Total Posts:524|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Feminism is social suicide

Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 8:19:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Families are crumbling before our eyes; the divorce rates have never been higher. Welfare checks are being pumped out by governments and men, the former slowly becoming more likely than the latter. Women are not longer encouraged to act feminine, rather, much like men, in that they have to now compete in the workplace. Men giving compliments to a woman's beauty is becoming 'sexist', in that the men is talking purely about looks, which is low, degrading or whatever term feminists express their feelings of never getting these compliments with. Equality is clearly a farce, as men and women are not equal in every sense, and trying to force the issue is making everyone miserable, which is precisely what feminism is doing. Marriage has become a very unfavourable prospect to any man who can see clearly, and so we're going to witness a gradual decline in marriage and really child-rearing, too.

I could be selfish and see that feminism greatly benefits me, in that I now have a lot more unfair power, but that would be intellectually dishonest. Feminism a giant, rusty cleaver, slicing through the fabric of society.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Chimera
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:15:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 8:19:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Women are not longer encouraged to act feminine, rather, much like men, in that they have to now compete in the workplace.

So... it's bad that women have to compete in the workplace on equal grounds as men? Also, women, if anything, are being encouraged to act like they have been trained to by patriarchal society, but to a lessened extent due to the cultural revolution that has been happening since the 60's-70's. I don't exactly see women walking around looking muscular and masculine.

Also, we shouldn't be encouraging females to act like a certain social mold. Rather, we should be encouraging them to act as however they feel, regardless of whether it goes against what society sees as a 'woman'.

Men giving compliments to a woman's beauty is becoming 'sexist', in that the men is talking purely about looks, which is low, degrading or whatever term feminists express their feelings of never getting these compliments with.

I would hardly call sexual harassment 'complimenting'. 'Complimenting' a woman constantly about their appearance makes them feel like an object, rather than a human being.

Equality is clearly a farce, as men and women are not equal in every sense, and trying to force the issue is making everyone miserable, which is precisely what feminism is doing.

I don't think you understand what makes one a woman. As Simone de Beauvoir put it:

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

Just because one is born female, doesn't necessarily make them a woman. Patriarchal society has empowered people who identify as male, and gives more rights to them. The point of feminism isn't to undermine or revoke males rights, but to give equal power to those who identify as women. Inequality itself only serves to undermine justice.

Marriage has become a very unfavourable prospect to any man who can see clearly, and so we're going to witness a gradual decline in marriage and really child-rearing, too.

Marriage itself is really only seen as unfavorable to younger people, with good reason. Not everyone wants to get married when they're young, since it confines them to their spouse/groom.

I for one know quite a number of men who don't exclude marriage as an option, but just aren't ready for that extreme level of commitment.

I could be selfish and see that feminism greatly benefits me, in that I now have a lot more unfair power, but that would be intellectually dishonest. Feminism a giant, rusty cleaver, slicing through the fabric of society.

So, you're saying that women have 'unfair power' in today's society?

That is possibly the funniest joke i've heard all day. Try telling that to the gang rape victims in India, or maybe those women in the Middle East who are seen as sub-human objects that are legally beat by their husbands and treated as animals.

Women only really became seen as actual human beings (at least in the West) around 100-150 years ago. Before then, they didn't have access to education, job opportunities, voting rights, and were subject to constant domestic violence.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:33:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.

No wonder you got so annoyed with me railing on feminism.

If this is the best you've got, I'd devour you in a debate. Your surface level sources are trash.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:45:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:33:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.

No wonder you got so annoyed with me railing on feminism.

If this is the best you've got, I'd devour you in a debate. Your surface level sources are trash.

Rule 1, only put up enough to counter the arguments provided. If all you're gonna do is rant, I'm not wasting time with indepth sources and studies. If you want those, you gotta step up.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 9:50:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:45:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:33:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.

No wonder you got so annoyed with me railing on feminism.

If this is the best you've got, I'd devour you in a debate. Your surface level sources are trash.

