..."


But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

Ok, well, I am a feminist - and serious about it. You would never say that I am like that, would you?

Depends how serious you are.

-Do you accept the fact that alleged rapists are innocent until proven guilty in the United States court of law?
-Do you feel that the United States is a patriarchy?
-Do you accept the fact that men are naturally better-suited for physically demanding tasks?
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:05:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:44:19 PM, James.Price wrote:
You will say that you do not support his radical oppression, but your statements allow someone to think that you do. You certainly do not support minorities and women "getting in the way," and ending his radical degradation of their rights.

Just because I don't support radical rights doesn't mean I am defending the oppressors. The logic of "if you aren't with me, you are against me" is false.

Well, certainly not. I am fully a polemicist, and always try very hard to suppress this black and white thinking. This is why I am certain that I am not guilt of doing that here. The flaw in logic that I am spotlighting is your suggestion that radicalism in support of oppression is more tolerable than radicalism in opposition to oppression.

When did I say that?

All radicalism is not identical; some can be harnessed for good ends, and employ nonviolent, effective means. Other radicalism may be violent, totalitarian and oppressive. In opposing the gentle "radicalism" on the one side, you strengthen the other.

I oppose all radicalism until I see reason otherwise. Radicalism is the antithesis to compromise, and as such, breeds close-mindedness and self-induced ignorance.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:07:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 10:59:05 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:50:25 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:03:45 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.

I took a look at the law according to the U.S. Department of Labor website (http://www.dol.gov...). While it doesn't explicitly state quotas it does state goals that should me met. Some are not defined, but others (like women employed by construction contractors) are defined (In that case, it is 6.9%).

So the law actually does tell companies to hire certain percentages of certain minorities.

I am looking at the policies right now, and it doesn't say anything like that. Can you copy a quote?

Section C, Sub-Section ii: "OFCCP issued specific national goals for women. The female goal of 6.9 percent was extended indefinitely in 1980 and remains in effect today."

I may be misinterpreting that though, as in Section D, Sub-Section i, it states that: "The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota..."


That is cool of you to admit!

But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

Ok, well, I am a feminist - and serious about it. You would never say that I am like that, would you?

Depends how serious you are.

-Do you accept the fact that alleged rapists are innocent until proven guilty in the United States court of law?
-Do you feel that the United States is a patriarchy?
-Do you accept the fact that men are naturally better-suited for physically demanding tasks?

Of course not, silly! Who would say stuff like that? Except that the US is a patriarchy, just not a very skillful one, tho. Women do not get paid the same as men, and do not get promoted as often, which you said, too. Yes there are women in politics, and women are penetrating past the glass ceiling, but its still not a fair system. It just isnt. So what should feminists do about it? I'm asking.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:14:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:07:09 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:59:05 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 10:50:25 PM, Beverlee wrote:
At 12/7/2013 3:03:45 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:35:00 PM, James.Price wrote:
At 12/7/2013 2:22:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 1:59:07 PM, James.Price wrote:

Affirmative Action policies prevent government bodies and contractors from not hiring out their workers based on race - there is no stipulation that they hire more minorities or soldiers than other groups. In fact, Affirmative Action stipulates the opposite.

They don't have to hire more, but they do have to hire a certain amount, which means that an unqualified African-American may get hired, even though there was a well-qualified Caucasian willing to get hired.

So you have probably been told. However, this is not true. You have been lied to. Please refer to the US Dept of Labor policies on the subject, since Affirmative Action bans the use of quotas. Affirmative Action also bans the practice of hiring unqualified persons over more qualified applicants. Historically, this practice has been used to hire unqualified white men instead of better qualified women and minorities.

I took a look at the law according to the U.S. Department of Labor website (http://www.dol.gov...). While it doesn't explicitly state quotas it does state goals that should me met. Some are not defined, but others (like women employed by construction contractors) are defined (In that case, it is 6.9%).

So the law actually does tell companies to hire certain percentages of certain minorities.

I am looking at the policies right now, and it doesn't say anything like that. Can you copy a quote?

Section C, Sub-Section ii: "OFCCP issued specific national goals for women. The female goal of 6.9 percent was extended indefinitely in 1980 and remains in effect today."

I may be misinterpreting that though, as in Section D, Sub-Section i, it states that: "The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota..."


That is cool of you to admit!

