Either/or? No other option?
Well, given that you can find evidence of virulent feminism or social and economic principals that mirror feminist ones in every major empire just prior to its fall, I'm going to go with: feminism is retarded.
And all people deserve equal rights? Really? You know there are people who need to be told that things like curling irons are for external use only, right?
The majority of humanity believes in invisible people who live in the sky... thousands of different ones, but aaalll the others are made up nonsense... not theirs though. Theirs is real. How do they know? Because the book that says their invisible person is real says that it is correct.
Yeah, sure, give everyone equal rights. That's how you wind up with a species that, lacking natural predators and taking to care to coddle and protecting morons that would never have been born because their ancestors would have been food, manages to create the single most privileged class of any organism that ha ever existed in the history of everything (women) and they ACTUALLY believe, and have their beliefs reinforced... that they are the downtrodden, held down by patriarchy.
I equally hate everyone. What do you called that?
They call it being allucard from TFS. " what's funny is that in any other circumstance, you might have had a point there except that my boss is a woman, I was a chick in the 40s, I HATE EVERYONE EQUALLY, and there's no one alive that can comprehend my sexual preference." - Hellsing Ultimate abridged epidode 3
I am Feminist and Egalitarian. As a member of the FMF, past and present, I am proud of the accomplishments of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Forget "high expectations", remember when men couldn't enter the court of law with a rape claim? The FBI's old definition of rape didn't include men, but the FMF fought for that to change, and it worked. Now we're working on a proposal that would allow men to void their requirement to pay child support in the same amount of time that women have to abort. Fair is fair, and I'm proud that the FMF is at the forefront of men's rights.
Remember to educate yourself on the difference between feminism and misandry, and try focusing on bigger problems than "high expectations". Women are allowed to hold whatever standards they want or die single, and we have bigger problems to focus on, like increasing mental health support for men and ending the stigma of seeking help.
Can you please point me to where I can find information about this --> "Now we're working on a proposal that would allow men to void their requirement to pay child support in the same amount of time that women have to abort."
I wish I had more information to give you. There might be a small mention of it in ongoing projects and debate sections of the FMF website, but I'm happy to be able to say we are working on this, doing research into what kinds of laws would need to be changed in order for these new ones to be implemented. It's looking like this will be a situational law, and ideally a man would be able to sign away his requirement to pay child support (along with his right to parenthood and visitation of course), but in some cases, in order to be compatible with local laws, a pregnant woman would be required to take the initiative in having him sign INTO his requirement to pay child support. If he refuses, she will have to choose whether to abort, adopt out, or budget for a child without his help.
If FMF is "working on it" I would think there would be some record or evidence of that available somewhere. Forgive me for being skeptical but in my experience feminists have always been passionately opposed to any suggestion men should be able to opt out of financial support of a child. Virtually every one of them has said something along long the lines of "well if you didn't want a child you should have kept your dick in your pants".
Let's face it, feminism has a long and colorful history of opposition to any male interests that would appear to conflict in any way with female interests, which would certainly be the case here.
When the FMF said they were going to fight the FBI to change the definition of rape to include men as victims and grant them equality in court with regard to sexual crimes, they did, when the FMF said they were working on opening male-only and father-friendly shelters, they did (even if it took a few years to fully fund). Skepticism is a fantastic trait to have, but support for what you believe in is a better one.
I would agree with that, but the problem is most feminists do not believe in anything to do with advocating for men's rights.
Incorrect. I'd say about half of feminists take a direct stance on advocating for men's equality and combatting men's issues, while the other half simply don't have it as their primary focus but would not say they don't "believe" in men's issues. Those who directly oppose men's issues are actually misandrists, which is the exact opposite of feminism.
Therein lies the problem. What men actually experience is that most feminists ARE misandrists. By saying they are not feminists, you are just denying the reality that we men experience in the real world. What you should do instead is acknowledge the problem within your own movement and DO SOMETHING about it. That problem right there is the biggest reason men feel the way they do about feminism, and yet most feminists seem to just ignore it.
Let me ask you this: what do you think of MGTOW, and why?