Rule 1, only put up enough to counter the arguments provided. If all you're gonna do is rant, I'm not wasting time with indepth sources and studies. If you want those, you gotta step up.

Lol, I'm not showing my hand on a public forum. If you want my sources that reveal the actual truth about feminism, rather than your Wikipedia sources (lol), then debate me. If not, go back to your children's pony show.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:02:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:50:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:45:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:33:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.

No wonder you got so annoyed with me railing on feminism.

If this is the best you've got, I'd devour you in a debate. Your surface level sources are trash.

Rule 1, only put up enough to counter the arguments provided. If all you're gonna do is rant, I'm not wasting time with indepth sources and studies. If you want those, you gotta step up.

Lol, I'm not showing my hand on a public forum. If you want my sources that reveal the actual truth about feminism, rather than your Wikipedia sources (lol), then debate me. If not, go back to your children's pony show.

Then I guess wiki adequately refutes your arguments. I wasn't planning on spending too much time on this topic, but this was less than expected.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:18:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 10:02:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:50:43 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:45:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:33:37 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/27/2014 9:02:03 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Let's start with this. Modern feminism really started with sufferage in the early 1900's, known as the first wave (of course, only the first wave of modern feminism, there is older feminism). The second wave, the one that most people know about began in the 60's and had its peak of support in the 70's and early 80's. This is the wave that attempted to counter the old fashion view of women by asserting that they should have a counter-culture view, and many of them negatively looked down upon those that choose the old fashion ways. The third wave from the 90's to now is a much more open and liberated view for woman, that they should be able to choose whatever they want (be it a working independent life, of that of a home maker, neither is greater than the other so long as both are freely chosen). So these attributes that you are calling "feminist" are not actually feminists, but just strawman tactics from opinions that are 40+ years old.

Anyway, on to some numbers

http://issuepedia.org...

Divorce rates have actually been going down for decades.

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

US welfare spending has no ties to the waves of feminism.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...

There has only been a marginal change in woman in the work place from the 50's until now.

http://www.bls.gov...

In the last 4 year, the male employment rate has gone up from 63.7% to 64.4%, while the female has gone down from 53.6% to 53.2%. So during the recovery, more men are going back to work, and less women.

No wonder you got so annoyed with me railing on feminism.

If this is the best you've got, I'd devour you in a debate. Your surface level sources are trash.

Rule 1, only put up enough to counter the arguments provided. If all you're gonna do is rant, I'm not wasting time with indepth sources and studies. If you want those, you gotta step up.

Lol, I'm not showing my hand on a public forum. If you want my sources that reveal the actual truth about feminism, rather than your Wikipedia sources (lol), then debate me. If not, go back to your children's pony show.

Then I guess wiki adequately refutes your arguments. I wasn't planning on spending too much time on this topic, but this was less than expected.

I made this thread to test the water with feminists. It looks like you want to withhold your better arguments, which is something that I can understand. But I'm not going to blow my element of surprise by revealing the sources I've found, and that's partially because I don't have the source integration harnessed yet, I've only got the general feeling.

I am going to prepare my arguments for a debate on the subject. If you feel strongly enough on the topic, I will gladly debate you. I know Raisor is some form of feminist, too. Bluesteel has argued for feminism as well. I want to end up beating all of you. I'd bet my DDO account that if I prepared my argument against feminism, I could beat any of you. It will be one of my defining moments, as I rise to the top of DDO.
SGM_iz_SekC
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2014 10:38:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have evidence that feminists fight to harm men, and to exert their belief that women are better than men.
If anyone wants to challenge me feel free to.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:58:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If anyone accepts any debates on these subjects, please post the link in this thread of the forum so that we can all see what happens. Thank you.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 6:12:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/27/2014 9:15:26 PM, Chimera wrote:
At 6/27/2014 8:19:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
Women are not longer encouraged to act feminine, rather, much like men, in that they have to now compete in the workplace.

So... it's bad that women have to compete in the workplace on equal grounds as men? Also, women, if anything, are being encouraged to act like they have been trained to by patriarchal society, but to a lessened extent due to the cultural revolution that has been happening since the 60's-70's. I don't exactly see women walking around looking muscular and masculine.

