Is Feminism Dangerous, Dogmatic, and Antiquated? Maybe! (Page 2)
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
23Opinion
pseudo-intellectual lol..
There have been many matrichiarcal societies, in Africa, Asia, ancient Europe . And bonobos are an isolated population.. er so what? They are still a species, and aren't human, so to compare ourselves to them doesn't make sense.
you claim intelligence, but then you're not, you base this Take on faulty logic, poor base principles, and your own weird/retarded biases.
No. Everything I've said is a fact, hence the citations. "The consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that while many cultures bestow power preferentially on one sex or the other, matriarchal societies in this original, evolutionary sense have never existed."
www.britannica.com/.../matriarchy
"They are still a species, and aren't human, so to compare ourselves to them doesn't make sense."
People compare us to them because they are very close relatives to humans. We share a massive similarity in DNA, upwards of 98%.
"you claim intelligence, but then you're not, you base this Take on faulty logic, poor base principles, and your own weird/retarded biases."
I also never claimed intelligence here so I'm not sure what you're talking about. My logic is sound and you've failed to explain its faults. My basis is true. I never said I wasn't bias. But that doesn't detract from my points.
No... there are many matriarchal societies...
And all species evolved in unique environments, again, you only see things as you wish to see it, not as fact or objective... lol.. dope. and bad logic, you've said that feminism isn't based in science? Most social movements are not.
@tenofthepeaks "No... there are many matriarchal societies... "
False. Provide proof. Your belief is inaccurate and this article was for you.
"And all species evolved in unique environments, again, you only see things as you wish to see it, not as fact or objective... lol.. dope. and bad logic, you've said that feminism isn't based in science? Most social movements are not."
Our species developing in different environments is irrelevant. We are all the same species and are subject to essentially the same biology. Everything I've said is a fact and nothing you've said is objective.
You have provided zero reliable backing because it does not exist. Maybe you're too deluded or dense to realize it. I don't blame you though. I was cultured in the same way and thought as you did at one time too. Any social movement that utilizes science is based on reason. The Civil Rights Movement was based on the idea that we are all the same species, that's a fact.
If your beliefs contradict anything I've said you are the pseudo-intellectual, not me. <--- logic.
I don't think you understand what the term species means... meh, you don't get it, just pushing your own biases.
and you do claim intelligence... this is the only reason i'm responding since you don't have it.
@tenofthepeaks "I don't think you understand what the term species means... meh, you don't get it, just pushing your own biases."
I don't think you do if you disagree with me. Everything I said was a fact. Am I bias? Probably. Does that detract from my points? No. What I said was factual.
Species: biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus
"and you do claim intelligence... this is the only reason i'm responding since you don't have it."
I don't even know how to respond to that. Where did I claim that? Quote it for me. Does that imply you think you do? Based on what? What are you even talking about? As far as I can tell ignorance applies to you. Not me.
Intelligence: : the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations
lulz... OK. I think the only reason you responded is because you think i cannot comment or state my opinion.. OK, then, prove it.
Considering that many others have said the same stuff, I presume you're fuming or you're retarded or something lol.
@tenofthepeaks "lulz... OK. I think the only reason you responded is because you think i cannot comment or state my opinion.. OK, then, prove it."
You can state your opinion. I want opinions. But if you're contradicting facts I'm going to oppose your statement for that reason.
"Considering that many others have said the same stuff, I presume you're fuming or you're retarded or something lol."
Then that's a false assumption. I wrote this post because I didn't see anything on here that was comparable. You should probably read the entire thing if you want the whole picture. It isn't very long.
er... no, it's because you hold some issue with me, but i personally don't care.
@tenofthepeaks "er... no, it's because you hold some issue with me, but i personally don't care."
I have no idea what you're talking about. You called me a pseudo-intellectual based on nothing. Aren't you the one with the issues with me?
er.. no. i comment as i please lolol... what can YOU do to prevent me?
@tenofthepeaks "er.. no. i comment as i please lolol... what can YOU do to prevent me?"
I really hope you're high because again you aren't making sense. Why would I prevent you? It makes no difference to me.
lolol.. it's your intent, but meh, not bothered.
@tenofthepeaks "lolol.. it's your intent, but meh, not bothered."
No. It isn't. And if you believe that you're delusional. If I wanted to "prevent" you from responding I could block you. You haven't said anything of value thus far so I guess you responding is kind of pointless but that doesn't mean I want to prevent you from responding. However, I appear to have exhausted any more content out of you so I suppose the conversation is over.
Wow, bitch at the end, so scary, evil, bigot, OMG.
Very scary. You might want to watch all or part of all of them if you get the chance. It's pretty interesting stuff!
Herp derp
https://i.giphy.com/MqRo4XYqR5txC.gif
My mother and sister don't make the same Amount of money then their male counterparts. I think that's bloody rubish so yeah I suppose I am a feminist. As with any social movements you always have a Militant wing but that part is not the whole. Black social consciousness made a lot of strides but also had it's fringe proponents.
"My mother and sister don't make the same Amount of money then their male counterparts. I think that's bloody rubish so yeah I suppose I am a feminist."
You don't need to be a Feminist to oppose something like that. You could be an Egalitarian or something similar. Feminism is unnecessary.
"As with any social movements you always have a Militant wing but that part is not the whole."
It is part of the whole. Feminism is open-ended and because of that the militant wings are just as validly Feminist.
"Black social consciousness made a lot of strides but also had it's fringe proponents."
I agree and that's why I don't support the Black Power Movement. I support movements like the "Civil Rights Movement".
"My mother and sister don't make the same Amount of money then their male counterparts."
Do you have any evidence of that?
Or do you just make an ass out of you and me?
Nonsense.. There is still the gender pay gap and rampant rape. Moreover, it is not a religion. Religion seeks to define and validate existence. Gender roles are not static. They have changed to various degrees thoughout history and are differ when you look at various cultures. You fear of feminism; is grounded in your fear of change in the dynamic between men and women. As always, it is about power.
The gender pay gap is largely an illusion. Rape is a crime. Neither of which call for the need of Feminism. Nothing I said was nonsense. Feminism is a religion. I explained my reasoning and you didn't confront it. Gender roles are static with respect to biology.
Culture can change because humans have the potential for higher cognitive functioning. That doesn't mean humans don't still have instincts. I do fear Feminism because it is a virulent viral malignancy. Some of what they believed I found funny until I realized a fair amount of people bought into their indoctrination. It isn't funny anymore.
I do agree partly though. It is about power. It's the power of truth over dogma. I oppose harm to the innocent.
are you kidding? the pay gap is a myth that seems to never end... and it has been refuted countless times. As for myself, I have no fear at all about change, actually is what I want, the only thing. that I'm afraid of are lies and manipulation... and feminists are absolut professionals in this.. at least the ones with power.
I only agree with you in your last sentence: "as always, it is about power", you've nailed it here, but not in the right direction XD
Pay gap myth:
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../wage-gap_b_2073804.html
www.cbsnews.com/.../
blog.dol.gov/2012/06/07/myth-busting-the-pay-gap/
Gender pay gap myth? Women dont make as much money as men, so that is irrefutable proof of discrimination? Bullshit!
write a take about why you defend sleeping with underaged girls
If there is a high enough demand, sure. But my point was not to say just sleeping with them is a good idea necessarily, as it can have MASSIVE detrimental effects if that's all it is. My point was that "Underage girls" conceptually with respect to anatomical and psychological development is largely if not entirely arbitrary after puberty. Feminism is very controversial and more pressing.
yeah no write one about that it'll go down really well I swear. People will love it. Title it like "Why it's okay to sleep with 13 year olds: CAUTION, may have massive detrimental effects"
At least it would be different...
Problem is that's deceptive because legally and socially it isn't okay. That seems very dishonest of you. I could say, "Why it could be okay to sleep with girls after puberty: but it could be detrimental."
okay go w/ that
I could or maybe I should alter it a little more and say something more accurate like: "Why the age of consent is arbitrary."
;)
also write one called "How to backtrack when you are called out"
I could write that article if I were actually being called out but I'm not. Some people attempt to call me out using faulty exaggeratations ;)
you must be feeling old
@kep79 who?
women who don't want young girls to have sex
Hehe... I support the truth and anti feminist becauepse they go for and against menist they are groos I just like my dad and two brothers
Today is an unlucky day for me.
I had to call out three sexist jokes at a party, prevent one of my friends from catcalling someone, then had to break down a horribly homophobic rant online.
I come here and this is what I find.
I would explain everything that is wrong, but I'm just too lazy.
Feel free to explain anything that is wrong when you have time because none of it is. I'm sorry you had a rough day though!
Essentially no. If you read what I put above and digest it I've already addressed your concerns.
I can't waste my time with idiots.
Sorry.
You are beyond salvation.
"I can't waste my time with idiots.
Sorry. You are beyond salvation."
Lol see... I was trying to be nice and you went and said that. In what Universe am I an idiot compared to you? Your account says you're fifteen bro and it clearly shows.
This: "No, it is not a fallacy, it is a branch of thought.
Average feminism and radical feminism." Is not logic. I'm aware it's a branch of though. I addressed it. The branches of thought are still Feminist. I don't know if your parents are Feminists but you should learn to open your eyes occasionally. The world has a lot more you could take in.
This is: "Whenever Feminists attempt to deny that Feminism is the things above it falls under that fallacy due to Feminism ultimately being open-ended by definition." With respect to the no true scotsman fallacy.
You're either ignorant or indoctrinated as far as I can tell. Have a nice day ;)
Whatever.
It's not my job to educate you.
@Noxifer626
"It's not my job to educate you."
that's so adorable... educate me? It's 100% the other way around. Nothing you've said has educated me at all. I thought about what you said when I was younger than you. You're behind the times. BUT what amuses me most is that you said:
"I can't waste my time with idiots."
Yet you continue on talking with me (who you claim is an idiot)... You're... Fun lol perhaps you are the idiot in all of this? I bet your arrogant nature has prevented you from even considering the possibility. Positively delightful. Go on! I eagerly await whatever new nonsense you can concoct in that cesspool you consider your mind.
Your ignorance is what is wrong.
True feminism is still fine and woman still are not treated as equals. Is it better now than 50 years ago? Of course but we have a little ways to go. Has it brought about some bad consequences? Yes sadly but I deal with it.
No Feminism isn't fine. I thought it was too. There is no such thing as "True Feminism."
"Whenever Feminists attempt to deny that Feminism is the things above it falls under that fallacy due to Feminism ultimately being open-ended by definition."
That quote is from my post and it references the No True Scotsman fallacy. Feminism is whatever people want to believe as long as it follows its definition: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests. And that's why it's dangerous.
It has morphed into something divisive and hateful. Not to mention that all of those subgroups that advocate genocide of males, among other monstrosities, are all still Feminist by definition. Their opinions are just as valid as any other Feminist BECAUSE of Feminism.
Maybe just get some sex man.
Hard as you may find this to believe I don't have an issue with females or getting sex if I want it. I have an issue with Feminism.
Mhmmm
.,.,
@Take Owner It is not a True Scotsman fallacy.
Some feminists want men to be systematically executed.
Some feminists want women to be paid the same as men.
Completely unrelated one to the other.
Whatever
.,.,.,.,.,
@Noxifer626 it would be much easier to respond to you if you responded in your own post and tagged me properly but yes it would be that fallacy.
"Some feminists want men to be systematically executed.
Some feminists want women to be paid the same as men."
If someone said TRUE FEMINISTS don't want men to be systematically executed that would fall under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. I'm not sure what you fail to understand.
@Noxifer626 To be honest though they wouldn't have to say "True." They would only need to say "Feminists" wouldn't do that. That would be inaccurate because Feminism is open-ended. The groups that want to systematically execute males fall under the umbrella of "Feminism."
Whoa is me... I feel like slitting my wrists now!!!
@ComDom No, it is not a fallacy, it is a branch of thought.
Average feminism and radical feminism.
@Noxifer626 do you understand how fallacies work? Because I explained in detail how your assessment is wrong.
@ComDom
They are different. Non-radical feminists think differently than radical feminists. It's that simple.
¿Is Stalinism the same as Marxism? No.
They are subdivisions of a pattern of thought.
@Noxifer626 "They are different. Non-radical feminists think differently than radical feminists. It's that simple.
¿Is Stalinism the same as Marxism? No.
They are subdivisions of a pattern of thought."
Lol that's irrelevant. I'm saying radical Feminism and traditional Feminism all belong to the umbrella of Feminism. I'm not sure what you fail to understand. Feminism is open-ended and allows for radicals. They are all Feminist. You are 100% unequivocally wrong in your assessment.
@ComDom
Yes they are feminists but they are only a fraction of feminism, a minority.
You would be wrong to judge feminism itself based only on a what a few people say.
You don't have your own answer to comment on?
@Noxifer626 not really. You're making an assumption. We have no idea what the percentages are and even if we did it wouldn't matter. That isn't my point. The point is that Feminists who believe in exterminating all men are just as valid as those who want to fight for 'equal rights'. Feminism's definition allows for that and it was the point of me writing what I did above.
@Com Dom
Any degree of choice will inherently cause evil. It is unavoidable.
To remove radical views, we would have to remove all choice.
@ComDom
Fixed.
@Noxifer626 lol you're getting closer but you aren't there yet. Having clear definitions and organization is what prevents radicals. Feminism has neither. It's open-ended by definition and organization. That's why Feminists can be man-haters and man-lovers at the same time. It's quasi-legitimized paradoxical chaos.
Can you both please stop commenting on my answer. I am not participating with this current conversation. Thank you.
surely mr. anon. I'll respond on his post lol
This is true feminism, it isn't what they say it is through propaganda but it is.
I'll believe this when people stop asking my wife if I am okay with her bringing home the bread.
I don't understand.
When men are not seen as the bread winners in society I will believe it has become equal.
How about when people stop asking stay at home wives if they are ok being objectified?
I agree with this article
There's a difference between RadFems/TERFs and normal Feminists. Because there still is disparity between men and women in modern societies across the globe and even in The US...
I used to think that way but I don't anymore. All of those seemingly separate types of Feminism fall under the umbrella of "Feminism." It is open-ended because it has no central doctrine. Thusly because of its definition your claim that "There's a difference between RadFems/TERFs and normal Feminists" is an ad hoc fallacy, more specifically: the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" as I mentioned above.
"Because there still is disparity between men and women," in "the US," Think so? Prove it. Most if not all of what I've been told, with regards to Feminism, about the western world turned out to be untrue or exaggerated. It might even skew in the other direction now.
"There's a difference between RadFems/TERFs and normal Feminists" The only difference here is how honest they are about feminism.
Just ignore it and it'll go away eventually.
Ok let things go the men's way
I don't understand. What is your point?
Lol typical feminist, it must be MEN vs. WOMEN. This is what they do brainwash young women into seeing men as the enemy, and blaming all problems of society on men.
Only the ones who are at the protest rallies.
Rush Limbaugh II? Are you sure the first one won't object?
I have no idea how to respond to this. What are you talking about?
You should have mentioned your principal reference! Or did I overlook Rush Limbaugh in your links?
I make no mention of him nor is he in any of my citations. I'm actually not familiar with his views on the subject.
Indeed, you forgot to mention him when using his rants
"Indeed, you forgot to mention him when using his rants"
Makes no sense. So someone else came to the same conclusion I did and I have to mention him? Also this isn't a rant. I'm not talking, showing anger, or complaining in that article. I brought forth facts and nothing more.
Complain:
: to say or write that you are unhappy, sick, uncomfortable, etc., or that you do not like something
: to say (something that expresses annoyance or unhappiness)
Rant:
: to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable.
Rush Limbaugh II?
Oh I see because someone points out the RANK hypocrisies of feminism he must be a misogynistic, bible thumping, Wall St. loving, ultra conservative redneck.
This is of course simply more feminist propaganda:
"You are either with us or the terrorists!" I'm sorry that was George W Bush. "You are either with us or the misogynists!"
Its so easy to get the two mentalities confused.
This take is just a strawman fallacy, like Rush Limbaugh's rants.