That Feminism definition isn't accurate.
Feminism, as it is today is not a simple case of the advocacy of gender equality, in fact it has a fair list of tenets.
If I said I was a feminist, but I didn't believe in patriarchy, the wage gap or 'intersectionality', if I didn't think catcalling was a big deal, or if I said that ideas like 'manspreading' or 'mansplaining' were inherently sexist on the part of the feminists doing the complaining, I'd probably be attacked for it.
Y'know what else? I've never seen an egalitarian be told they can't be an egalitarian because they're the wrong gender.
I have, however, seen plenty of guys be told they can't be feminists because they're guys.
So, no, I'm an Egalitarian, not a feminist. I have seen through feminism and rejected it as a regressive doctrine.
But the wage gap is a myth
Egalitarian. Everyone should be equal. Men and women. Of course, it'll never be completely equal on every standard, but that's alright, as long as both sides are respected amd given equal opportunities.
Plus, feminism is simply the movement of attempting to give equal rights to women. That's all. What people take as women being better than men is a product of "third-wave" feminism. It is not feminism in itself. There are feminists who are also egalitarians, they just focus on women's rights rather than men.
The thing is when it comes to equality, is men and women both want different things. For instance look at what women want most when choosing a job, working with people. Men want money. So we can both do the same things but we choose to do different things. So i would say we are already being treated equally. But the way our decisions play out give different outcomes.
@heyhowu26 It depends where you look though. Saying we are treated equally in the U. S., while untrue in many aspects, is understandable. When you go to Muslim countries, or highly conservative countries, equality is but a myth. Sure, some people want to work in different occupations, but they shouldn't be discouraged from one path because of their gender. They shouldn't have to face sexism at work. There are factors that need to be addressed. Inequality still exists, though not as as large as in the past, and including both sexes.
First off no one is discouraged because of their gender. No college administrators or prolly even their parents try to steere women away from what they want that is the myth. Secondly that may be true in muslim countrys but i would also tell you that despite your values and your customs women and men in those countrys also view and prefer things for different reasons. And that you opinion doesn't really mean they should govern themselves from any other way that they choose. Not how the female in the west thinks their societies should be.
@heyhowu26 Well, for one, you're wrong about the first point. People are still discouraged, you can't deny that. Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I never said they should govern themselves another way- that's a completely separate argument. Also, thank you for discrediting all the women who are beaten and killed every day because of their husband. Who receive no medical care when injured. Who can't show themselves in public for fear of men raping or attacking them. Who can't get a basic education, a job, a home, etc. I'm sorry that I actually care about that. Wow. I'm such a terrible person.
I don't care how the other cultures govern themselves. I care that the women are being treated as mere objects for use by men, with little to no rights. They don't have to follow western styles to be equal.
And hey, it's not just women here. Men go through this too. Rape, work inequalities, social inequalities (double standards), etc.
The first point isn't false. For all the women who rage on this, this is just some stupid shit that is on auto replay. Look, i went to college i know lots of people in college. College is a very liberal world, teachers are very liberal no one says you have a vagina so you can't.
@heyhowu26
Yes they do. Come visit the south. Go visit a sexist run country. Sexism still exists. As I said, just because you don't experience it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. People on both sides
I would say feminism if this was the 1970s but the movement has been hijacked by crazies so i'd say egalitarian.
Exactly
Opinion
31Opinion
Feminism was never about equality; it has ALWAYS been about female empowerment. The idea that women need to be empowered at the expense of men has been at the root of the movement since day one. Not to say it hasn't done good, but it wasn't in the name of equality.
Not even then. It wasn't about getting the vote for blacks, or Native Americans, or anyone but white women. Still women empowerment, not equality. Just as today, they used the excuse "don't dilute the message!" Read the literature of the time.
I don't see the point of people complaining feminism is not called egalitarianism. A term like feminism prevents ambiguity whereas the term egalitarianism is the embodiment of ambiguity. It makes sense to market a movement like feminism, because of obvious historic reasons, to a certain demographic.