Yes, women having to compete in the workplace is bad, because the children of the relationship are more than likely going to suffer. Especially in the case of a single mother relationship, there's great evidence to suggest that children, especially boys, are poorly raised. I could hear a case for women having the option to work, but becoming a housewife should be encouraged over that.

Going to work and becoming the breadwinner isn't a feminine trait. Subservience and supportive roles are feminine.

Also, we shouldn't be encouraging females to act like a certain social mold. Rather, we should be encouraging them to act as however they feel, regardless of whether it goes against what society sees as a 'woman'.

On the contrary, we should. I've found that in light of female liberation, their feelings have often lead them to silly conclusions, such as the 'why no?' liberalism that's poisoning Western societies. Housewives are of great benefit to all, even women themselves. It's incredible that women think wage slavery could even possibly be more desirable than being a housewife and having all of her expenses paid for her.


Men giving compliments to a woman's beauty is becoming 'sexist', in that the men is talking purely about looks, which is low, degrading or whatever term feminists express their feelings of never getting these compliments with.

I would hardly call sexual harassment 'complimenting'. 'Complimenting' a woman constantly about their appearance makes them feel like an object, rather than a human being.

Sexual harassment =/= receiving compliments based purely on appearance. Besides, I wasn't talking about random men groping, or anything like that. Strawman.

But you don't seem to understand that even if men are talking purely about looks, they are still giving you a compliment. Your standards are too high. Just because men are not talking about both your intelligence and you looks, it does not mean that anything less is an insult.

Equality is clearly a farce, as men and women are not equal in every sense, and trying to force the issue is making everyone miserable, which is precisely what feminism is doing.

I don't think you understand what makes one a woman. As Simone de Beauvoir put it:

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

Just because one is born female, doesn't necessarily make them a woman. Patriarchal society has empowered people who identify as male, and gives more rights to them. The point of feminism isn't to undermine or revoke males rights, but to give equal power to those who identify as women. Inequality itself only serves to undermine justice.

Having more rights means having more responsibilities. Men were actually far more enslaved than women, in that they were responsible for the household, the finances and even, at a time, what women did. Women actually had it better with less rights, and they're making themselves slaves by fighting for all this freedom.

Besides, equality will never be achieved, because men and women are vastly different, like apples and oranges. And it's not just the physical. The internal chemistry have been prove to be different.


Marriage has become a very unfavourable prospect to any man who can see clearly, and so we're going to witness a gradual decline in marriage and really child-rearing, too.

Marriage itself is really only seen as unfavorable to younger people, with good reason. Not everyone wants to get married when they're young, since it confines them to their spouse/groom.

Your arbitrary delineation does not address my sentiment. Marriage has become something that entirely favours women. She's entitled to half, regardless of what half she has earned. She's almost always going to win custody of the kids. The man, if they get divorced, will be unlikely to see the kids often, yet will still be required to fork out lot of his pay-check. Men are not stupid; marriage is going to die, at this rate.


I for one know quite a number of men who don't exclude marriage as an option, but just aren't ready for that extreme level of commitment.

Your one instance of anecdotal evidence is not only irrelevant, but unconvincing.

I could be selfish and see that feminism greatly benefits me, in that I now have a lot more unfair power, but that would be intellectually dishonest. Feminism a giant, rusty cleaver, slicing through the fabric of society.

So, you're saying that women have 'unfair power' in today's society?

That is possibly the funniest joke i've heard all day. Try telling that to the gang rape victims in India, or maybe those women in the Middle East who are seen as sub-human objects that are legally beat by their husbands and treated as animals.

I specifically said Western countries. Besides, it's never been okay to hit beat women, so this is another strawman of yours.

Women have unfair power in marriage, in fighting for equality and that they get to keep a lot of the chivalry benefits of yesteryear.

Women only really became seen as actual human beings (at least in the West) around 100-150 years ago. Before then, they didn't have access to education, job opportunities, voting rights, and were subject to constant domestic violence.