I'm either admitting that I may be wrong, or I have proved that the bill is a load of hypocrisy. I don't know which to be honest.

But we seem to agree that these groups are not equal. So we may remove that assertion from the table for now. Next, I will ask if we agree on what constitutes "radicalism." I do not see the groups you listed as much more than "lobbyists" and social advocates. If they are "radicals," they are pusillanimous radicals.

By 'radicals', I am referring to the fact that they call themselves an 'equal rights group', or 'equal rights advocates', but what they advocate is to oppress the other side, and therefore be the dominant group instead of an equal one. Misandrists are the greatest example of this, as they drone on and on about a mythical patriarchy, and they think that men are horrible people, even though they call themselves 'feminists', which is a term that is meant to describe people who want more rights for women, so that they are equal with men, and not dominant over men.

Ok, well, I am a feminist - and serious about it. You would never say that I am like that, would you?

Depends how serious you are.

-Do you accept the fact that alleged rapists are innocent until proven guilty in the United States court of law?
-Do you feel that the United States is a patriarchy?
-Do you accept the fact that men are naturally better-suited for physically demanding tasks?

Of course not, silly! Who would say stuff like that? Except that the US is a patriarchy, just not a very skillful one, tho. Women do not get paid the same as men, and do not get promoted as often, which you said, too. Yes there are women in politics, and women are penetrating past the glass ceiling, but its still not a fair system. It just isnt. So what should feminists do about it? I'm asking.

Okay then, you believe that the U.S. is a patriarchy. Why do you think that? If your reasoning is simply the fact that women are not paid equally and don't get promoted as often, that is a non-sequitur. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise, because that is assuming that sexism is the sole cause for that inequality, when in reality there are many other factors ranging from maternity leave (a.k.a. health insurance) to the higher possibility of emotional outbursts.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay then, you believe that the U.S. is a patriarchy. Why do you think that? If your reasoning is simply the fact that women are not paid equally and don't get promoted as often, that is a non-sequitur. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise, because that is assuming that sexism is the sole cause for that inequality, when in reality there are many other factors ranging from maternity leave (a.k.a. health insurance) to the higher possibility of emotional outbursts.

omg... women are not more prone to emotional outbursts. That is an awful thing to say. And it so does not matter if the reason for the disenfranchisement is sexism or tradition, or whatever. It exists, and it harms women, and feminism can help to activate and mobilize the changes in society that we need to make.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2013 11:51:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:23:45 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Okay then, you believe that the U.S. is a patriarchy. Why do you think that? If your reasoning is simply the fact that women are not paid equally and don't get promoted as often, that is a non-sequitur. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise, because that is assuming that sexism is the sole cause for that inequality, when in reality there are many other factors ranging from maternity leave (a.k.a. health insurance) to the higher possibility of emotional outbursts.

omg... women are not more prone to emotional outbursts. That is an awful thing to say.

Science and every man alive might disagree. Males may have the larger part of the brain associated with anger and lust, but women have PMS and the hormonal disturbances that come with pregnancy, and since we are comparing a possibility (larger part of brain in males) with a given (PMS), the given wins out.

And it so does not matter if the reason for the disenfranchisement is sexism or tradition, or whatever. It exists, and it harms women, and feminism can help to activate and mobilize the changes in society that we need to make.

Oh, please. It doesn't exist, let alone harm anyone.

If there was a patriarchy, then why are there female heads of state? Why do women have more rights in the courtroom when it comes to custody laws? Why do people still follow chivalry?

You are believing is something that isn't real, and hasn't been for sometime. If you want to discuss where a real patriarchy is, than go research Saudi Arabia. That is an undeniable patriarchy right there.

If you really want to help society when it comes to women's rights, try and persuade businesses that women need equal pay, and base your arguments not because women aren't paid equally, but on why they aren't paid equally. Show them that those reasons are prevalent enough to justify a pay raise. Spouting a mythical patriarchy will never get you anywhere, and will only ever have you looked down upon by everyone except other feminists.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:04:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/7/2013 11:51:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:23:45 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Okay then, you believe that the U.S. is a patriarchy. Why do you think that? If your reasoning is simply the fact that women are not paid equally and don't get promoted as often, that is a non-sequitur. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise, because that is assuming that sexism is the sole cause for that inequality, when in reality there are many other factors ranging from maternity leave (a.k.a. health insurance) to the higher possibility of emotional outbursts.

omg... women are not more prone to emotional outbursts. That is an awful thing to say.