When talking about equality of the sexes, egalitarianism doesn't cut it because it involves far more that is not related specifically to gender-related things. People of certain demographic have inherently different problems therefore egalitarianism is too vague in it.
As for actually answering your question, I wouldn't call myself egalitarian nor feminist. I prefer not to align myself with any of those things. Ignore my rambling on though, it was rather irrelevant to the question.
Neither. Strongly against feminism for obvious reasons such as their vile, toxic and manipulative strive for power. But I am also not for egalitarianism as it simply doesn't work. See here: www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a22687-why-i-don-t-believe-in-equality
I am for equal freedoms. Opportunity needs to be created and taken by the individual. You can't equalise opportunity for let's say a child being born in a wealthy family vs a child being born in a poor family.
And we don't need to talk about equal outcomes aka equity as it requires force and tyranny to be put into place.
Yeah I agree with most people here, feminism has basically become a psychological war against men, which is pretty much in contradiction with the definition of feminism itself lol
Personally I find this kind of "feminists" kinda ridiculous and I tend to avoid talk with them.
I think you're blatantly confusing feminism with misandry, despite them being complete opposites. Feminism is a social movement to raise awareness and fight for equal rights based on the equality of the sexes. Misandry is a load of man-hating toxic BS that pretends to be feminist.
You wouldn't mistake the KKK for a group of devout bible-following Christians, even if that's what they say they are, so why would you confuse a misandrist just because they say they're feminist? Just curious.
You clearly have little experience or contact with the FMF, even if they were the ones who ensured that you, as a man, are represented in the court of law as an equal victim of rape, and not just physical assault. Before the FMF fought the FBI in the 2000's, men couldn't be legally "raped" and their rapists wouldn't get a rapist's sentence.
I'm for equal rights and it doesn't have a name.
I look after myself and those I care about and that keeps me happy.
👍🏼I think the word "equality" speaks for itself and needs no other word to speak for it. It includes women, men, black people, white people, Asian people, short people, tall people, fat people, skinny people, happy people, upset people and so on.
The moment someone acts outside of that, they the individual are being not anti-feminist/masculine; they're being unequal.
Neither, because with are collectivist ideas.
I value the independence and liberty of the individual; while bity feminism and egalitarianism does not.
I'm an egalitarian. Feminism is necessary in some cultures where men have overt legal authority over women but egalitarianism is preferable where it can be used, because its the word that carries the struggle for millions more victims than just those with ladyparts. Including everyone is important.
Feminist is what it's supposed to be, a women right movement. They have never said they will work for equality for men, only women.
This is why men shoun't be feminists at all, and why non bitchy women shoun't be feminists.
Bitchy women already are feminists, but anyone with common sense would stay clear of them anyway, just like with any other kind of bigots.
@Soteris
This is not what maternity leave is about in Sweden. It's about compelling men to go on maternity leave as much as women. Thus, deprives employers the maternity leave as an argument for hiring a man in places for a woman.
I agree Sweden is fucked up, based on feminism being the core ideologies for all major political parties.
It's sad to see Sweden lost, it's not the Sweden it was when I was a child, going to Malmö is like going to a cold middle eastern country, and feminism in Sweden have allied itself with pro-migration policy's, and now you see the result.
@Soteris
I missed that news, at least it's progress.
There are of course true egalitarians as well, I just don't define them as feminist, even if they do.
There are still many horrible examples of feminist crap in Sweden, fortunately Danish women are more reasonable and fair.
But good luck with Sweden, and you new massimported Muslim population, I am sure you will find that you are in the right place now!
I am both because feminism is still needed in many parts of the world.
Neither. Men and women aren't the same, we're designed to fulfill different roles, so there can never be any real equality. Both feminists and "egalitarians" also tend to have a weak, victim mindset, and they encourage this especially in men.
Men and women are not the same true. Biologically the are generally better suited for different roles. But that is just a majority not as the whole. Look at Ronda Rousey. Women role in history has been a more passive role usually gravitating towards childcare and proffessions involving healthcare. Ronda Rousey is one of many women who break that mould and seen people to the healthcare system.