Nonsense. They've always been seen as human beings, just a different kind of human being with a different role. A lot of those are undesirable, and are actually slavery tools that greedy woman have forced upon themselves.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 7:04:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Would you like to counter the argument that as women gain more rights, society as a whole benefits? I don't think arguing against that is a defensible position.

You can look to the modern day and see countries where women have far less rights and opportunity, and those countries have terrible societies. Human rights abuses, lack of literacy, poverty, etc.

Are you saying that say, 100 years ago we were a better society because women couldn't compete in the workforce and spent the day at home? That doesn't make much sense to me. Not to mention the fact that our society and its needs have changed dramatically since then. Most children attend public school, housework is easier, parents don't work 16 hour shifts, women have roles specifically for them in the workforce, people live less than fifty miles generally from town centers, technology advances and social media becoming commonplace; the list goes on and on. How can you advocate for a policy shift that isn't adapted to our current situation?

I know a few stay at home moms. Yes this is anecdotal. They generally get most of the housework done by noon and spend the day running errands, trying to waste the hours until it's time to cook dinner. Should we lose a huge portion of the workforce, which drives men to work more hours and have less free time to spend with their children, while also having women spend a majority of their day wasting time?

Honest questions.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 7:48:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 7:04:41 PM, Nebelous wrote:
Would you like to counter the argument that as women gain more rights, society as a whole benefits?

On the surface it might, but there are underlying mechanisms that need to be addressed, wherein equality makes for an awful idea.

I don't think arguing against that is a defensible position.

You can look to the modern day and see countries where women have far less rights and opportunity, and those countries have terrible societies. Human rights abuses, lack of literacy, poverty, etc.

Human rights are different issues to feminism. Human rights is about basic human rights, whilst feminism is about equality. The two aren't quite the same.


Are you saying that say, 100 years ago we were a better society because women couldn't compete in the workforce and spent the day at home?

Absolutely. It meant that the children received the attention that they needed to be raised, it meant that men could be (sexy) leaders and it meant that women could focus on being feminine (attractive to their partners), rather than having to adopt male traits.

Not to mention the fact that our society and its needs have changed dramatically since then.

The 'needs' have come about through toxic propaganda, such as feminism. I detect that your argument begs the question, in that the needs come about because of the apparent need for them. In other words, you can't say it's good that feminism solves the problems that it creates.

Most children attend public school, housework is easier, parents don't work 16 hour shifts, women have roles specifically for them in the workforce, people live less than fifty miles generally from town centers, technology advances and social media becoming commonplace; the list goes on and on. How can you advocate for a policy shift that isn't adapted to our current situation?

Consider for a moment that a lot of the problems that exist are caused by feminism...


I know a few stay at home moms. Yes this is anecdotal. They generally get most of the housework done by noon and spend the day running errands, trying to waste the hours until it's time to cook dinner. Should we lose a huge portion of the workforce, which drives men to work more hours and have less free time to spend with their children, while also having women spend a majority of their day wasting time?

If that really is the case, then part-time work wouldn't be a terrible idea. But a woman's priorities should be maintaining the house and raising the children. I'd argue that if she's doing those correctly, there shouldn't nearly be that much time for other things, but sure, part-time work would be okay.


Honest questions.

Honest answers.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:53:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think feminism died on the whole ERA issue (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly). Am I wrong on this?

Does ERA actually have a chance?

I think the original spirit of feminism is already in American culture where if a woman wants to be a bread winner, she can. Gender isn't defined by binary social roles anymore, rather, by degrees of personal choices. I think it's better for a society to embrace the truth of the Kinsey scale and adjust for everyone. :)
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 3:38:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:53:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think feminism died on the whole ERA issue (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly). Am I wrong on this?

Does ERA actually have a chance?

A far greedier brand of feminism floods social media, nowadays. Feminism is basically about equality, which differs from human rights, because equality is about making everything equal, whereas human rights addresses the basic human liberties we should be naturally afforded.


