Bumping up the controversy: Thoughts on feminism?

[Professional Map Painter]

you expect too much from a group of mainly teenage boys.

As a "teenage boy" this generalisation triggers me. I ask that you respect me and my kin in the future by not blatantly insulting us.

[t0night]

As a "teenage boy" this generalisation triggers me. I ask that you respect me and my kin in the future by not blatantly insulting us.

i ask that you realise that this joke is utter shite in every regard, thanks

[JamesGoblin]

I mean you can't do a generic intro to feminism because there are lots of different viewpoints and arguments, sometimes in opposition to each other. It's a complex subject.

 

Stop making us have to think more! Shoo! Go away! 

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

Thunderf00t's videos seem relevant here.

 

 

Let's take a very simple example: housekeepers (or any other job a job equivalent to housework at home). According to the statistics, at the end of the week, The woman has 4 hours less spare time; and oppositely, the man has earned more money.

 

You asked the question: why should this woman, be entitled to more $ ?

 

The answer is obvious.

 

My breathing example was faulty because no human is paid to breathe and, therefore, it is fair that I shouldn't be paid to. Charity employees, however, are paid to collect money so this has now led me to conclude that I should be paid whenever I collect money, by the given reasoning. In particular, I should be paid every time that I get paid. I should continue to be paid for each payment that I collect, and then I should be paid for being paid to be paid.

 

Surely the impending run-time errors suggest that the implied action (of paying everyone for anything that someone is paid for) is impractical.

 

 

Another example that keeps coming up is shitty jobs that are mostly male, like being a garbage man; well... classism also exists?

 

Are you saying that this is a point that we should dismiss due to it having some other cause? Everything that modern, Western feminists claim are [results of "sexism," exclusively] have other causes. If you're stating that there are other problems in society then I agree but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of modern feminists. Here is how feminism responds when told of male suicide (#KillAllMen). Unfortunately, when told that male suicide doesn't matter here since it's a "mental issue," nobody stated the flaw in this logic so I'll do just that, now.

    "Men commit suicide? That doesn't matter because it's caused by their mental issues."

    "Wait a minute! Doesn't that mean that men have more suicidal thoughts?"

    "That doesn't matter because it's caused by human brains."

 

 

 

When she hears of the few support programs for suicide (and related), male victims, she mockingly sings "Cry Me a River."

At 0:15 (from her friend): "[Men can't talk about it because] that's a mental-health issue. That's not a mens' rights issue."

 

I expect someone to deliver a reply of "She's not a real feminist" so I'll just go ahead and emphasise this now: This is not 70s feminism. This is not 50s feminism. This is how new, modern feminism behaves.

 

[Hyperqube]

Charity employees, however, are paid to collect money so this has now led me to conclude that I should be paid whenever I collect money

Firstly, as for trying to create an infinite loop, as Charity employees don't create an infinite loop, the only way you can create one is if your analogy is incorrect.

In this case, Charity employees don't get paid for not for cashing in their paycheck, dispite it also being a form of receiving money.

 

 

Secondly, you indicate the problem yourself: you use the verb "Should". 'Should' is dependant on the society.

 

For example: in a society where slavery is acceptable, you "shouldn't" get payed for the same work, if you're a slave.

Oppositely, in a 'fair' society, when two people to equal work, they "should" get payed equally.

 

 

Surely the impending run-time errors suggest that the implied action (of paying everyone for anything that someone is paid for) is impractical.

Perhaps, but as already pointed out to Derpeh, how impractical it is, is irrelevant.

 

That's like arguing, that if a tyrant can't be dethroned, it's OK for him to kill people.

It obviously isn't - regardeless of the easyness of a solution, if there even is one to begin with.

 

If you're stating that there are other problems in society then I agree but that doesn't excuse the behaviour of modern feminists. Here is how feminism responds when told of male suicide

...

I expect someone to deliver a reply of "She's not a real feminist" so I'll just go ahead and emphasise this now: This is not 70s feminism. This is not 50s feminism. This is how new, modern feminism behaves.

 

So ... Here is how austrials act:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-wtfBLvI3c

 

I expect someone to deliver a reply of "They are not a real australians" so I'll just go ahead and emphasise this now: This is not 1800 australia. This is not 1900 australia. This is how new, modern australian behaves.

 

 

 

it's obviously fallicious to judge a group by it's worst.

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

Firstly, as for trying to create an infinite loop, as Charity employees don't create an infinite loop, the only way you can create one is if your analogy is incorrect.

 

Yes, it would be silly to expect to be paid for doing something for myself purely for the reason that someone else is paid for it, professionally. That is why your housework example is faulty.