I like this answer, because while men and women are quite different biologically and have mental differences as well, they can be equal by being EQUIVALENT. They don't have to fulfil exactly the same duties nor should they be expected to. As long as ALL biologically possible options remain a choice for both men and women, then settling into either role is not a problem. You are still equals by equivalence.
Equaltiy of oppurtunity, not outcome
@AGuyWhoKnowsALittle
Ronda Rousey is nothing like the average woman at all. There are always exceptions, that doesn't disprove the rule. She couldn't compete with men at her weight, or perhaps even a lower weight class. The strength difference would be too great - there's a very good reason they have separate divisions for men and women. Women also tend to gravitate towards those things now, in fact funnily enough in a more equal society they gravitate towards those things more so because they're more able to, and it's what they choose to do.
@Love_Byte
Exactly. To me it's like comparing a police officer and a fire fighter. Both are important but they have different abilities and there's really no way to properly compare the two.
Average? Since when does normal exist. The point isn't that she can beat up a guy. The point is she was given the choice to pursue this, i have female bosses. Im saying women deserve the same oppurtunity. The outcome will most likely not be equal but thats not the point. The point is that women are given the option to pursue anything a man can.
Me or the other guy
@AGuyWhoKnowsALittle
Normal/average exists. It's the reason men and women gravitate towards different careers and as you mentioned it's the reason there will most likely never be an equal outcome in anything. I'm not really arguing about equal rights, but the idea that there should be an equal outcome which I think we agree on.
I agree. Men and Woman have different interests and there physical and chemical make up is more often than not sort for one thing rather than the other. I was just making clear the idea equal oppurtunity.
Is what i support not equal outcome
I'd even say equitarism : in some circumstances, equality is stupid or harmful. Men should obviously be favored for physically demanding tasks and shouldn't get pregnancy leave. However, these disparities should be compensated to have a fair society.
Egalitarianism encompasses feminism, so if you're an egalitarian then you're also a feminist. Personally I prefer to identify as an egalitarian because feminism seems to have become synonymous with it's stereotype of hating men.
The dictionary needs to be updated. Because it's not a belief anymore, it's a political movement that lives only to feed itself
And they don't align. It should describe a movement that claims to believe in equality, and then go on to describe exactly what constitutes their ideal of equality. Because feminist equality is not what most people consider equality. You can keep the definition if you want, but it must be made more specific because it obviously doesn't represent feminism properly
I believe equality should be based on the individual against Sombody else.. I don't know is that either of them but mainly im saying its not all focused on supporting woman
Since feminism has the third wave i won't even touch it with a chineese laser so il go with the efalitairwtfisit
Both should be treated equally. Racism, sexism and stereotypes are more annoying to me than anything else. (； ･`д･´)
I support equal rights and opportunities where discrimination is based only on aptitude and attitude.
Neither. I believe in liberty. No equality of opportunity, no equality of outcome, no social equality, just equality under the law. People are different and that's okay. We can't just treat them like interchangeable parts. The only people who should do that are the courts.
Egalitarian. People should be equal under the law, and given equal consideration as a baseline.
i consider myself both
Feminism is a hate group. Anyone who chooses to be part of it are misandrist and push lies and hate.
The will flag and try and remove any and all comments and items which point out their lies and hate. This site is polluted with them.
I am neither. I dont like egalitarianism because people believe I should be equal to all others. Nobody has any real power to determine what I should be.
I hope you don't think you're asking an original question
Hey, if you ever been on here more than 13 minutes, some of the people think "boobs or butt" is a legit question... You think I'm joking, yet I've gotten yelled at because some chick thought they were original (as if not 5 people asked the same damn question 4 minutes earlier 🙄)
Not sensitive... Stupid. Unfathomably stupid
I am a feminist because I realize that Egalitarianism is mostly used as a cover to hide sexism.
Did Mike Rugnetta tell you that?
@AllThatSweetJazz No, its just that every Egalitarian I have meet is a raging douchebag that keeps going after feminists because they are feminists.
But if there's problems with feminism then they have a point.
It doesn't make feminism right or egalitarianism wrong.