Science and every man alive might disagree. Males may have the larger part of the brain associated with anger and lust, but women have PMS and the hormonal disturbances that come with pregnancy, and since we are comparing a possibility (larger part of brain in males) with a given (PMS), the given wins out.


Women have better emotive range than men, and have a higher level of social intelligence and cooperative instincts. This does not mean that we are about to get hysterical and start crying. That is a sexist thing to say. Just like it would be sexist of me to say that men can't keep their sex drives in check at work and so should not be paid as much as women are. It is an ignorant stereotype.

And it so does not matter if the reason for the disenfranchisement is sexism or tradition, or whatever. It exists, and it harms women, and feminism can help to activate and mobilize the changes in society that we need to make.

Oh, please. It doesn't exist, let alone harm anyone.

Then you were wrong when you said that it did? You were wrong when you said that women are paid less for doing the same work? Women are denied maternity leave, health insurance, reproductive rights, anti-rape laws and sexualized on a regular basis, and none of this is "harmful?"

If there was a patriarchy, then why are there female heads of state? Why do women have more rights in the courtroom when it comes to custody laws? Why do people still follow chivalry?

There are no female "Heads of State" in the US. Other nations are not as patriarchal. "Women" do not have more rights in the courtroom... judges tend to award custody of children to mothers, but this is not the result of their being "women;" it is because they are mothers. And people follow chivalry because they are feminists who have vowed to be gentle towards women, and to serve them.

You are believing is something that isn't real, and hasn't been for sometime. If you want to discuss where a real patriarchy is, than go research Saudi Arabia. That is an undeniable patriarchy right there.

Saudi Arabia is a sh!thole, you are right. They need feminists there, too.


If you really want to help society when it comes to women's rights, try and persuade businesses that women need equal pay, and base your arguments not because women aren't paid equally, but on why they aren't paid equally. Show them that those reasons are prevalent enough to justify a pay raise.

That is exactly what I hope to do as a feminist.

Spouting a mythical patriarchy will never get you anywhere, and will only ever have you looked down upon by everyone except other feminists.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that there are NO LAWS ANYWHERE in the US that women might find objectionable? No traditions, no politicians, no corporate policies (see above) that harm women? None at all?
Beverlee
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 12:13:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just want to be clear. When a woman is told that she only wants birth control because she wants to be promiscuous, that is not harmful? Denying her reproductive freedom is not patriarchal?

Why is it that after a woman is raped, her private, off-topic sex life gets brought up? Why do the outfits that rape victims wear just before they are attacked make any difference? This is patriarchy... you might not see it, but that is what it is.

On a lighter note, why are school athletics clubs for girls called "Ladies" versions of the team names? I went to a school where the sports teams were named "Lions." So why was our volleyball team called "Lady Lions" instead of just Lions? We were the same school district, the same everything... so why are we "Lady Lions?" The boys aren't "Gentlemen Lions." That is what patriarchy looks like. We get our cute little cheeks pinched and treated like we are stupid.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 1:57:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:13:42 AM, Beverlee wrote:
I just want to be clear. When a woman is told that she only wants birth control because she wants to be promiscuous, that is not harmful?
Said by whom?

Denying her reproductive freedom is not patriarchal?
Not sure what you mean here, but it is a double edged sword.
A man loses his freedom (i.e. child support) if the woman keeps the baby.

Why is it that after a woman is raped, her private, off-topic sex life gets brought up? Why do the outfits that rape victims wear just before they are attacked make any difference? This is patriarchy... you might not see it, but that is what it is.

This is because rape is generally a "he said she said" scenario, so by discrediting the accuser, it discredits the accusation. It is no different that saying that a person who sues their boss has a habit of suing their employers.

On a lighter note, why are school athletics clubs for girls called "Ladies" versions of the team names? I went to a school where the sports teams were named "Lions." So why was our volleyball team called "Lady Lions" instead of just Lions? We were the same school district, the same everything... so why are we "Lady Lions?" The boys aren't "Gentlemen Lions." That is what patriarchy looks like. We get our cute little cheeks pinched and treated like we are stupid.

