The Glade 4.0
https://gladerebooted.net/

Why people don't like feminism
https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11064		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:26 am ]
Post subject:  Why people don't like feminism
Guys develop nail polish that can detect date rape drugs. Feminist ***** it won't be free, that they aren't stopping all rape, that some women don't wear nail polish.


http://feministing.com/2014/08/25/some- ... il-polish/
Author:  LadyKate [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
That lady is an idiot. I agree that the nail polish might offer a false sense of security but no more than carrying pepper spray or a pocket knife or having ones cell phone in hand at all times or any other number of things. Those guys should be lauded for being pioneers, which is exactly what they are, not berated for not solving all of the world's sexual violence with one product. And demanding they offer their product for free and donate all profits?? What the heck is she smoking? I don't like *this kind* of feminism, but there are some times when standing up for women's rights is still necessary. This would not be one of those times.
Author:  Khross [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:12 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
Feminism has been doing more harm to woman than good for at least 40 years. With the exception of the rare and generally brilliant Camille Paglia, you can dismiss almost every active feminist as a lunatic hell-bent on bringing their victim politics to the front.

On this particular subject, I find it amusing that the feminist author doesn't mention the first and most ubiquitous date-rape drug -- alcohol. We're almost 30 years into the paradigm where proof of intoxication (on the part of the female) can legally vacate consent. We're almost 30 years into the paradigm where a someone I personally know got life (Rape is a capital crime in Georgia) because a girl changed her mind after the fact.

The hospital ordered blood work. The "victim" was found to still have a 0.04 BAC approximately 6 hours after leaving the bar. In court, despite witnesses to her being the "aggressor" and initiating the encounter, her level of intoxication was such that she was ruled incapable of giving consent. As the guy she had sex with was also intoxicating, he was ruled to have raped her, convicted, and had to present a death penalty defense.

That particular event opened my eyes to how feminists work and what their politics are.

Fortunately for the rest of us, feminists don't breed.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:39 am ]
Post subject: 
If they are both drunk then neither can be responsible for their action. Shoot the DA.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Feminism is stupid.
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
Feminism has never really been about "standing up for women's rights." We call that "egalitarianism", but unfortunately, a lot of women (Talya, for example) who are fair minded, and expect to be treated fairly, and in turn will treat others fairly, get called "feminists" because people are so used to the idea that "feminism" is about gender quality. Feminism is about securing rights for women, while excusing them from accompanying responsibilities. Women can serve in any position in the military, but are excused from the draft. If a man and woman both get drunk and have sex, it's rape if she says it is. Things like "Rape culture" and the "war on women" are about preserving victim status. We used to hear about "equal pay for equal work" and now we hear about the "gender pay gap" which essentially is just "equal pay", work not important. Any time a social problem is solved, a new one repalces it because - and this is the real problem of liberalism since the Civil Rights Movement - elimination of victim status means a near-total collapse of political mission and message, and accompanying loss of power. Without endless racism and sexism, the elft today would collapse utterly.

It isn't, and can't be. Right from the get-go, you can't have an equality movement named after one side or the other. That's inherently prejudicial, not simply because it has "feminine" in the name, but because it creates the idea that equality is dictated by the perspective of feminists.

Essentially, it's a very sly, subtle circular argument. Feminism is about gender equality because that's what feminists advocate. But how do we know that what feminists advocate is about equality? Well, because that's what feminism is!!! Essentially, it simply assumes that anything advocated by feminists is about equality simply because they advocate it, and then by extension, anyone arguing otherwise must be a sexist misogynist.

Women, as a group, have not faced real, institutional sexism for a good 30 years now. Individual women sometimes face the sexism of individual men or groups of men, and women still face challenges, but those challenges are more a result simply of being female (most anything to do with reproduction, for example) or are leftover effects of past sexism, rather than present sexism. Furthermore, men face their own challenges, mostly in the legal system, as Khross pointed out an example of. Some are verging on institutionalized discrimination now, because people in power, many of them men, have fallen victim to the idea that feminism and feminists are about equality. No one wants to be the misogynist politician on TV.