@AllThatSweetJazz Their problem with feminism is that there are people calling themselves feminists who are raging cunts on social media. Or at least that is what they say. At no point do they say that equality is bad, because that would be suicide for their arguments and they always just get stuck on the word "feminist" in that they think feminists won't support men in cases where they are discriminated again in favor of women like rape accusations or custody battles.
Well a lot of them don't though support men though... often when they do it's just weak lip service or it's couched in feminist theory which often amounts to not just nothing but actively harming people. They have a different view of what constitutes 'supporting men.'
Who decides who gets to be called feminist, hmm? You don't really get to decide who is the 'real' feminist here. If they say they're feminists then there's no arguing it. It's up to people who want to call themselves feminist to delineate themselves from other factions within the ideology.
@AllThatSweetJazz That is a terrible argument because if they are indeed as you say "not supporting men" then they are by the very definition of feminism not actually a feminist. And that is an important thing, because while I can't personally decide who is and who is not a feminist there is actually a core value that defines feminism which is, in essence "equality". If you dont support equality in all cases, even for men or transgender then you are not in fact a feminist. There is no arguing this point.
"by the very definition of feminism"
You can't decide who is and isn't a feminist because it has no real definition. It's ambiguous.
"equality"
What kind of equality, hmm? How do I "support equality in all cases" when both sides of an argument are both promoting a different kind of equality?
Saying you're a feminist because you believe in equality is like saying you're religious because you believe in spirituality. It's super vague. Again, there's a need to stipulate and delineate. How much of a need? I'm not sure, I suspect that the vast majority of reasonable people simply drop the label when they see others being toxic with it.
@AllThatSweetJazz The core ideology for Feminism is to go from a country of "men" and "women" into a country of "people". Feminists fundamentally dont believe there are different sides based on simply just gender identities or that people should be treated differently because of their gender.
Also I have always thought it is retarded to stop believing something because others that claims to behave poorly. If you believe in something, as in actually believe in it then it should not matter what anyone else does because you have your personal reasons for being in that group.
Except for all the ones that do treat people differently based on gender. Aside from that, there's also the issue of what 'treating people the same' means to them. It's still vague when spoken like that, I only know through my experience looking at feminism that their kind of 'treating people the same' is not the same as mine. That is to say that they can say they want equality and be truthful when they say it but that doesn't make what they want a good thing.
You don't stop believing in something, on the contrary, you continue believing something regardless of what practical form it takes. Obviously it does matter what other people are doing because that's what makes the group; it's a bunch of people who want or do the same thing. If the group is divided then it's not a group anymore.
@AllThatSweetJazz What you are saying is absurd. Its like if a dictatorship said they were a democracy and you took them on their words just like that. You can't just pretend to be something while believing/acting completely against it at all times.
The important thing is never the group but what the group stands for. If it gets full of a bunch of people who pretend to be for it but in reality does not it still won't change what the group stands for.
Its like claiming atheists should ditch the group because some atheists are cunts but at that point there isent another group that can substitute it unless you intend to create a new group. If we go with the new group idea then we will just get swamped with fractured groups since there is always someone who finds someone in their group objectionable. It just does not make any sense.
"You can't just pretend to be something while believing/acting completely against it at all times."
That's basically what I say to feminists all the time, yet they persist.
"what the group stands for"
So as long as the Nazis stood for "building a better Germany" or framing it in some other noble way then everything else they do is okay as long as what it stands for sounds noble?
If the prevailing attitude about atheists was negative then yes, I would delineate myself from atheist. I already do that, if people really wanted to nitpick at my worldview then I would tell them I'm a positive nihilist, but since atheist isn't really an abrasive label right now I'm fine with atheist. Asshole atheists can take a different label like militant atheist or anti-theist if they like, both would probably exist with their own nuances.
If I'm comfortable with what the group is practically and ideologically then I'll tolerate the small disagreements I have with other members, but if it's too toxic then I'm going to challenge those ideas or practices and stand with the people who agree with me. The fact that humanity has these groups instead of a human hive-mind should tell you that groups form and fracture as needed. This is the road to individualism.
