I always here feminists wanting women to take place in the army but who actually wanna join the army lol? I don'tš.. you wanna wake up 5 am and work out 5:30? (This is just an example below)
Daily schedule for female army:
Thereās quite a few actually in the military and they arenāt the ā evil crazy feministā that you see on the internet.
I donāt label myself as a feminist, but I am all for equality & I did just recently separate from the military mid June. It doesnāt seem out of the ordinary for me, but I came from an army family. That schedule you posted looks like the schedule in basic. So many people were crying the first night 😅
As for the ālowering standardsā for women. The Air Force (army seems to start catching on too) acknowledges and is aware that males and females are different biologically. Thatās why our scoring differs. āFit for a femaleā and āfit for a maleā.
As someone who worked in the career field with transitioning male/female pts, when female transitioning to males were on medication and given testosterone they had absolutely no problem passing male standards on their fitness assessment. & Of course male transitioning to females had absolutely no problem eitherā¦ They obviously wonāt tell you or answer if asked, but itās why a lot of providers are against them playing in womenās sports.
Anyways, the military isnāt too terrible because you get a second family even after you separate.
Youāre for equality? Then youāre in favor of women being drafted for war right? Equality right?
@Exterminatore?
Reading my response, what do you think?
š
Try taking an educated guess.
I did. I understand you served. I did as well and deployed twice on two separate campaigns and 1 humanitarian mission in Indonesia.
However, Iām speaking about the draft, not voluntary enlistment.
For what itās worth, Iām just trying to make a point. No offense to you or women, but I was in the Marine Corps in the infantry. Women do not belong in the infantry. Every so often weād get a female from a different MOS, always an officer who was female and sheād join us on a hump (forced March.) Every single one fell out and we only went 10 miles, which was the shortest we ever went. We also intentionally went much slower than normal as to avoid embarrassing the female officer who accompanied. Literally every single one fell out. I watched women negligently discharging their weapons into the deck on the rifle range more than once. I truly donāt think women are cut out for the infantry or anything that is ground combat involved.
However, since some women feel
Sooooooo oppressed in America and ramble on about equality, I think they should be drafted.
So thatās what Iām asking you. You state youāre all for equality. Do you think women should be drafted for war?
I wouldn't join an army, but not because I'm a feminist.
It's because there isn't an army on this planet that is actually good. America? Please - Freedom Force and World Exploitative Police (I mean, exploitative is in the nature of police so maybe just World Police). Britain? Please, colonizers.
I'd take army training, but I'm never being part of the institution.
I actually considered becoming a reservist for tuition, but there was enough tension at the time that I knew it was possible to be forced to fight. Now, it's only gotten worse.
The hard work is no issue. I climb and do combat sports. Doing not easy things for fun is just what I do.
You do it for fun at 5:30 am?š
Until recently, I would wake up at 530am to olympic lift. For fun. Because it's fun to me.
Early mornings are great. I can get more done, it's easier for me to focus, and it leaves me the rest of the evening after work all to whatever I wanna do.
Alright well following the schedule above is harder than it seams but good for you for working out. Keep it up!
I am a feminist and I dont want to join. I have friends who volunteered however, those people exist and are both men and women. That kind of lifestyle does appeal to some people, especially the prestige of joining particularly harsh military units.
However, i think you are missing the point. Feminists dont want women to join the military. Its not like we are here with whips and ordering more women to join the army or else *unspecified threat here*. We just want equality, meaning that women should be allowed to join too. Furthermore, equality in the event of a draft meaning that men are not discriminated against and forced into the army because they are men.
I want women to be mandated to register with Selective Service at age 18 and to be eligible to be drafted for war.
I donāt see any feminists fighting for equality with this issue. Let the men die and get wounded. Right? Feminists?
Men and women are equal now. Letās get them enrolled in the draft. Whoās with me in the fight against this great injustice and lack of equality? No feminist I assure you will be. Theyāre not interested in equality but special privileges for women and female superiority.
Spot on!š they would never and so wouldn't I but im no feminist
Thank you. They certainly would not. If they were about equality Iād think this matter which has been long overlooked would be at the top of their list as a roadblock to this equality they speak of.
@Exterminatore Great points. Feminists pick and choose what equality they think women should have. Men's car insurance is higher than women's because they say men are more reckless, but when women are reckless feminists aren't arguing that their insurance rate should go up as high as a man's. Equality only counts for them if women can get benefits.
@ManOnFire yup! Plus women are not happy living a life like men. The whole "focus on career over family" is making women depressed. Equality is not good. Its like hiring a chef and a plumber and telling them both has to do each job the same amount.š
I believe in equality of opportunity (which we already have) but feminism seam to think equality of opportunity and equality of outcome go together but they dont
Now I went a bit outside millitary stuff but its connected to the feminism stuff
@ē 夓man on fire
Agreed and thank you.
I like how you just tagged "Sponge"šš¤£
Yeah the problem is feminism shame women for it and hate men for being masculine.. but all we can do is point it out. Hopefully this sick world will get better lol
@Sponge
Also you are spot on in that equal opportunity does not equal equality of outcome.
I think women who think that way are simply jealous they arenāt men, canāt do much of what men do physically and want a handicap to make up for the difference.
I admit Iād be woefully out of my depth trying to do a job traditionally held by women.
Maybe we should all just stick to doing what God has created us to do and not be jealous.
I think feminists hate women and the weaker aspects of them. Thatās why they want to be men so badly and fail miserably at it I might add.
Yes I agree. God's plan is the best plan!
And yes there is a lot of jeloausy from feminists and they see women and men the same which also make what they see in men as weakness in women as weakness as well when its not. Nobody is yelling at a bird for not lifting weights when it can literally fly..
I think a lot of the issue is Hollywood too because they are promoting all this toxic feminism every day
I agree with everything you said!
@Sponge
I completely agree with all you said.
Thereās no shame in being a woman. What God created them to be is as they are, the same with men. I think there are many careers men really have no business doing as they were not created with the strengths God gave women to do them well. I think there are plenty of situations in life where a husband ought well get out of his wifeās way as she is more able then him in certain situations.
I have no problem admitting this. It is what it is. Men and women have different strengths and weaknesses.
Hollywood, the media, and a variety of other sources are to blame.
However the biggest blame lies on the 2nd wave feminists. I truly believe their motivations were boredom, a lack of love and appreciation for their husbands and most importantly they wanted to usurp the husbands authority in the home. So they went on to ensure legislation that would enable them to find a stable guy, have children and when they were board of this the ability to fleece their ex husband in divorce court. They wanted financial security from their ex husband without having to do anything in return.
Like alimony. What the hell is this? Payment for previous use of a womanās vagina? She doesnāt tend house for him, have sex with him, or do anything at all for him. Why then does he owe her anything. Or 50/50 spit of property in a divorce. If women make less then men, how then are they getting 50% out? If I make $80K a year, my wife also needs to make $80K a year in order to have put 50% in. Yet they get 50% out. Hell of a deal. As for alimony itās now 2023. Women can support themselves. Women are not paid less for being a woman as was once the case anymore.
And what about the housewife? Does she deserve nothing in alimony. No, she does not. Every expense was paid for her. Food, clothing, medical care, shelter etc. In exchange she did the house work. She already got hers the whole duration of the marriage. Since women initiate most
Divorces, then they can jolly well come up with their own money.
Women should not be permitted financial security at the expense of their ex husbands under any circumstances once they no longer provide him with what their share would be in a marriage.
Yeah this shows women are more privliged in the western world. I didn't know all the laws too it but I can tell being married is a lot more riskier for men than women.. not at all for women.
Very well written I must say! I agree with it all
Thank you miss. Please go forth and spread the word. Men no longer have a voice in society. They can yell as loud as they care to about these injustices but will be wholly ignored.
Iām glad you see it though. So many women donāt.
Yes I will!
Thank you! I'm glad you see it too and I hope you keep spreading your wisdom too!:)
I will. As a team we make togetherā¦. bobs exterminator socks.
@Exterminatore āLike alimony. What the hell is this? Payment for previous use of a womanās vagina?ā
I donāt think itās even that. A man can get socked with alimony even if she only let him use her vagina once a year or less.
@real
Hahaha. Good point. Iām sure thatās a reality for some guys.
Opinion
19Opinion
i'm a feminist and i don't want to join the army
š ...
I am 4th generation TRADITIONAL feminist - as different from a modernday "feminist" as the moon is from the sun. It's why I rarely call myself a feminist in real life as
Modern "feminism" = negativity, toxicity, sluttish behavior in SOO many people's minds.
As for your question I've served in the military for 5 years.
I saw many women - filthy sluttish modern feminists - trying but a number of them treated the military like a bar hooking up with different guys on different months. A lot of these whores when they rightfully got kicked out bitched that men sexualized them, etc. when the prostitutes were doing it to themselves like many modern "feminists".
Yeah thats sick.. they problaby got shocked when they got kicked out smh..
"bitched that men sexualized them, etc."
Yet another example that the vast, vast majority of the women who complain about equality or sexual assault, etc. are just crying for attention. They're sluts who faced the smallest hint of consequences for their personal choices and because women are completely incapable of introspection, they immediately reach for anything else to pin the blame on.
I donāt consider myself a āfeminist.ā I already did my military time and have three years left on my IRR so Iām subject to recall. I think everyone, men and women, needs to do at least two years of military or some form of public service.
Iād like to have been able to sleep until 0500 when I went through Basic and AIT. Our first calls were at 0400 so we could get the most physically strenuous activity done before it got too hot in the Summer. Our mealtimes were rarely more than 30 minutes.
Woww 4?š well done!!
Feminism isn't about forcing people to do jobs they don't want to do. It's about making it possible to do jobs they do want to do. Most people don't want to join the army, but feminists think that women who do want to join should be allowed to and not discriminated against for it. And feminists also think men who don't want to join the army shouldn't be forced to join because of discrimination. However, this often means doing away with the draft altogether, since expanding it to include women would just be expanding the problem by forcing more people into jobs they don't want.
Yet they are complaining there aren't many women in the armyš
Where? I've never seen feminists complain that women don't want to join the army. I have seen them complain about the ludicrous sexual assault rates and the horrible way they're handled in the army, both for men and women.
Everywhereš
Oh, good. Then would you mind providing an example? I tried Googling jt, but I didn't see anything. I probably typed something in wrong since it's everywhere.
Search asking feminist if they wanna join the army. Ask feminist around you how they feel about women not being allowed to be drafted in the past while men were forced too
Oh, i found plenty of article of feminists saying neither women or men shouldn't be drafted. I already knew that though. I was looking for feminists complaining about women not wanting to join the army. I'm still not sure how you think a feminist not wanting to join the army is hypocritical. As I said initially, feminism doesn't advocate for forcing anyone to join a work field against their free choice.
No im saying many feminist (women) want more women to be drafted but them themself dont want too. They want equal of outcome in Every high job position but not the shitty jobs.. they pick and choose when it suits them
That's why I asked for an example of a feminist actually wanting women to be drafted. I've never seen that. All I've seen is feminists wanting to get rid of the discrimination against women in most work fields, including the army, because it discourages women from joining and makes it more difficult to succeed in the same was as the men there.
Its simple biology. Women are much weaker than men we aren't suited for it
What's simple biology? Women have been in the army for years now, and they do just fine. If you personally are simply much weaker than those women, that's okay. No feminists are trying to force you to join the army.
Women are much weaker than men
Speak for yourself, woman.
You mad at biologyšš
I'm not mad. I meant that you're just one woman, and all women are different people, so you don't represent all women. Sorry if I came across angry.
Women are biologically much weaker than men physically speaking its simple science
I don't believe that. I know women who are stronger than men. It can't be simple science, or that would be physically impossible, don't you think?
You must be trolling
I'm a rock climber. Most of my group are women. You know women do sports that require physical strength, right?
I can't have a discussion with someone that doesn't believe in science. You probblaby think transwomen are women too..
Have a nice day, bye
Do you not believe women can climb rocks? That's a very strange belief to call "scientific."
Lol love this question. Most would never join, they would rather sit on the sidelines and just interview and make documentaries about other women in the military who were sexually harassed or assaulted, since feminists have a sick obsession with rape and want the world to believe all men are predators and all women are virginly innocent.
Thank youš
Yesss lol its funny how they think being forced to stay at home and be safe is more of an oppression than being sent to warš¤£š
Yup!! I have personal experience to back that up too lol..š they are not supportive at all..
How many feminists in Ukraine joined the army? And where is the feminist movement now in Ukraine. At the outbreak of the war when President Zelenskyy declared that all men of fighting age (18-60) are forbidden from leaving the country, how many of them objected to that decree or for their own inclusion.
Nonš
What exactly are you looking for by asking this question? What point are you trying to prove by seeing how many feminists want to be in the military?
Anyways, I've always had other career aspirations but joining a military boot camp has always been on my bucket list. There isn't a whole lot of resources for that in my country but I learned about this cadet corps program for high schoolers only after I entered college, and in retrospect if I could go back in time I'd absolutely join it.
