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.
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 š)
@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. ( -_-)
@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.
I think you're confusing feminism and misandry. It's a common mistake but it's still a little bit pathetic that people still can't properly define and recognize two complete opposites.
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!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
34Opinion
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
I know I'm not. Thanks for stating the obvious though š
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 š)
Omg ššš people are so sensitive
Not sensitive... Stupid. Unfathomably stupid
Agreed
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.
@Soteris Give women equal prison sentences to men, then there'll be a little more equality in the world.
@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.
@Soteris it's a major problem, women literally get away with murder everyday just because they're women
@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? :)
Iām some where in the middle.
In america, Egalitarianism makes much more sense.
Eglitarian.
Because feminism is utter horse shit. Women have too much power these days.
I think you're confusing feminism and misandry. It's a common mistake but it's still a little bit pathetic that people still can't properly define and recognize two complete opposites.
^^ I agree.
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.
Damn girl you're thicc af
Egalitarianism.
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism
I'm a feminist.