@AllThatSweetJazz I dont care about how "Noble" you make it sound, that is just trying to be deceptive but if we for example take Communism instead then yes I dont think the Soviet Union or the rest of their ilk is a good representation of the ideals of that political thinking. It was more like a dictatorship in disguise.
What you are talking about in regards to groups is also concerning because what you are basically saying is that the people in the group is more important than the identity and reason for that group. This just opens you up to being manipulated if I am honest.
Fine. Use the Soviets if you want the point is that we would distance ourselves from people who we don't actually want representing us. We agree, awesome.
The people are an integral part of the group. If the group says it's something good but too many of the members do things that are bad then no amount of lip service to the good thing will counter the very real actions of the bad. Assuming you see communism as good then no amount of the Soviet Union saying it's doing the right thing and has your best interests in mind will convince you to take their side, right? So you hold the same ideas, but you distinguish yourself with labels so people can easily see and discuss the difference between your ideas and Soviet Russia.
I think it makes me resilient to manipulation because I'm clinging to the principles more than the group.
@AllThatSweetJazz No it makes you incredibly vulnerable. The strength of an ideology does not come from its ideas but from its supporters. Your approach just means you are willing to jump groups in case the well gets poisoned but that just encourages people to intentionally infiltrate your group since every time you jump to another label/group you got to start from scratch.
No, it takes a lot of infiltration to make it necessary to eject. Are you actually thinking about what that means practically? That's not a realistic concern. It take an overwhelming opposition to be able to undermine from the inside like that and at that point if they have that kind of power then you stay the course. I didn't say eject at the first sign of trouble. Eject when the well is truly poisoned like feminism is -- and even then, ejecting doesn't mean you're on your own, starting from scratch. Again, the practical reality isn't like that. If everyone who shares your views comes with you then it's not eject as much as it is a kind of purge of toxic elements. If everyone sticks to what the group stand for then you survive, the principles survive. You can't truly undo the group unless you change their minds.
@Nachowedgie Sure I also want equal prison sentences but women are mostly just favored in cases with sexual assault involved or custody battles. The other 99% of cases does not really favor women and the other 99% of our lives we dont spend in courts. Its such a small problem in comparison.
@Nachowedgie Not saying it does not happen but by the same token people get sent to death row because they are minorities as well. In fact I would say that very very few women get away with murder because they are women. Its something we should address but its such a minor issue in the justice system that its but a distraction to the real issues that actually impacts us all.
You don't think people getting away with murder is a big deal?
"you would say"?
So just 'I don't *feel* like it's true that women get away with stuff because of their womanhood, so meh' and that's it?
But you just *know* in your heart that ethnic minorities do go to death row just because of their race?
Seems like you're saying the state is unjustly murdering minorities but is also capable of rightly acquitting women of murder and does so consistently and justly?
Women get 60% of the sentence that a man would get for the same crime with the same criminal history.
The principles which society is built upon matter, that's why it's all important. You don't just hand-wave away something like murder.
Rape is pretty minor issue relative to theft or verbal abuse, these things affect more of us more frequently. It's just a distraction to real issues that actually impacts us all. ( -_-)
@AllThatSweetJazz Spot on! :D
@Nachowedgie Getting away with murder is neither unique or unexpected but in this case its very unlikely. I would say its foolish to think we would ever get rid of all cases where a murderer walks free, the question is how low can we get this number and I think that in regards to women getting away with murder because they are female is basically as low as it can possibly go. Its not an issue we can solve without being in effect, all knowing and omnipresent.
So yeah... Why worry your pretty little head over something that you can't solve. Sure we can try get a tiny bit better on it, and we should.. BUT.. and here is the kicker.. You are trying to use this extreme case to distract from something that has a much greater impact on society.
You are also very deceptive because you talk about lower sentences for similar crime and criminal history but that is only true in certain categories.
So yeah.. Keep whining about things we can't do anything about and ignore the easy bits.
I don't think it is as low as it possibly can go because they'd be receiving the same sentences as men if it were. It doesn't require omniscience. From the knowledge we have we can see men and women being treated differently.