 

 

So ... Here is how austrials act:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-wtfBLvI3c

 

I expect someone to deliver a reply of "They are not a real australians" so I'll just go ahead and emphasise this now: This is not 1800 australia. This is not 1900 australia. This is how new, modern australian behaves.

 

 

 

it's obviously fallicious to judge a group by it's worst.

 

The word "obviously" is too-often used to disguise logical flaws. "The sky is purple at all times because the clouds absorb its other colours. This is obvious so you don't need to look up or try to verify my claim at all." (This is different to your use of this word; I'm using an extreme example that is intended to appear satirical to all. You're using it to hide your argument because you know that it contains flaws.)

 

Your argument is weakening so you've gone straw man (which I'll present listed so as to easily identify all fallacies):

 

I showed examples of (self-proclaimed feminists) [doing bad stuff].

You should examples of (convicted bad people) [doing bad stuff].

 

You are claiming that I'm (blaming good people) [for the actions of bad people].

I'm really (blaming bad people) [for their own actions].

 

You're deliberately misrepresenting my argument. You're trying to show me (with your example of killers) that

(blaming good people) [for the actions of bad people]

is problematic. My argument, however, is not that, so your example isn't applicable. I'm criticising

(the supposedly-good people) [for doing bad stuff].

 

You should argue that I'm

(blaming good feminists) [for the actions of bad feminists].

This argument might possibly be supported if you could show me examples of

(good feminists) [being not-bad feminists].

 

^ ^ ^ I threw a massive bone here. ^ ^ ^

 

As an example, I propose that we introduce feminism to Saudi Arabia because that is a place where women have fewer rights than men.

 

 

 

Finally, I am not interested in falsely disputing how (not Australian) [those bad people] are because being of some particular nationality is binary: You are xor you aren't. I suspect that you want me to type

"They're (not Australian) [because they're bad]."

You would then reply with

"Those examples above (are not feminists) [because they're bad]."

 

Again, you've shown a story that is specifically about killers. That is, you are portraying

(bad people) [who are already bad].

I am talking about

(bad people such as that girl laughing about male suicide) [pretending to be good when calling themselves 'feminists' rather than 'bad people'].

[Hyperqube]

Yes, it would be silly to expect to be paid for doing something for myself purely for the reason that someone else is paid for it, professionally.

But ... who's getting paid for cashing in their own checks??

Because that's your something: "getting paid".

 

 

While failing to, you seem to be wanting to paint the picture that it's silly to be wanting to get paid for volenteer work.

But that would be wrong for two reasons

• housework isn't volenteer work. I don't know about you, but I usually DON'T get up in the morning, thinking "You know what I really wanna do today? The dishes!".
• your notion of "silly" is irrelevant, as you use it measured against our current system.
  • In an other system, the notion one would have to pay someone would be silly - as that person is considered a slave
  • And on the other side of the spectrum, under a hypothetical utopian system, pay could for instance be determined by how much you've helped progressed humanity (supposing such a thing could be accurately measured). Under this system, it would be silly NOT to get paid for volenteer work

Your argument is weakening so you've gone straw man (which I'll present listed so as to easily identify all fallacies):

There's just one problem though ... you can try to claim I've gone straw man (I presume you mean started to attack a straw man), but it doesn't change the fact that you said

 

Here is how feminism responds when told of male suicide (#KillAllMen)...

This is how new, modern feminism behaves.

You don't like the criminals analogy? Well ...

 

Here is how white people respond to others races (#TamirRice)...

This is how new, modern white people behave

Or

 

Here is how christians responds to other religions(#Koni)...

This is how new, modern christianity behaves.

But the bottomline is the same: there's a difference between

• "This is how some new, modern feminists behave"

  and

• "This is how new, modern feminism behaves"

And - news flash - feminism is the only group of which some members are dispicable people.

[Sniper Noob]

And - news flash - feminism is the only group of which some members are dispicable people.

 

 

????

 

KKK

Civil Rights Protesters (yes, some were bad people)

Literally any other group you could ever put together?

 

That's a silly claim. You will be hard pressed to find any significant group of people in which 100% of them are perfectly good people. 

[Julia Gillard the Honest]

Feminism's infamous logic-blocking wall has been erected. Unfortunately, I can't penetrate it because feminism hides in a world where it dismisses all arguments against itself.

 

 

 

I expect someone to deliver a reply of "She's not a real feminist" so I'll just go ahead and emphasise this now: This is not 70s feminism. This is not 50s feminism. This is how new, modern feminism behaves.

 

 

But the bottomline is the same: there's a difference between

• "This is how some new, modern feminists behave"
  and
• "This is how new, modern feminism behaves"

And - news flash - feminism is the only group of which some members are dispicable people.

 

 

Modern, Western feminists don't have anything left to fight for. Whenever someone (me above) specifically asks what they've accomplished or fought for recently, it's always:

"Look at Anita Sarkeesian!" She's a feminist who got crowd-funded to play computer games while claiming to be researching "sexism in media" but has been found, multiple times, to explicitly show only select scenes that promote her agenda.

"Look at Emma Watson!" Her job title is 'ambassador' but she only 'represents' and hasn't done anything beyond that title.

 

The debate always reduces to "Feminists are fighting for equal rights now."

"What rights do feminists not have?"

"We'll get paid less for the same work as a man!"

"That's illegal. You can sue for that as it's sexual discrimination, so long as it really is the 'same work' and not some other reason such as him taking on some risk by being, say, a miner or a CEO and you wanting to work quietly behind closed doors."

"No but I want to choose to have a holiday/leave or be a stay-at-home member of a relationship so I can't sue for that."

"You're choosing to be employed for fewer hours?"

"No! Society's making me stay at home."
"That's illegal as well. You should tell the police that you're being held against your own will. After they save you, you can go and get that job. By the way, who is Society?"

"PATRIAAAARRRRCHY IS SOCIETY!"

 

I admit that I am behaving as a physicist or statistician would whenever I say that "Every modern, Western feminist I've ever seen is a bad person and I've seen dozens so I'm inferring that they're all bad, probably."

I want to see some evidence that shows most modern, Western feminists doing some "good" in some way.

 

I want to see (feminists) [being good].

I only see (feminists) [being bad].

 

For example, Malala Yousafzai was shot for going to school. That's something that I've seen our privileged, wealthy feminists complain about from their safe spaces several countries away, only. The feminists to whom I am referring aren't willing to go and protest on the spot of that shooting but they're happy to claim credit for the victim. They don't want to be feminists in places where it actually includes risk (unlike, say, the Pakistani protesters who actually did so) but they want the rewards (and other unfair benefits such as the privilige to be paid equally for working less than other people).

 

"We all support her bravery. All feminists are proud to be with her."

"What are you doing in your country?"

"I'm fighting for equal rights, here."

"What rights?"

"I support oppressed women such as Malala. I support the oppressed women of America in 1900."

"So do I."

"Great! You're a feminist now. Together, we can complain about the immoral suffering of other women from our safe space while claiming any possible credit for their suffering."

"What do we do, exactly?"

"We protest."

"What do we protest?"

"We protest while demanding equal rights to all men."

"What rights do men have that you don't?"

"They can go to school without being shot."

"What rights do American men have that American women don't?"

 

By this point, the feminist has already forgotten so we go straight back to the "pay gap."

 

 

 

Off of the record, thank you, greatly, for the debate. Most feminists call "harassment" immediately whenever someone disagrees with their ideas so it has been a genuine pleasure to have this chance to submit my propositions. You haven't had the time to address many of them yet but I'm sure that you will eventually and I truly apppreciate your time.

[Hyperqube]

????

 

KKK

Civil Rights Protesters (yes, some were bad people)

Literally any other group you could ever put together?

 

That's a silly claim. You will be hard pressed to find any significant group of people in which 100% of them are perfectly good people.

 

I 100% agree. Actually, I originally intended to say 'isn't the only group' - but when I saw that I had mistyped, I left it. (I thought it obvious, but I can only hope everyone has a simelar reaction to yours: that such a claim indeed is silly)

can

 

Modern, Western feminists don't have anything left to fight for.

An instersting statement, seeing as statistics prove women work more, yet get paid less ...

(reference to this thread)

 

 

"Look at Emma Watson!" Her job title is 'ambassador' but she only 'represents' and hasn't done anything beyond that title.

 

She helps to create awareness. If anything, I would argue we need MORE vocal non-feminazi feminists.

 

I admit that I am behaving as a physicist or statistician would whenever I say that "Every modern, Western feminist I've ever seen is a bad person and I've seen dozens so I'm inferring that they're all bad, probably."

 

Firstly, you do realise how insulting that is to statisticians, right? They don't go "most people I know are democrates, so the majority of people are democrates".

 

Secondly, are you aware that someone spitting vitrol or acting stupid or whatever, is MUCH easier to find then someone doing something decent? So, let me ask you;

 

I want to see (feminists) [being good].

I only see (feminists) [being bad].

 

How much effort do you do to find these sources?

 

 

Which brings me to might third point: why you consider Emma Watson a bad person?

And me (as I, though male, consider myself a feminist)?

And any other person in this thread who identifies as feminist?

And everyone in your social circle?

... these are people you already found. Yet, they don't count?