Feminists.
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:29pm
Thread Topic: Feminists.
-
-
just putting that out there
-
^I couldn't have said it better myself.
-
Tounge; What, by making a video that lists no sources, focuses on anecdotal evidence, makes enough assumptions to fill a stadium and just goes over the points I've ALREADY BEEN OVER AND DISPROVED? Really says something about how you say things, doesn't it? For Christ's sake, I've seen video game debates with more thought.
Aside from the small addendum I'm going to add below, what part of this video is adding new evidence to your argument? Is there even a single second of this video which adds something new?
Men aren't distancing themselves from the problem, there is no problem to distance themselves from. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest there is a problem. And simply turning the finger and saying 'denying the problem is making it worse,' is a cheap debating trick to make the opponent focus on the fact that you've presented no evidence whatsoever by discrediting anything they say.
(Also, as a side note, I really don't like watching videos where someone tells me how hard my life is and how I've been 'abused' simply by being a woman. I know how I've been abused, I lived it. It happens to everyone.) -
im so disappointed to have missed the brunt of this, but I only have one thing to say: IHLAOY. Marry me.
-
Although now that I look back over the thread theres some seriously needless flak from you at appa. Her communism flavored everything is partially anecdotal and partially a pertaining to everything as restructuring the economic system would in favt cange every aspect of our lives.
-
I'm sorry Slim, but I'm already taken and I can't cheat on my husbando.
To clarify, it's not the fact that communism would change things that I pointed out, because that's obvious. It's the fact that there was no need for it in the argument. If we were discussing communism, then yes, she would have a point, but I don't see how a change of economic system would affect (assuming it's real for a second) a social issue, nor how that's a valid solution to said issue to begin with.
It just seemed at the time like she was adding it in because biases. -
little heartbreaker : (
Actually economy is one of if not THE top motivation in sexual politics. See a long time ago when humanity was a baby we developed a fixation on economy and possessions. See as people mature, and live within society, they accrue certain resources such as food, territory, and organizational currency.
Now when we die, there will be a large amount of wasted resources but since we have resources which are considered valuable it makes no sense to throw them away, and considering that we can trade our resources for another persons resources, then why should we give them away for free? The natural answer to the problem is inheritance.
which gave children a value greater then just the continuation of the species, and by extension gave sex an extra importance as well.
Then over time as society becomes larger and larger, and wealth becomes better and better established, sex becomes more important to society.
Anything of importance obviously has to be documented, orally, literally or otherwise, but it was just shy of impossible to prove paternity before modern medicine, so women become the bearers of not only children but the continuing economy. Needless to say, that leaves women playing the role of commodities, and within social economy commodities are regulated.
Fact is that it's unprofitable for women to have children at unregulated times. so individual couples or harems would be checked by their male counter parts in order to control reproduction over thousands of years globally.
Today that trend continues into many different faucets of society, its a complicated mechanism and im not saying this is a bad thing: I don't believe it is.
But it is a fact that economics plays an ENOURMOUS part in the debate on sexism.
This is actually why feminists hate me actually and why I have no respect for the movement. Sexual politics are based on real world transactions, factual, hard data and resources, while feminists argue on the basis of moral principles. -
And to be EXTRA clear this is NOT a bad thing. I am in no way against human commodities, just pointing how how deeply involved economic mechanisms are in sexual politics
-
Nah, it's all good.
Just to clarify though, because I'm having a little trouble following, what you're saying is women in the past were commodities due to the fact that they proved inheritance, which has continued on into the modern age?
Wouldn't that make the women in control, instead of vice versa? -
Naw you're following ok, thats exactly what it is.
And yes: being valued does empower you to an extent, but thats not to say women are in control, or are in control because of this fact.
As far as who's technically in charge goes....veeeery few people of either gender have the capacity for social dominance. Because the mechanisms of power are ridiculously misunderstood, most people are neither in control or in the know, they just follow along whatever social movement seems to suit them. (This also is not a bad thing, and does not indicate unintelligence or oppression) -
Sorry my writings so disordered and hard to follow vy the way..im on a phone so its not as neat as itd otherwise be
-
Ah okay. Makes sense.
Thanks for your thoughts. -
Anytime.
You should totally run away with me and leave your husband ;D
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