I think the original spirit of feminism is already in American culture where if a woman wants to be a bread winner, she can. Gender isn't defined by binary social roles anymore, rather, by degrees of personal choices. I think it's better for a society to embrace the truth of the Kinsey scale and adjust for everyone. :)

Gender roles are not simply social constructs. They are genetically ingrained within us. America is making everyone miserable (except government and business) by dissolving gender roles in the social sphere.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:02:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:38:30 AM, Zarroette wrote:
Gender roles are not simply social constructs. They are genetically ingrained within us. America is making everyone miserable (except government and business) by dissolving gender roles in the social sphere.

Preach.
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 1:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Although interesting that you are anti-feminism yet pro-abortion, which is only possible as a result of feminism.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 5:58:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 1:03:09 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
Although interesting that you are anti-feminism yet pro-abortion, which is only possible as a result of feminism.

I've only recently been shown the light, in regards to how repugnant feminism is. But I still think that abortion is necessary, especially in a world where sexuality has been liberated. I think it would be cruel to force a modern Western woman, who are increasingly becoming vile and unfit for anything serious, to raise a child. It's unfair on the child, basically. As fantastic as a method of deterrence it would be to abolish the chance to abortion, too many children would suffer at the hands of malicious mothers. If the mother has already shown herself to be irresponsible with something as simple as birth control, how on Earth will she be able to raise a child responsibly?

Also, in 3rd World countries, I think birth control is an absolute necessity, because plenty of those people cannot afford to raise a child.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?

You should check out the game fox breeding experiment in Russia. Behavioral traits and attributes can be controlled very quickly, it's just it's not exactly considered ethical to implement such a program in today's society.

But there are a handful of genes which would trigger substantial effects if inserted. In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change colour.

http://youtu.be...

So, it's feasible to control the genes in an ethical way in the future, or even now...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?

You should check out the game fox breeding experiment in Russia. Behavioral traits and attributes can be controlled very quickly, it's just it's not exactly considered ethical to implement such a program in today's society.

Well it's not exactly ethical, in my eyes, to allow for such a destructive psychology to be able to stomp everything in sight. The default human psychology sucks, as I'm sure you're aware of (to degree).


But there are a handful of genes which would trigger substantial effects if inserted. In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change colour.

http://youtu.be...

So, it's feasible to control the genes in an ethical way in the future, or even now...

That's miraculous scientific progress. We could finally implement Socialistic policies that only work on paper currently, yet would be so much better than Capitalistic policies. Amazing!
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:23:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?

You should check out the game fox breeding experiment in Russia. Behavioral traits and attributes can be controlled very quickly, it's just it's not exactly considered ethical to implement such a program in today's society.

Well it's not exactly ethical, in my eyes, to allow for such a destructive psychology to be able to stomp everything in sight. The default human psychology sucks, as I'm sure you're aware of (to degree).


But there are a handful of genes which would trigger substantial effects if inserted. In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change colour.

http://youtu.be...

So, it's feasible to control the genes in an ethical way in the future, or even now...

That's miraculous scientific progress. We could finally implement Socialistic policies that only work on paper currently, yet would be so much better than Capitalistic policies. Amazing!

Erm, I was thinking more on the lines if genetic engineering and selective sperm donors/egg donors, or embryo selection....

Don't get too excited lol.

It's not exactly new science... I mean where do you think most your food, fruit and veg comes from? Where do you think your bananas and milk come from? Artificial selection all the way...
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:26:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:23:28 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?

You should check out the game fox breeding experiment in Russia. Behavioral traits and attributes can be controlled very quickly, it's just it's not exactly considered ethical to implement such a program in today's society.

Well it's not exactly ethical, in my eyes, to allow for such a destructive psychology to be able to stomp everything in sight. The default human psychology sucks, as I'm sure you're aware of (to degree).


But there are a handful of genes which would trigger substantial effects if inserted. In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change colour.

http://youtu.be...

So, it's feasible to control the genes in an ethical way in the future, or even now...