Meanwhile, young and middle-aged women that have grown up in my era and afterwards have been raised on the idea that they are living in the 1950s no matter what changes have occurred. We still have TV ads, for example, implying anyone actually still thinks girls shouldn't play sports. Girl's sports are profuse. We have the "ban bossy" campaign, as if A) boys are never called "bossy" and B) being "bossy" is the same as being "Strong" and people don't like "strong women". People don't mind strong women - they tend to like them, both in real life, and in fiction. What they don't like are obnoxious women, but unfortunately feminism tends to paint pleasant, reasonable female figures as being "subservient to men" even when they clearly aren't.

Another example of men's perspectives being discounted as inherently sexist - both of my professions are those that are "traditionally male". Women have been involved in them, however, ever since I started out, and much like men, you have those that are competent and those that aren't. Women, however, can always make a claim of "Sexism", or talk about how they are "trying to make it in a male world" or they "have to work twice as hard as the men."

Some of the women that say these things are competent, some aren't. Those that get the most respect, however, are (unsurprisingly) those that are competent, but don't feel the need to make things into a gender battle. Overwhelmingly, people treat others the way they are treated, and if you are female and show up and do the job well, you will be treated well, just like the males. Any female that thinks lazy, inept males are getting a pass just for having a cock are smoking drugs - those males are near-openly derided and scorned, often more than inept females just because of fear of complaints.

The common comment "I had to work x times harder than the males to get where I am" comment is particularly notable in regard to giving ONLY a female/feminist perspective validity. If I, as a male, say "that's bullshit", right after I get called sexist and misogynist, I'm likely to be told "well you haven't walked in her shoes." No, but she hasn't walked in mine. If I can't know how hard she has worked, then she clearly can't know how hard I've worked, either. And yet, for the most part, we have done it right next to each other. I've seen females getting Excellent and Outstanding ratings in the military for the same actions (as noted in specific comments) that get males Satisfactory. Women have lower physical standards than males, and in fields like law enforcement where the standards are equal they get lower scores.

The only area where women "have to work harder" to make it is physical tasks, and that only means "harder relative to their upper limit of abilities". The tasks are the same. Are they easier for me as a male with more upper body muscle mass and more lung capacity? Yes, but that does not mean she worked harder. A claim like that is essentially just saying "my perception counts because I'm a woman, DE's doesn't count because he's a man, and if he disagrees its sexism".

It's not much different from "racism" claims in this country where black "leaders" talk about "white america", essentially creating what they think all whites think, then arguing against it as racism!

Oppression is a commodity in this country. There's a reason males, whites, and Christians always seem to be searching for victimhood - because that's where the power is (they shouldn't do this, but there isn't any alternative). There are no truly oppressed people in this country - victimization is its own power.

Edit - as to the article, this is pretty much pure entitlement. "It doesn't count if you make money off it!" Here's a hint, lady - when someone else is giving something to you, they are not empowering you. You are empowered when you invest your own resources to make it happen - i.e. buy it. If they just give it away, what happens when they can't afford to do so anymore?
Author:  Talya [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:05 am ]
Post subject: 
That's the long version of what I said.
Author:  Corolinth [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:26 am ]
Post subject: 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can be legally responsible for injuries caused while operating machinery under the influence of alcohol, you can be legally responsible for who you engage in sexual activity with.
Author:  Arathain Kelvar [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:50 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Talya wrote:
That's the long version of what I said.


LOL
Author:  Diamondeye [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 12:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re:
Corolinth wrote:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you can be legally responsible for injuries caused while operating machinery under the influence of alcohol, you can be legally responsible for who you engage in sexual activity with.


And yet somehow, this becomes "rape apologism" and "rape culture" as soon as a feminist or rape advocate becomes involved.
Author:  Talya [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:
Arathain Kelvar wrote:
Talya wrote:
That's the long version of what I said.


LOL


:D
Author:  Xequecal [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Let's be honest here for a second. While this "victim culture" that's being cultivated is terrible, women in general:

1. Can not compete effectively with men at basically anything.
2. Are nearly completely defenseless and have no chance other than being rescued by a third party if a man decides to attack them.

Seriously, I'm not just talking about physical sports. Name a single formal competition that exists that both allows men to compete and where the winners/top spots aren't 99% male. Why are there no champion female golf players, poker players, Scrabble players, contract bridge players, etc.? Women learn very quickly that no matter what they're trying to win at, as soon as a man joins the game they might as well quit immediately because they basically have no chance anymore. This applies to competition in employment as well, other than the maybe top 1% of women, the rest have basically no chance at performing on the same level as the men.