To distract from what? I'm suggesting we challenge sexism and other forms of unjust discrimination. What are you even talking about?
I think the things I've talked about are the easy bits, we have meaningful data on these subjects making them problems that should be easier to approach.
@AllThatSweetJazz
Men and women has very different situations in society so there are more differences than simply gender but we are talking about cases where specifically their genders become a tipping point in their verdict which is basically unheard of. If the evidence were so weak that a gender bias would clear them then the prosecution never had a case in the first place.
This is why I am saying those cases can't be solved without having godly powers because evidently the investigation failed to find adequate evidence in the first place. Without evidence you can't prosecute them and even if they are guilty they should go free. We can't go around sentencing people without the required evidence at which point their gender becomes irrelevant.
Again this is not really an issue compared to things like sexual assaults, both on men and women. Sexist people just uses it because it sounds just at first but it derails the conversation and distracts from actual urgent problems.
Judges have discretion in sentencing which they can exercise. The point of saying that they've receiving a different sentence for the same crime with same history and circumstance is because we would expect to see judges pass a similar sentence for similar circumstance. Yet the sentencing is disproportionate across a gendered line.
This is all consistent even in sexual assault -- especially in sexual assault. So I don't see how it's a distraction.
I wanted to talk about labeling, so really this whole line of thought is a distraction.
@AllThatSweetJazz Well yeah, Judges has to uphold the law to their best abilities which is why evidence are so important and why I said that we would need godly powers to truly solve this problem. We can't have judges going around making guess work with or without gender bias.
Another thing to point out is that its not the same between men and women even if you compare the same criminal history and same crime. Again the whole "crime" thing assumes you have perfect knowledge over it instead of just the knowledge of the accusation. You also dont take into consideration the different ways men and women commit crime which again will show up differently in your statistics.
As for disproportional sentencing, you are drifting topics again. We were talking about women getting away with murder just a while ago and now we are talking about the broader issue with gender bias in sentencing.
My god, it's like you're not even reading the posts.
It has nothing to do with needing 'godly powers,' there is *demonstrable* gender bias *after* accounting for other factors and circumstance. So all that mess about men and women presenting differently in statistics... yes, after that.
I didn't bring up the murder thing but it's covered by discussing the broader issue anyway, it's all the same thing. Gender bias. First I was talking about labels then I was talking about gender bias when it came up, that's the entirety of my topical drift. If you're just going to repeat the same stuff like it's supposed to mean something and make accusations about changing subjects or distractions as if it saves your argument then I'm done.
Muted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FjWe31S_0g
@AllThatSweetJazz Yeah yeah "accounted for external factors" my ass. You won't be missed.
Egaliterianism without a doubt
I'd just say Equalist.
no people are just stupid
I think men and women are equal. So it means feminism i guess? :)
In america, Egalitarianism makes much more sense.
I’m some where in the middle.
Eglitarian.
Because feminism is utter horse shit. Women have too much power these days.
Yeah way too much power.
So much power that 80% of the US congress and 74% of the Canadian senate is male.
So much power that a group of men can sit around and sign a bill controlling a woman's reproductive choice. Or decide to withdraw and defund needed health care for women's only health issues or severely limit services women need such as maternity leave.
The only power women have are ones that we all like to blow out of proportion while not realizing that MOST of it is made upon the decision of a person of higher status. But in all honestly it's about as much power as the average MAN has.
The real power lies in our government. They have give or take away our freedoms at any time.
The power we all have is like a person that tries to make a caged animal feel like it's in their 'natural habitat'. If you have a bird maybe you let it out of it's cage for a while. But you always make sure it's back in for the night.
That's all we are to them. Caged animals. Oh look they gave us a nice wheel to run on!
Oh look, triggered people.
If it makes it better for you, I didn't bother reading your replies.
I posted my opinion because I wanted to. Not so I could get paragraphs in return.
Egalitarian
You ought to add a "neither" to your poll.
... neither
Equal rights.
Egalitarianism.
Damn girl you're thicc af
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
I am a memelord
Neither
You can also add your opinion below!
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions