My take on feminism

[IcedLemonade]

Feminism (n): the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

I would say this definition is flawed. The word 'rights' remits the true benefit of feminism. Instead of women being allowed to freely offer their talents to the world by taking on responsibilities, they've made it about the oppression of women. And sometimes it's even said that feminism is resisting the oppression of the common man, too.

I dont believe in making people self conscious and hateful. Which is all this definition of feminism does. So I dont believe in this fake kind of feminism.

Maybe I've been manipulated. It could be that feminism hasn't ever been a noble cause. So forgie me if I'm misusing the word.

But to me, as a feminist, feminists need to focus on expressing their talent and not in ensuring their right success. With a participation trophy mindset.

[Bee-Hatch]

Thanks for mansplaining your thoughts on feminism to us.

[iBeowulf]

We're about to make women register for Selective Service and take away their Affirmative Action. Meanwhile, marriage, cohabitation, sex and childbirth rates are at all time lows. You did this to yourselves.

[FoghornLeghorn99]

@iBeowulf Don't forget about people with a penis being allowed in the highschool girls locker room showers being "he feels like a girl".

[FoghornLeghorn99]

*because

[Hallo626262]

Men know it better you are too emotional and don't understand the concept of equality.

[MCheetah]

I've studied so much about a topic I don't even like, such as feminism, it's made me feel ill. I agree with most of what you said here. That definition was written and advocated by, feminists. But it's not what they actually preach or work towards (since women legally and officially have more rights than men in every Western country in the world, by a large degree). It other words, the definition is a flat-out lie by modern standards and severely outdated by second-wave feminism standards (which ended 51 years ago). Feminism HASN'T ever been a noble cause. It legitimately hasn't, because women are involved, people like to put on their blinders and become extra stupid.

Do these two look like they love their husbands and are happy, loving women?

I seriously can't respect anyone who is a feminist, especially those who don't even take the time to see what it is they're pretending to be. Feminism literally ALWAYS has been an anti-male hate group. Like, literally, Susan B Anthony and Millicent Fawcett were known misandrists and they founded Western feminism in 1948, over 150 damn years ago! And yet 99% of feminists still have no f*cking clue what it is they advocate for. Which is male genocide and the destruction of femininity and the Nuclear Family. People who just say "feminism is about equality" really piss me off, with both their sheer ignorance, as well as laziness to do basic research on what they're trying to push onto everyone. It's maddening. It's become more obvious in 2021, but it's like the more you try to shine light and truth on something, the dumber and blind people get.

In short, there is no "radical feminism." It's literally always been radical. It's like saying "National Socialism is just about betting our community. What's wrong with that?"

Feminism is now one of the oldest long-cons in the book. There's others I won't get into today, but almost all of them, coincidentally or not, have become modern Liberal talking points and straw campaigns.

[MCheetah]

they founded Western feminism in *1848

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I agree with most of what you said, but I'll add this.

There was a time when women had less rights. There were many women who wanted EQUALITY, and had the right to fight for it.

But, that doesn't mean they all had good intentions, and the fight needs to stop at equality, not keep pushing to tip the scales the other way.

There will never be peace until the majority of us can agree to meet in the middle and not try to go any further, which means, it will probably never happen.

Same shit happens with racial movements, religious movements, gay rights movements.

I explain it this way, you'll never meet in the middle by playing tug of war. If you pull hard enough you will break the rope, and all land in the dirt.

The trick is to stop pulling. Let go of the rope, stand in the middle and let the other guys fly back and bust their asses with their own misguided efforts.

The women's rights movement wasn't all bad. It was mostly good. But there will always be greedy people who take it too far for their own selfish goals.

Best we can do is let go of the rope and wave.

[MCheetah]

@Lost_in_the_Woods
The truth is that women had less rights. The lie is that feminism helped in gaining women rights. How many people actually know that the Suffragettes actually hurt women's voting rights by nine years? They were supposed to get that in 1910 (at least, non-land owning women; land owners always had the right to vote). The Suffragettes hurt public opinion and delayed it by nine years because everyone, women included, saw them as assholes and didn't want to support them. The modern equivalent would be like saying ANTIFA got gay marriage legalized in America. Just because a group advocates for something, doesn't mean they are helping that cause. Oftentimes they'll hurt their own cause, like the Suffragettes did.

Second wave almost did the same thing, and second wave feminists, despite their marching, had little to do with getting women equal pay. This passed because it was previously hurting everyone to not have it; women were being used as cheap labor by companies after World War II (yes, the only time we had an ACTUAL gender wage gap in America), meaning men couldn't get decent work and women were getting paid less to do men's work. Equal pay benefited everyone involved and would've passed even if second wave feminists weren't there.

On the black Civil Rights end, you have MLK, who helped actually end segregation in America, but then you have Malcolm X, who did nothing but hurt the cause and set things back. Yet people elevate Malcolm X on the same level as MLK. This is what I mean.

But I generally agree with you that the extremists tend to ruin things and it's sometimes better not to fight them, but to let them fail in the public eye.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I completely agree.

I don't dislike mancom X, though I don't know as much about him as MLK. I empathize and identify with anger and outrage, and have seen peace get rolled over by violence and lose.

But, you are right. The goal is to convince the people in the middle. Taking things too far has the opposite effect. Regards of your intentions.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

Racism, marksism, nazisism, sexism, capitalism, agracultrualism, industrialism,

None of those words represent a balance between two opposites.

Ism is a sufix that means "the (usually very strong) belief in"

Racism is the belief in a certain race. Sexism is the belief in a certain sex. Feminism is the belief in females.

It's another word for the same thing. It's deeply misused. I believe it was first used to describe the Amizonians and then barley used at all until the women's rights movement in America.

I support the fight for equal rights, but saying that is what feminism means would be like me saying "whiteism" means the fight for racial equality. It just doesn't. You are either ignorant, a liar, or both.

I made up my own word. They say feminism, I say Equalism.

Filters the pack so fast they turn on eachother sometimes. "This isn't about Equalism this is about women's rights!"
"Aren't they the same thing?"
"No, men are evil!"
"That actually sounds pretty sexist to me..."
"Fuck you fake man loving feminist"
"Shit, I'm out. I prefer equally. EQUALISM ROCKS!"

It's like saying all lives matter. Either we can agree and work together towards a common goal, or you have to admit that isn't actually what you were trying to do.

Equalism is power. One word can destinguish a human rights activists from a Nazi supremisist in 30 seconds or less.

The sad thing though... You'll find out how few people actually want equality. 😕

[iBeowulf]

No... hell no. Only men must register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights and only white men don't receive Affirmative Action in universities and the workplace, both violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution. There's also a laundry list of anti male laws to go over, like the violence against women act. The fist thing after getting the vote without registering for Selective Service, which is a felony if men don't register, women started the prohibition era which created the modern mafia and liquor laws which just gave the government more power. Meanwhile, only white men pay net taxes. You can't legislate away nature. Men... real men... are fighting back organically. Marriage, cohabitation, sex and childbirth rates are at all time lows, as I often say. You're the enemy.

[hahahmm]

Mostly agree but I'd add that it's a myth that black men benefit from affirmative action. 99% of the benefit goes to white women and secondly to black women. It's all one of the weapons used by feminist in the gender wars but they've fooled people into thinking it's a race thing.

[iBeowulf]

No... stop... all minorities, namely everyone who isn't a white man, benefits from Affirmative Action; you sound like an Asian complaining about not getting Affirmative Action in certain universities, while receiving Affirmative Action in the workplace, because they don't get as much welfare. Do your research.

[hahahmm]

Oh, I must have missed all the black men who took all of the jobs form white men. Or all of the universities full of black males. Get a grip. The reality isn't what you think but yes it's easy to think that "all minorities" get the same benefits. Ha.

[hahahmm]

There's a reason why tons of black males are pro Trump and the women aren't too.

[iBeowulf]

Tell it to the law. I'm right and you're wrong. Looking for 14% of the population to be everywhere shows your bias.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

You have to factor in a lot of different things.

If 100 white men and and 2 black men apply for a job as a nuclear scientist, there are 10 open positions, and they hire 9 white guys with the best credentials, turn down 30 more with great credentials, and hire the one black guy who met the minimum qualifications...

30 white guys got turned down to benefit one black guy with worse credentials.

But one black guy says it was racist hiring practices. 6 white guys say it was a fair balance. 3 white guys say black people are no good at their job, one black guy says they gave him unreasonable expectations, and 50 white guys say they were discriminated against because of afirmative action.

When the reality is, they might have ended up with 5 qualified white guys, 3 qualified black guys, a qualified Asian guy and and a qualified Hispanic guy if we invested in equal education Instead of raced based tax incentives.

And then of course, 100 women will say the nuclear power industry is sexist and complain about unequal pay even though they didn't apply to be a nuclear scientist, got a degree in liberal arts, applied to give wholeistic art therapy classes to captive tigers, were hired on the spot, and got paid 75% as much as the guys who keep the reactors running.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I saw a research scientist talking about this at the start of the pandemic. She said she wanted workforce equality, but we had to be realistic. She hired mostly white people because they were the ones most qualified, and she said 'look, I could hire black people Instead, they are just as capible. But they don't have the education and experience. They aren't as qualified, and their lives are also at risk. I have to hire the people who can do the job NOW. Not someone I have to train'

She said we need to focus on educational equality so that she can hire the same proportion of black people, but right now there are just less black people who are qualified because our educational system is unfair.

You can't fail to educate black people equally and then expect an equally share and equal pay in the real work force. That just makes it harder for the company to be profitable, and causes diversity to become a disadvantage.

Educate people fairly. Then hire based on credentials. Would solve the whole problem.

[iBeowulf]

No. Albert Einstein once said: if you can't explain something simply then you don't understand it very well. Affirmative Action as discrimination against white men, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Tbe only reason it's pasted this long is liberal, also known as communist, supreme court justices. That law, along with Selective Service immunity for women, is about to go. The state isn't responsible for holing people's hands and making sure they get this and that, outside of their Constitutional rights. The equal protection clause covers equal before the law and nothing else. Stop being a commie apologist.

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

I did explain it simply.

Quantum mechanics isn't explained by saying. "It's bad"

That's an opinion. Not an explanation.

But I agree woth you that it's wrong and illegal.

[iBeowulf]

Close enough 👊

[Lost_in_the_Woods]

🤜🤛 🤙

[snackthatsmilesback]

Uhh wasn't rights kind of the point of feminism though? They fought for rights that they should have had as people, that they were denied because they were women.

Now just the rights that they're going for are a lot smaller and more subjective. So that's messy and some often cross the line into trying to get rights above what they should have as people, just because they're women.

Personally I agree with a lot of feminism, but don't align myself with the movement because of how divisive it's been made recently.

[iBeowulf]

Only men must register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights to this day... is this equality?

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf no. You wanna do something about it?

[iBeowulf]

Too late. I was part of the men's rights group pushing for women to register for Selective Service years ago and it's past the Supreme Court and headed to Congress, along with Affirmative Action, which only white men don't receive. You're asking with a tone because you're to weak, lazy and dumb to do anything but obey while uncritically swallowing whole whatever your female teachers and acquaintance tell you to... traitor.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf what tone? If its too late then whatever, if its not then what group are you talking about? I'd like to help with stuff like that.

[iBeowulf]

In this case, it's men rights texas, but laws move slow, so I and other MGTOW avoid relationships entirely. They'll steal ya kids and the best predictor is if the husband makes the median income or not.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf yeah you lost me on the last part, but at least laws are more permanent changes even if they do take longer.

[iBeowulf]

Your single mother raised a goddamn retard, boy.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf she's not single unfortunately. Why are you trying to insult me personally if you don't even know that? I don't think I told you, so you must've read some of my other comments, and would it kill you to read them properly? Maybe i am retarded but at least that's an excuse for misreading something that was written clearly.

Also I seriously disagree with a lot of her views on this subject. You should be blaming my father if you really think I'm too stupid to learn shit for myself.

[iBeowulf]

Oh, I do blame him and you.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf good. So whats with the no relationships thing, anyway? Like no interacting with coworkers no friendships no contact with family members, or just no romance?

[iBeowulf]

Stop asking stupid questions.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf then how am I supposed to get smart? 😘
ok fine I'll just research MGTOW then. See u round

[hahahmm]

"They fought for rights that they should have had as people, that they were denied because they were women." Ha. They waited until men had fought in all the wars and done 99% of the hard work of building a safe place in a modern civilization for them where they could then whine about not being treated as equals. The second there isn't a safe place they revert to saying men need to protect them and provide for them... and all they know how to do is make sandwiches and salads. Quite convenient. I'm talking about the vast majority. Of course there's always a few "wonder women" type exceptions to the rule.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm WHEN they fought for it doesn't make WHAT they fought for any less valid.

Also
"More than six million women took wartime jobs in factories, three million volunteered with the Red Cross, and over 200,000 served in the military." —https://www. nationalww2museum. org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-women-world-war-ii

Don't act like men did all the work because women were not willing to help. That's just not true.

[snackthatsmilesback]

* www.nationalww2museum.org/.../research-starters-women-world-war-ii

[iBeowulf]

First wave feminists were highly destructive domestic terrorists. Look it up.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf I'm having trouble finding anything about that. Could you give a link or a website or video with some info? Or different words to try looking up to get those results?

[hahahmm]

@snackthatsmilesback What makes it less valid is the fact women don't want the same responsibilities/accountability as men. They just want benefits. Society treats them like helpless children and gives them a pass when they break laws. Men are held accountable for everything we do plus whatever our spouse/girlfriend does. She says, "he made me do it" and it's believed 100% of the time.

[iBeowulf]

Fyi: "women against feminism" benefit from feminist laws and don't lobby for change, so it's a false dichotomy. womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/.../

[hahahmm]

@snackthatsmilesback. 16 million U. S. men served in WWII. You really want to compare numbers? Most of my female relatives over age 50 served in the military. I already covered it with my "Of course there's always a few "wonder women" type exceptions to the rule."

[iBeowulf]

Women get into the military with lower standards through Affirmative Action, so that's meaningless to me, but they're your family, so what do I know?

[hahahmm]

@iBeowulf Yeah, in 99.999% of cases I agree. Was just telling snackthatmsilesback why the numbers of women he says served in WWII aren't as meaningful as he thought.

[iBeowulf]

👊👊👊👊

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm just because men did more doesn't mean women didn't do anything. What do you expect the sex who was in charge and is physically stronger to do? Let women fill all the combat positions and do the majority of the necessary work? The "few" exceptions being over 9 fucking million, doesn't sound like a "few" to me.

Hell. Why not at least just have everyone have rights and then the individuals of either sex who don't want the responsibility that comes with them can give them up, if you wanna look at it that way? I know several men who don't vote anyway and would like to not have to register.

Also "society treats women" if you're talking about society and women as separate here, that's just men. So "men treat women" that way. And yeah. That shouldn't happen. Society as a whole shouldn't do it either; they should have equal responsibility for what rights they get.

That's what I referenced initially with the overstepping the boundary to getting extra stuff / benefits.

But that doesn't make legitimate rights any less valid for women to fight for. Although, @ibeowulf thanks for the link, yeah they should actually fight peacefully not by committing crimes.

So to adjust my initial statement: I agree with some central ideas of first wave feminism, but because of some of their harmful methods—both previously and current—I do not align myself with the movement.

Do you still have a problem with that?

[hahahmm]

@snackthatsmilesback There's a gender war. You're like the guy smuggling arms for ISIS while claiming it's okay because you only agree with 1 of their 20 stated goals. Probably, "we believe in eating a healthy breakfast each day". Anyhow, I see how you move the goal posts every time you get proven wrong. That's pretty dishonest. I also notice how you ignored me acknowledging at the start that SOME women make contributions.

[iBeowulf]

He's the bottom of the barrel. I suspect his father wasn't around.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm I'm not part of feminism! Didn't I just say that? Dammit you guys are confusing.

I didn't ignore you either I said it was more than a few, enough more that it's more accurate to say a lot of women contribute than to say only a few do.

And when did I move the goal posts? Tell me and I'll move them back. I didn't think i even fucking set them up. I made a different suggestion for a solution sure but if you don't like that then just shoot it down.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf and you why do you keep trying to bring my personal life into this? Does it really fucking matter to you WHY I'm the bottom of the barrel? Is that really gonna make any difference at all in how anyone proceeds here? I don't think so. So why are you so desperate to keep mistakenly assuming and announcing that I must have family issues just because I'm wrong and stupid?

[iBeowulf]

Males have a justice based ethical system, females have a care based ethical system and anthropologically speaking, matriarchal or female led societies are necessarily primitive. In super simple language: you're more feminine than masculine in mindset, thus my bringing your personal life into this discussion.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@ibeowulf okay, and thanks for the simple version, but I still don't see how that leads to you bringing it up here. Is telling him the possible explanation you think for my having a certain mindset really going to affect the conversation at all?

[iBeowulf]

Yes, it does affect the conversation, because your ability to objectively rationalize with a justice based ethical system; the foundation for our upset with feminism, is hampered, if not absent. In other words: you can't think straight.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf yes but why does WHY I can't think straight matter? Why bring the father thing in? Why not just say "hey he can't think straight he has a feminine mindset" if that's that's you're trying to say, instead of guessing "I think his father wasn't around" and just implying what you actually wanted to get across?

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf also, why do you think I have this care based ethical system? Is that just the most likely reason to think women should have rights AND responsibility?

[iBeowulf]

I want to point out by implication that your mother is at fault, that you're primitive and thus refuse to change and that this is an overarching trend within society itself.

[iBeowulf]

Care based ethical system: one rule for me, another for thee
Justice based ethical system: same rules for everyone
In fing tard simplicity: women and beta males are hypocrites.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@ibeowulf OK dude what the fuck

I just in this IN THIS THREAD told you, my mother didn't teach me this! If you wanna blame her blame her for having beliefs like yours, because she thinks a lot more like you than like me. Why do you keep trying to blame HER (just because she's a woman) for all the stuff I decided almost directly AGAINST her?

And I don't refuse to change I will change if I have a reason to. I've done it before on other issues why wouldn't I do it here? Where am i being a hypocrit?

[hahahmm]

@snackthatsmilesback Eh, it takes a long time for people to really understand what their parents programmed into them. Very few know when they're 21 because it goes way beyond what's obvious to you at that age. But keep on thinking you know everything.

[iBeowulf]

@snackthatsmilesback
Your (probably traditional) mother benefits from feminist laws and doesn't lobby for change. You're just slightly more honest, thus your superficial differences. These things are affected by biochemistry and environment, like fatherless girls hitting puberty earlier. On the mental side it's almost entirely subconscious.

[hahahmm]

@iBeowulf Yup. Most people have no clue what issues they have or why. They just stumble around claiming that they know what's best with zero proof... cause somebody else programmed them.

[iBeowulf]

They know they were programmed. Slaves gonna slave.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm @ibeowulf
OK hang on. Let me at least get this straight now, cause I really don't think we've been playing in the same rinks.

What specifically do you 2 think I believe that's wrong?

[iBeowulf]

You "agree with a lot of feminism."

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf maybe I didn't tag you in it but in a later reply, I changed that from "a lot of feminism" to "some central ideas of first-wave feminism."

[hahahmm]

@snackthatsmilesback You need to take a refresher course in reading comprehension. I clearly wrote about you being a feminist ally: There's a gender war. You're like the guy smuggling arms for ISIS while claiming it's okay because you only agree with 1 of their 20 stated goals. Probably, "we believe in eating a healthy breakfast each day".

Now I'm done talking to you... I refuse to believe that you're as dense as you're acting.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm AND I CLEARLY STATED BEFORE AND AFTER YOU SAID THAT THAT IM NOT AN ALLY

[snackthatsmilesback]

@hahahmm wtf dude can YOU read?

[iBeowulf]

Me: first wave feminists were domestic terrorists and got women the right to vote without registering for Selective Service, a felony if men don't, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
You: I agree with certain ideas (blatant discrimination against men) of first wave feminism"

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf hey don't fuckin put words in my mouth ok? I'm getting real tired of that.

I literally agreed with you on that issue, remember?

[iBeowulf]

So your take on feminism is that it's wrong legally and doubly wrong by tone?

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf yes it was wrong legally. That's why I said I agreed with ideas and not actions.

What does wrong by tone even mean?

[iBeowulf]

The idea of equality before the law is enshrined by the 14th amendment, so women were obviously pushing for inequality from the beginning. The tone is one of divisiveness, as you alluded to originally. You have some justice based ethics left, as a woman would either agree and do nothing but keep racking in the benefits or disagree and stop listening. This is about the truth, after all.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf yeah, just pushing from one kind of inequality to another.
So then we do agree on this right? Women should have the right to vote, but it shouldn't be without the requirement to register?

[iBeowulf]

Yes on the second thing, no on the first. Women have had equality before the law since 1848, they just wanted to force high end companies to hire them, as with Affirmative Action in 1960 or to control men, as with their second move after hypocritically getting the vote, which was the prohibition era. Only white men as a group pay net taxes. Follow the money.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf so wait, so you don't think women should have the right to vote?
I thought you just thought they should also have to register. Like with the jobs thing, that they should get equal opportunity to work and they should also be equally taxed for their earnings.

[iBeowulf]

Selective Service is the second thing, in keeping with your comment and my stance, so we're in agreement there. On to other subjects... like Affirmative Action, which is discrimination against white men or the prohibition era which was an attempt at controlling (mens) access to alchohol.

[iBeowulf]

*women and coloreds get so much gibsmedats that they have a negative tax impact.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf oh yeah the alcohol stuff was bullshit.

Affirmative action I'm a little conflicted about cause, without it there was definitely discrimination. But with it there is still definitely discrimination. I'm just not sure if there was a much better way to deal with the initial problem than to put in a different bad to cancel it out. They've definitely overcorrected at this point tho either way.

[iBeowulf]

TL;DR: the host does not simply argue with parasites
JFK was a communist who wasn't shot soon enough. Discrimination is natural and the very basis for human thought. Women are weaker, dumber, more emotional, less just, get pregnant, have periods and aspire to do less, similar in many ways to people of color. I can back up these assertions with mountains of studies. Both women and coloreds had equality before the law, as enshrined in the Constitution. They wanted equality of outcome, under the guise of equality of opportunity, something they already had in the form of equality before the law. Did they start their own businesses and build from the ground up as white men did? No. The went to daddy government for nepotism on white men's dime and at the cost of our blood in war.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf ok. yes discrimination is normal. But unjust discrimination (prejudice? Maybe a better word for it) shouldn't be normal.

And before I reply to the rest, could you link to one/some of those studies, please? I think you're good for it i just wanna see it myself.

[iBeowulf]

... it's not the government's job to change human nature, outside of equal protection before the law; if people want to be racist and sexist as a business then we can vote with our wallets. All they did was drive discrimination underground where it can't be found, ensuring perpetual gibsmedats.
Sex differences in intelligence wikipedia, [the cited studies not the page itself: research section. (Note: girls hit puberty first giving an advantage in ages 10-14 and everyone spreads ot around... often knowingly conflating this with males or men after puberty)] en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Sex_differences_in_intelligence
Race differences in intelligence: [note: only white men don't receive Affirmative Action in universities and the workplace, but (*northeastern only) Asians whine about not getting Affirmative Action in universities. ) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Kohlberg vs Gilligan critiques section:
(Men's and justice based ethical system and women's care based ethical system as presented by a based male and feminist female) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg

[iBeowulf]

P. s. I'm Forgotten FuRyan on the Youtubes youtube.com/channel/UCutk7wUTNmxDXPaqjMvOrAg

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf OK so maybe some men are smarter than all women, and some men are dumber than all women, and whites r on average slightly smarter than blacks. That's fair to say based on the research.
However I don't think those generic/possible differences are enough to outweigh the evidence of an individual's actual intelligence. If a black guy comes for an interview and they are smart then why assume they're not smart? Or a white guys application has a bunch of typos then don't assume he's actually smart just because he's white.

No it's not the governments job to change human nature, but it should keep some order in it. If the majority (or just the rich) don't care about equality then voting with wallets isn't gonna do Jack shit, cause their votes will always win. So we can't always just rely on human nature to fix a problem caused by human nature.

[snackthatsmilesback]

Also The six stages make sense. I don't understand why you also think the critic was right tho. If Hers was based on a difference between sexes that was shown didn't even exist... so that male/female difference I'm not convinced is even reasonable.

And I'm not sure what you wanted me to watch from the YouTube channel so I watched the most viewed video of a guy talking about the male rape joke problem and then typing on an app. If u wanna get into that subject, it's definitely an issue, and there's another video goes a little more in depth about it here https://youtu.be/uc6QxD2_yQw
If not we can stick to affirmative action. Was there a video about that on the channel you sent?

[iBeowulf]

You clearly didn't read the citation. Males before and after ages 10-14 are smarter on average, than females. The more male geniuses and more male idiots thing only applies to ages 10-14. There are more female idiots less female geniuses before and after that age range. No wonder everyone thinks what you think, because they're lazy puppets of the matriarchy. You could've read the part I pointed you to where Richard Lynn explains this but no... you probably just took my word for it, like you did with your Affirmative Action hire female teachers. Sm... fing... H.
5 points is a little bit...15 points on average is a huge amount at the high end, so you're way too generous.
Individual exceptions don't take away the rule... brain with me.
Caring is irrelevant to the Constitution and Affirmative Action violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. You always default to authoritarianism because women want to be taken care of by a strong, alpha male government, as communists. There's no practical difference between you and them, outside of the faintest glimmer. We don't need to fix discrimination; it's a self correcting problem, if at all because some people like racism and sexism, just ask BLM or feminism.
Kohlberg and Gilligan agree that women don't pass the third stage of justice based ethical systems and that justice based ethical systems allow for care, so you're wrong again... you're always wrong. You're a lost cause.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@ibeowulf sorry I read through most of it, past just the teenager part I remember you said that, and after that part it still said just the variability thing. There's 53 citations and you didn't mention Richard Lynn before, so ok, I read his but that said up to 5 points so wouldn't that just be a small difference instead?

you never hire a whole race or sex of people, you hire individuals. So yes individual exceptions always matter. Plus if theyre dumb you can tell from the individual so you shouldn't need to rely on a general rule to figure out if Pat is smart enough for the job when Pat is sitting right in front of you.

Yes affirmative action isn't good either but what were people supposed to try and do? Obviously it was not a self correcting problem. So what do you think the government is for?

And it literally said "Kohlberg disagreed with Gilligan's position" and then explains why, which is mainly that women weren't shown as a gender to score lower on the stages than men. Was there another citation there I missed or what?

[iBeowulf]

Investing mind boggling amounts of information in real men yields a more powerful, more capable entity; investing in women and soyboys yields a walking bias with evermore questions and no sense, like a bottomless baby bird.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf whenever I disagree with anything you say, you start to talk like this again. It really doesn't help anything.

I've changed my mind on several points during this interaction but you have not changed at all, which means either you haven't been wrong yet or you haven't listened to anything I've said yet. Maybe I've just not been saying anything worth listening to. You have been saying some good stuff, which is why I haven't quit yet.

But whenever you start talking like this again it's all just fuckin words and it doesn't do anything. I wish you'd stop doing this every time I say anything different.

[iBeowulf]

You're not disagreeing with me; that's my whole point. You're simply not making the neccessary logical inferences on your own or following the breadcrumbs I leave. This is about the truth, not my truth. What do I get for all this, a feminist ally who won't do anything about anything but might have a few slightly more educated opinions? Real men need a hand up, not a piggyback ride. I'm going to go help them learn.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf I am not an ally wtf how many times do I have to say that? This is at least the 5th time. What do you think an ally even is?

"Not making the necessary logical inferences" you mean that I'm making different logical inferences than you? Coming to a different conclusion based on the same information? That's called disagreeing dude.

[snackthatsmilesback]

If someone says "because a dude wears a hat they must be a Trump supporter" and someone else says "no that doesn't add up." Are they disagreeing or are they just not making the necessary logical inference like the first person did?

[iBeowulf]

I'm ravenous for new knowledge; at best, you're snacky.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf even if that were true how is it relevent?

[snackthatsmilesback]

@ibeowulf what are you trying to do here?

[iBeowulf]

We had a good run. See you around.

[snackthatsmilesback]

@iBeowulf okay see you

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

I believe there is bad apples I every group.
Inside the red pill there are degenerates and then there are the ones that simply use it's philosophy to improve themselves.
Same thing with feminism. My wife and my older sister both are feminists and both are married with the intention of having kids. They don't have pink hair, in fact they are both very feminine, they don't nag all the time about women's issues, in fact I don't remember the last time that was a topic between me and my wife.
The ones that are virgin, punk hair nagging freaks are very loud on social media, but that's just because they are the ones who make sure to be loud. They want attention and to play the victim role. What we see on social media doesn't represent what most of them are.

[iBeowulf]

Fist wave feminism caused the prohibition era and to this day only men must register for Selective Service or become felons, be fined and lose voting rights... is this equality?

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@iBeowulf What on earth are you talking about?

[iBeowulf]

They're all bad apples. You're stunningly dumb.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@iBeowulf you think they have a Bible of some sort that they all follow? There are major differences between their social and political views.

[iBeowulf]

Yet there are no differences between the hypocritical legal benefits women receive, because female nature, if there is such a thing, is ubiquitous.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@iBeowulf we already had a long argument before and honestly I don't feel like going into another. It's no use anyway.

[iBeowulf]

As I said: they're all bad apples.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@iBeowulf you are very misinformed my friend.

[BeenThereLovedIt]

Females in the USA, still to this day, do not have equal legal rights to men. The ERA (equal rights amendment) failed because not enough states voted to ratify it. That was introduced in 1971 and is considered dead today because it's deadline for ratification has long passed.

[Wester1967]

Dude. Instead of proffing these cliche definitions of what feminism is or is not, based on some weird arbitrary thing like how it affects you personally, why don’t you go out and read all of Andrea Dworkin, Emma Goldman, Audre Lourde, bel hooks, Kate Millet, and Naomi Wolff before you start saying feminism is X or feminism destroyed humanity because it’s a bitch to get dates these days.

[bamesjond0069]

Feminism is misogyny. People who hate women are called feminists. They hate that women give birth, they hate women love to care for babies, they hate that women are not aggressive leaders but make better followers. But that is what a woman is, and they hate it, therefore they are misogynists.

[FoghornLeghorn99]

Don't forget men can now give birth.

They, both females and so called men, are now birthing persons.

[Anonymous]

feminists dont care about anyone but themselves. Female outnumber men in college and they outnumber men in college degrees. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? WHERE IS THE CONCERN? Clearly this can onluy happen because female teachers encourage female students at the expense of male students. The education system is systemically antimale and in the black community it is an apocalypse. Where is the concern for black men?

#TwoFacedLiars

[Celtero]

Below, I've written a factual list of accomplishments that Feminism has achieved to the benefit of human kind, and how they've made the world a better place.

The List:

[Inexpensivefurniture]

In order to display their talents or succeed in life, women first need equal rights and equal opportunity, which they do not get. That's why feminism is about fighting for equal rights and opportunity

[Dinosaursandanime65]

It was probably okay at first, but then things got a wee……… chaotic. It’s like sledding down a snowy hill and then accidentally falling into a well hidden stream hole

[Kevhanma]

Here’s my thoughts on feminism: “SHOW YOUR TITS‼️“
“SHOW YOUR TITS‼️“

[OddBeMe]

Why are whites men such snowflakes? Either about this, crt, whatever.

[OlderAndWiser]

Nice illustration!

[m33lad]

Deport all of them to North Korea

[Anonymous]

Feminists are evil cunts.

[Exterminatore]

This.

[captain_voidwalker]

Feminism is cancer