Seriously, we created a culture that says depending on a man makes you weak. Then we dumped the women into the workforce, creating a massive labor surplus. Then we told the women they have to compete with men for the few jobs, which by and large, they are incapable of doing. Is it actually surprising that they'll try to find other ways to get paid?

Second, a woman has basically no chance at defending herself against basically any determined male aggressor. There are steps she can take to deter opportunistic criminals but if she's targeted specifically she's ****. Nothing she can do other than hope a third party (read: a man) hears what's happening and comes to help. Even if she carries a gun, is she going to draw it on every man who gets within 10 feet of her? Because once the guy grabs her, she's not getting to the gun anymore. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances anyways so even that wouldn't help. Men, on the other hand, have a good chance of defending themselves or escaping, especially if they stay in shape and prepare beforehand. They dont need to be a victim if they get targeted, they can save themselves. Women can't.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
If someone didn't know you as we'll as we do someone could misconstrue your remarks as misogyny.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:42 pm ]
Post subject: 
*backs away slowly from the massive sexism.*
Author:  Diamondeye [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 12:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Xequecal wrote:
Let's be honest here for a second. While this "victim culture" that's being cultivated is terrible, women in general:


The underlined portion really means "Xeq is now going to regale us with a lot of intuitive assumptions he's made."

Quote:
1. Can not compete effectively with men at basically anything.


I was going to take this as "physical skills" but unfortunately your idiotic posting below totally destroyed this notion.

Quote:
2. Are nearly completely defenseless and have no chance other than being rescued by a third party if a man decides to attack them.


Depends on the woman. For most women, their defenselessness has far more to do with total lack of experience or training to fight, combined with a psychological inability to do so than anything inherent in doing so. Men tend more and more to be this way as well, because we live in a culture that tells us that self-defense is a thing of the past.

Quote:
Seriously, I'm not just talking about physical sports. Name a single formal competition that exists that both allows men to compete and where the winners/top spots aren't 99% male. Why are there no champion female golf players, poker players, Scrabble players, contract bridge players, etc.?


In case you hadn't noticed, ther are top women golf players - against other women, because golf is a physical sport, albeit not a terribly taxing one. Men can hit the ball harder. As for gambling, ever heard of Annie Duke? How about car racing? Danica Patrick ring any bells? As for contract bridge, I can't think of any male contract bridge players, either, or Scrabble players for that matter.

Quote:
Women learn very quickly that no matter what they're trying to win at, as soon as a man joins the game they might as well quit immediately because they basically have no chance anymore. This applies to competition in employment as well, other than the maybe top 1% of women, the rest have basically no chance at performing on the same level as the men.


Where are you getting this bullshit from? About the only place this would ever apply are in combat arms professions where women are having trouble completing the training, but women regularly perform in other professions that involve physical strength and speed. Fewer women than men have the ability and desire to do so, but it's far, far above 1%. In non-physical areas no, women do not learn they "may as well quit as soon as a man joins." This is complete bullshit.

Quote:
Seriously, we created a culture that says depending on a man makes you weak. Then we dumped the women into the workforce, creating a massive labor surplus. Then we told the women they have to compete with men for the few jobs, which by and large, they are incapable of doing. Is it actually surprising that they'll try to find other ways to get paid?


Except for the "incapable of doing" part. Seriously, where do you get this idea from? Are you drunk?

Quote:
Second, a woman has basically no chance at defending herself against basically any determined male aggressor. There are steps she can take to deter opportunistic criminals but if she's targeted specifically she's ****. Nothing she can do other than hope a third party (read: a man) hears what's happening and comes to help. Even if she carries a gun, is she going to draw it on every man who gets within 10 feet of her? Because once the guy grabs her, she's not getting to the gun anymore. Most rapes are perpetrated by acquaintances anyways so even that wouldn't help. Men, on the other hand, have a good chance of defending themselves or escaping, especially if they stay in shape and prepare beforehand. They dont need to be a victim if they get targeted, they can save themselves. Women can't.


First, if that were true, handguns would be worthless for defense for almost everyone. Once again, you're simply making intuitive imaginary scenarios about what self-defense with a firearm is like, and drawing your conclusions on that basis. We've dealt with all these issues in the past, so I guess we can just chalk this up as a stealth shot at gun rights.

Second, in any self-defense situation, no a woman is not "basically ****" just because a male grabbed her. Being male is an advantage, but not an overwhelming one; the specific differences between the people matter much more than their gender. In fact, you might recall that we have a female poster (well, not so much any more but we did) that successfully fought off a larger, stronger male attacker.

The worst thing women can think if they get attacked is that they're "basically ****" because if you give up mentally before the fight even begins, you sure as hell won't win. But that's what you do, isn't it? Give up. Every time you post, it's always got some element of "omg this problem just can't be solved! it's hopeless!" Do you have any desire to win at all?
Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
Damn, you figured me out. It was all a nefarious plot to make everyone feel bad by posting nothing but hopeless negativity.

But seriously, this is not an opinion I just pulled from my ***. Here's an article/blog post you might remember, because it was popular/controversial enough to see mainstream media attention:

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/

While there's a lot of offensive stuff in this article, here's the paragraph I found most relevant:

Quote:
Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for women, it is. When I go on a date, I always leave the man’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or she begins to worry. If she doesn’t hear from me by three or so, she’ll call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?


This is not some outlier, ultrafeminist fantasy. This is pretty much the norm. It's the norm despite the fact that statistically, men are many times more likely to be the victim of violence than women are. Yet for some reason, women are still compelled to act and think this way while men generally aren't. Why do you think that is?

Also, I'm not against gun ownership and I'm not for gun control, I just have issues when people decide they can shoot people for even minor property crimes when noone's life is at risk or even potentially at risk.

As for your counterexamples, I did say 99%. Annie Duke and Danica Patrick are pretty much the 1% in those respective fields. I mean, you yourself constantly criticize the notion of the "wage gap." Why is it that men make so much more than women even in nonphysical jobs? Are the feminists right, and this wage gap is due to nothing but misogyny. I'm pretty sure your yourself have posted that men in general simply outperform women.
Author:  Rorinthas [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
Despite what you may think based on a couple of our friends here very few people advocate shooting people for minor property crimes. They just tend to be a rather vocal minority. A few more might threaten to do so, mainly to get burglars to run away/surrender.

However it can be hard to judge and intruders intention when he's in your house at 2 in the morning and your kids are asleep down the hall.
Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 6:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Why people don't like feminism
Rorinthas wrote:
Despite what you may think based on a couple of our friends here very few people advocate shooting people for minor property crimes. They just tend to be a rather vocal minority. A few more might threaten to do so, mainly to get burglars to run away/surrender.

However it can be hard to judge and intruders intention when he's in your house at 2 in the morning and your kids are asleep down the hall.


The guy actually being in your house is plenty of reason to shoot. However, there just was a case where a woman got shot because she was banging on someone's door at night, he opened the door and shot her on the front porch. Apparently knocking too loudly or harshly constitutes "fear for my life" nowadays.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 
It has been posted SEVERAL TIMES that
1. Women don't make severely less than men at the same job.

Holy shitballs man. Hell here is huffpo showing how feminist researchers (again) reveal that it is a bunch of crap http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

Read it and remember it this time.
Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
It has been posted SEVERAL TIMES that
1. Women don't make severely less than men at the same job.

Holy shitballs man. Hell here is huffpo showing how feminist researchers (again) reveal that it is a bunch of crap http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

Read it and remember it this time.


Quote:
The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.


I hate to break it to you, but these things are actually relevant factors when you consider how well women are at competing with men for the same jobs. This study is trying to see if a wage gap due to discrimination exists if you compare a man and a woman with equal experience, productivity, education, job skills, etc. It doesn't say anything about how men and women compete for jobs overall. The 23-cent gap is perfectly relevant there.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:10 am ]
Post subject: 
No it is not Xeq. People don't get to complain about the results of their decision. You choose a poor major that doesn't earn well - you choose to start your career later than others. Tough **** ****.
Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re:
Elmarnieh wrote:
No it is not Xeq. People don't get to complain about the results of their decision. You choose a poor major that doesn't earn well - you choose to start your career later than others. Tough **** ****.


Yes, and the fact that women are more likely to choose "poor majors" is part of why they compete poorly with men. Why do men choose majors that tend to earn more?
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Doesn't matter - its not unfair, its choice and people get to make them.
Author:  Xequecal [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 
I didn't say it was unfair, I said women aren't able to effectively compete on the same level that men are.
Author:  Elmarnieh [ Wed Aug 27, 2014 8:58 am ]
Post subject: 
Sure they are - if they make the same choices.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/