I am pretty sure we called the women's teams Hawks at my school; the same for the men. Specifically, Lady Lion has a nice ring to it, what with alliteration and all. I wonder which is more common...
My work here is, finally, done.
themohawkninja
Posts: 816
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2013 9:09:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/8/2013 12:04:28 AM, Beverlee wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:51:07 PM, themohawkninja wrote:
At 12/7/2013 11:23:45 PM, Beverlee wrote:
Okay then, you believe that the U.S. is a patriarchy. Why do you think that? If your reasoning is simply the fact that women are not paid equally and don't get promoted as often, that is a non-sequitur. That conclusion doesn't follow the premise, because that is assuming that sexism is the sole cause for that inequality, when in reality there are many other factors ranging from maternity leave (a.k.a. health insurance) to the higher possibility of emotional outbursts.

omg... women are not more prone to emotional outbursts. That is an awful thing to say.

Science and every man alive might disagree. Males may have the larger part of the brain associated with anger and lust, but women have PMS and the hormonal disturbances that come with pregnancy, and since we are comparing a possibility (larger part of brain in males) with a given (PMS), the given wins out.


Women have better emotive range than men, and have a higher level of social intelligence and cooperative instincts. This does not mean that we are about to get hysterical and start crying. That is a sexist thing to say. Just like it would be sexist of me to say that men can't keep their sex drives in check at work and so should not be paid as much as women are. It is an ignorant stereotype.

I never said that an alleged higher level of intelligence and cooperative instincts caused increased emotional sways, I was referring to the increased level of hormonal changes that goes on in a females body. It's not an ignorant stereotype, it's just a fact that you have to live with, just as I have to live with the fact that males are physiologically more apt to be more lustful and angry. You just accept it and live your life.


And it so does not matter if the reason for the disenfranchisement is sexism or tradition, or whatever. It exists, and it harms women, and feminism can help to activate and mobilize the changes in society that we need to make.

Oh, please. It doesn't exist, let alone harm anyone.

Then you were wrong when you said that it did? You were wrong when you said that women are paid less for doing the same work? Women are denied maternity leave, health insurance, reproductive rights, anti-rape laws and sexualized on a regular basis, and none of this is "harmful?"

I don't see any harm being done there. Being paid less isn't 'harmful' unless we are talking massive differences in payment that actually can harm the person being paid. So, unless those differences lead women into poverty, whereas a man in the exact same position tends to be out of poverty, I see no harm done. You have to understand that the payment differences are not very large, and therefore don't have a massive impact. Women are still easily capable of making six-figure incomes as my mom has for many years, and she only ever acquired a bachelors degree.

If there was a patriarchy, then why are there female heads of state? Why do women have more rights in the courtroom when it comes to custody laws? Why do people still follow chivalry?

There are no female "Heads of State" in the US. Other nations are not as patriarchal. "Women" do not have more rights in the courtroom... judges tend to award custody of children to mothers, but this is not the result of their being "women;" it is because they are mothers. And people follow chivalry because they are feminists who have vowed to be gentle towards women, and to serve them.

No, but that isn't due to sexism if you have ever paid attention to the women that have ran for president recently. If Hillary Clinton runs for 2016, she's going to be a good candidate for president due to her experience, and might actually win. Also, since mothers can only ever be women, saying that mothers have the advantage means that women have the advantage. Lastly, I doubt chivalry is explicitly feminist, since it is something that has happened for hundreds of years... when there WAS a patriarchy.

You are believing is something that isn't real, and hasn't been for sometime. If you want to discuss where a real patriarchy is, than go research Saudi Arabia. That is an undeniable patriarchy right there.

Saudi Arabia is a sh!thole, you are right. They need feminists there, too.


If you really want to help society when it comes to women's rights, try and persuade businesses that women need equal pay, and base your arguments not because women aren't paid equally, but on why they aren't paid equally. Show them that those reasons are prevalent enough to justify a pay raise.

That is exactly what I hope to do as a feminist.

Spouting a mythical patriarchy will never get you anywhere, and will only ever have you looked down upon by everyone except other feminists.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that there are NO LAWS ANYWHERE in the US that women might find objectionable? No traditions, no politicians, no corporate policies (see above) that harm women? None at all?

Just because there are laws that women find objectionable does not mean that there is a patriarchy. There are laws that men might find objectionable, but that doesn't mean that I will say that the U.S. is ruled under a matriarchy.
"Morals are simply a limit to man's potential."~Myself

Political correctness is like saying you can't have a steak, because a baby can't eat one ~Unknown