That's miraculous scientific progress. We could finally implement Socialistic policies that only work on paper currently, yet would be so much better than Capitalistic policies. Amazing!

Erm, I was thinking more on the lines if genetic engineering and selective sperm donors/egg donors, or embryo selection....

So, it's not quite there yet??


Don't get too excited lol.

It's not exactly new science... I mean where do you think most your food, fruit and veg comes from? Where do you think your bananas and milk come from? Artificial selection all the way...

Is it that much harder to do with humans?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 3:38:30 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:53:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think feminism died on the whole ERA issue (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly). Am I wrong on this?

Does ERA actually have a chance?

A far greedier brand of feminism floods social media, nowadays. Feminism is basically about equality, which differs from human rights, because equality is about making everything equal, whereas human rights addresses the basic human liberties we should be naturally afforded.


I think the original spirit of feminism is already in American culture where if a woman wants to be a bread winner, she can. Gender isn't defined by binary social roles anymore, rather, by degrees of personal choices. I think it's better for a society to embrace the truth of the Kinsey scale and adjust for everyone. :)

Gender roles are not simply social constructs. They are genetically ingrained within us. America is making everyone miserable (except government and business) by dissolving gender roles in the social sphere.

Zarroette, feminism is about allowing women to make their own choices in life, about having children, about being mothers, about having careers and bread winners, about being national leaders, about having equal pay to men for the same kind of work, about providing women with the same authority as men.

Are women men? No. But should a women be allowed to get as far as men have typically gone in our society? Absolutely.

Zarroette, you might something different for your life than a female who wants to pursue a career, have children, and have a larger impact on the world. You have the right to pursue the kind of life you want for youself. But so does this other female.

This is what feminism is. I also think this is the way life should be.
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:47:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:41:26 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:38:30 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:53:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think feminism died on the whole ERA issue (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly). Am I wrong on this?

Does ERA actually have a chance?

A far greedier brand of feminism floods social media, nowadays. Feminism is basically about equality, which differs from human rights, because equality is about making everything equal, whereas human rights addresses the basic human liberties we should be naturally afforded.


I think the original spirit of feminism is already in American culture where if a woman wants to be a bread winner, she can. Gender isn't defined by binary social roles anymore, rather, by degrees of personal choices. I think it's better for a society to embrace the truth of the Kinsey scale and adjust for everyone. :)

Gender roles are not simply social constructs. They are genetically ingrained within us. America is making everyone miserable (except government and business) by dissolving gender roles in the social sphere.

Zarroette, feminism is about allowing women to make their own choices in life, about having children, about being mothers, about having careers and bread winners, about being national leaders, about having equal pay to men for the same kind of work, about providing women with the same authority as men.

This is incredibly bad for society. The sexual liberation of women gives them a stranglehold on men, especially if the government gets on their side (which it has, in most countries with equal opportunity). Gender roles are genetically ingrained within us, and this liberation of women is making everyone miserable.


Are women men? No. But should a women be allowed to get as far as men have typically gone in our society? Absolutely.

"Far" is the wrong descriptor. Men and women are judged entirely by different standards, due to inherent gender roles. A woman going "far" in the workplace, is no more attractive than a man expressing all his love for a children's cartoon. In other words, attraction is being killed. The traits required for a woman to go "far" in society, are very non-feminine (such as being ruthless with a business decision).


Zarroette, you might something different for your life than a female who wants to pursue a career, have children, and have a larger impact on the world. You have the right to pursue the kind of life you want for youself. But so does this other female.

Well they shouldn't have that right. It's destroying the fabric of society. It's destroying the family unit, and thus the future of the human race.


This is what feminism is. I also think this is the way life should be.

You are horrificly misguided, despite your good intentions.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:50:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:18:33 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:12:53 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:09:46 PM, Envisage wrote:
I wonder how this will change over the next 100 years when Eugenics becomes more important.

Where women can be selected with masculine physical attributes, and sexual attraction and needs/rewards are rebalanced to eliminate natural gender roles.

Would you be able to over-ride something so ingrained within our genetic code?

You should check out the game fox breeding experiment in Russia. Behavioral traits and attributes can be controlled very quickly, it's just it's not exactly considered ethical to implement such a program in today's society.

But there are a handful of genes which would trigger substantial effects if inserted. In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change colour.

http://youtu.be...

So, it's feasible to control the genes in an ethical way in the future, or even now...

"In the fox experiment the same gene that caused tameness also caused their fur to change color."

This is also true with domesticated dogs and cats. As testosterone levels in dogs and cats reduced, they're fur took on different colors and their physical shapes changed.

The reduction in testosterone levels and other genetic changes led to a greater variety in dog breeds.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 6:56:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 6:47:36 PM, Zarroette wrote:
At 7/1/2014 6:41:26 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 7/1/2014 3:38:30 AM, Zarroette wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:53:15 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I think feminism died on the whole ERA issue (thanks to Phyllis Schlafly). Am I wrong on this?

Does ERA actually have a chance?

A far greedier brand of feminism floods social media, nowadays. Feminism is basically about equality, which differs from human rights, because equality is about making everything equal, whereas human rights addresses the basic human liberties we should be naturally afforded.


I think the original spirit of feminism is already in American culture where if a woman wants to be a bread winner, she can. Gender isn't defined by binary social roles anymore, rather, by degrees of personal choices. I think it's better for a society to embrace the truth of the Kinsey scale and adjust for everyone. :)

Gender roles are not simply social constructs. They are genetically ingrained within us. America is making everyone miserable (except government and business) by dissolving gender roles in the social sphere.

Zarroette, feminism is about allowing women to make their own choices in life, about having children, about being mothers, about having careers and bread winners, about being national leaders, about having equal pay to men for the same kind of work, about providing women with the same authority as men.

This is incredibly bad for society. The sexual liberation of women gives them a stranglehold on men, especially if the government gets on their side (which it has, in most countries with equal opportunity). Gender roles are genetically ingrained within us, and this liberation of women is making everyone miserable.


Are women men? No. But should a women be allowed to get as far as men have typically gone in our society? Absolutely.

"Far" is the wrong descriptor. Men and women are judged entirely by different standards, due to inherent gender roles. A woman going "far" in the workplace, is no more attractive than a man expressing all his love for a children's cartoon. In other words, attraction is being killed. The traits required for a woman to go "far" in society, are very non-feminine (such as being ruthless with a business decision).


Zarroette, you might something different for your life than a female who wants to pursue a career, have children, and have a larger impact on the world. You have the right to pursue the kind of life you want for youself. But so does this other female.

Well they shouldn't have that right. It's destroying the fabric of society. It's destroying the family unit, and thus the future of the human race.


This is what feminism is. I also think this is the way life should be.

You are horrificly misguided, despite your good intentions.

Zarrotte, monogamy and the "family unit" is a recent invention. For thousands of years humans have lived in polygamous family units, typically made up of one father and numerous wives and their countless children, who were born primarily to serve as labor hands.

In fact, the gradual empowerment of women over the last hundreds of years has created the modern family unit, thanks largely in part to the perception that the woman is just as vital as the man in raising and leading the family.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:11:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Modern feminism can be blamed for the reduction in the number of children in modern families. But that's because feminism has forced couples to plan and to construct families responsibly, one factor being the income available to them. Couples today typically have children to add a new member to the family and to provide that member with a wonderful opportunity at life and all the joys it has to offer. No longer is it popula to have children simply to increase the family's income or to increase the number of available labor hands the family has access to.

By the way, I come from a large family made up one father, one mother and seven children. (Huge I know!)

I distinctly remember in my teens when my mother first began to work and my father complained about this to relatives and my older siblings.

Guess what? After a few years my father enjoyed the fact that my mother worked and provided the family with a second source of income. My mother is now an assistant manager for a hotel and has long since forgotten the days when she had to rely on my dad for cash.

He's retired now and my pokes fun at him because he occasionally borrows money from her when they got out for entertainment or to make purchases.

Feminism worked out just fine in their case.