Iām not a feminist and I donāt want to join the army. But I donāt want to join because .
1. You loose your freedom
2. Youāre stuck with them for 3 years or however many years you signed up for
3. Women are more likely to be rāped by male soldiers or her male superiors.
4. Youāre seen as a weakling and a weakness by male authority.
5. the Benefits arenāt enough for me to risk all those things.
At some point I wanted to because I sucked at being smart And doing school or desk jobs. But now I want to enter the Navy because itās better in terms of freedom and pay. Iād much rather become a police officer than do army. YIKES!! 😬
And to the surprise of no one, the poll shows that feminists want all of the privileges of equality, but none of the responsibility.
Yet another example that giving women any political rights or freedoms was a grave mistake. They are incapable of rational thought or introspection and are completely fine with holding two separate contradictory opinions simultaneously. For a woman the only thing that matters is her own personal comfort, all other conceptions of logic or morality or fairness be damned.
Feminist as believe in equality (don't get me started on how i hate it's called feminism).
I've never heard people say that myself, mostly because if they do want to join the army, they just do that.
So you wanna join?
Nah. I die before I managed the fitness test.
Same here
Except you forgot that feminism and equality have 2 different meanings which is exactly why they aren't synonyms. Also people just simply thought feminism was valid until how they acted on it. What truly liberated everyone is actually classical liberalism and the development of our society and technology making everyone's lives easier than back then not just for women.
@Aiko_E_Lara Well obviously the definitions are different. One is a state of equality and the other is a group of people united under a common belief as well as a political ideology. No one with a brain would confuse the two like that. But, the ideology of feminism is for equality of the sexes which is indeed compatible with "equality" more generally.
To further bury your arguments, by the very definition of the word "feminism" you can't promote inequality and still call yourself that so I have no idea where you pulled the idea of how people acting out feminism being relevant. They either promote equality and are feminists or they do not and in which case that is not on the shoulders of feminism to stand responsible for those people and their actions. Unless you are upset that some people promote equality in the first place that is.
@Aiko_E_Lara As for classical liberalism, its a fucking joke of an ideology. Putting aside its hilariously wrong economic beliefs, if we just focus on rights then classical liberalism is against the rights of groups of people in favor of pushing for individual rights. That means that only you would be responsible for defending your own rights rather than fight for the rights of others. This allows the strong to crush the weak and promote oppression of vulnerable people such as what women are usually in society.
In fact, classical liberalism is against "positive rights". In other words they are against rights that grant you things. Right to education. Right to vote. Right to food. Right to a job.
Instead, classical liberalism believes in negative rights. Rights that restrains others from interfering with you such as preventing the government from interfering either good or bad. In other words, classical liberalism does not give you equality. At most they let you fight for it yourself but if you fight against someone more powerful than you then you will lose this right as well.
So yeah, dont come here with your classical liberalism nonsense, its a bankrupt ideology.
@Soteris That would exactly be like "I was a feminist last week because my mom was raped" and "I was a masculinist yesterday because my dad was falsely convicted" Which is exactly why it's not equality. It's not that hard to just be someone who's an equalist or an egalitarian but no. The label just sounds more empowering which makes feminism just nothing more but just a label. There are feminists who say:
"Men can't be feminists"
"Feminism is about equality but for women"
"Feminism is about equality for all"
And those who are
"Feminists who supports masculinism"
"Feminists who supports and justifies violence towards men"
"Feminists who claims feminism and equality are the exact same thing"
"Feminists just by choice"
and so on.
And they all seem to can't agree on each other on what feminism should be. Just like religion. People want God how they want it to be. But all feminists have one thing in common in which is, we're living in a patriarchal world where women are oppressed which is what makes the word "feminism" in the first place and just despite how much issues men faced as well. Those feminists who are like "I'm a feminist but I support equality for all" are just like people who say they're criminals who don't commit crime. It's the label tho.
And they way you call and justify calling classical liberalism is not different if most people just calls feminism a joke. And feminism is just a call for attention movement and wanting to justify their behavior towards men. And of course you're surprised why most people really hate feminism. It's because most want equality which is why they're not feminists.
@Aiko_E_Lara This is why I find having feminists being based on the word for woman is such a blessing quite frankly, because people like you just can't appear to get over it. No matter how pointless your argument is in reality you are completely stuck on the word itself.
The definition of Feminism is very defined with a whole branch of philosophy and political theory built from it. People who argue about such stupid stuff like if how men can't be feminists or whatever simply are not feminists in the first place. You all have fallen into the trap of believing that the word itself has some kind of special meaning for what its definition is. Let me correct you there, this is English which is a fucked up language at the best of times, words does not need to contain context clues for what their definitions are.
In other words, you and people like you have failed to even scratch the surface of the feminist movement because you simply can't get over the name itself. It is literally impossible for you to have any real criticism of feminism because you dont even know what it is and have made no attempts to learn. People who are actually part of the feminist movement have no such confusion of what the movement actually means.
In fact, have you even meet feminists in the first place? Did you for example know that Feminists are one of a very small number of movements who actually fight for male rights? No, you did not know that, how stupid of me. Because you are stuck on the word itself.
@Soteris People like me? More like most people in the world. And everyone is the problem, maybe the problem is you. So among those other kinds of feminists I mentioned, you're one of them and saying what you said about feminism is the true one. Not so different about other feminists believing their own kind of feminism is the real one as well. Like feminists who would say those who say feminism is for men too are not real feminists. Sometimes the label itself means more than it's meaning. www.youtube.com/watch People like me? Look at the likes and dislikes ratio. "People like me" are basically normal. Not saying just because it has more likes means he's automatically correct but he makes a lot of points.
"People who argue about such stupid stuff like if how men can't be feminists or whatever simply are not feminists in the first place." Easy for you to say. When we can also say people who believes in gender equality for both men and women are not feminists in the first place. They're basically egalitarians or equalists.
And yeah I've met a feminist and it was quite cringe actually. And those who supported gender equality i've met don't even know what feminism is but they assume it's BS which is true tho.
Of course I know what feminism is. Same as I know when people are gonna be BS. Which is why I'm so against it. And here are more reasons why. www.youtube.com/watch
@Aiko_E_Lara First of all, PragerU? Eeeeeew! Get that propaganda shit off my browser history. You know PragerU is propaganda right? As in actually manufactured to spread lies and misinformation. Nothing they say in that video is worth even thinking about because you have to screen anything you think has value for any hidden misinformation or hidden agenda that they deliberately put into it specifically against your interest.
And yes, I am a feminist (not that I particularly care about the politics or ideology but simply because I believe in equality to by extension I am a feminist) and I know what feminism is. In fact, I live in a feminist country even, as in the government itself is openly feminist. Trying to tell me that I dont know what feminism is or that feminism is unpopular or "not normal" is a fucking waste of time, not to mention a logical fallacy in the first place. Grow up and get better arguments.
Quite frankly, can't watch the 2nd video either. Its so full of dumb strawman arguments that I would need alcohol to endure it and the shops are closed.
But yeah, this really hammers home that you have literally no idea what feminism is. You are still stuck on the name and you even admit as such by saying "Sometimes the label itself means more than it's meaning."
You are simply not ready to have this conversation.
It doesn't matter who's it from. Even if you think he is a moron, morons can still make sense. He's not correct because he is PragerU, he is correct because he made sense. And what difference does it make if i say you are spreading propagandas yourself? I don't think you're any better though. Like who are you? You're just a random person online so you're not really in a position to just call anyone wrong and you are correct. But still, if what he said is that bad then can you explain the video has 90% of likes? I'm in feminist also make their own videos about their propagandas too. Nobody stopping them. Maybe all you have to say is it's a straw man argument and everybody are the problem but you basicly what's narcissist have to say. Maybe you're not ready to exist if the problem is the world
And if i support masculinism, you wouldn't like it either.
@Aiko_E_Lara Wow.. Just wow.. Just some tips for the future. If you find yourself agreeing to people who literally have a professional career of lying to people then maybe it is time for you to sit down and re-evaluate your beliefs because chances are very high that what you believe in, is a lie.
Secondly, I do not recommend listening to confirmed propaganda sources just because you think they made a point or two. Continuing to drink from a well you already know is poisoned is a bad idea.
Thirdly, arguing over the like to dislike ratio on a video is a logical fallacy. Specifically known as Argumentum ad populum. It is stupid to argue this.
Lastly, if anything he said made sense to you, then we have to back much further back in this conversation than even I thought.
@Aiko_E_Lara Lets just take the "generalities" which he starts off the video with. He opens up with mentioning "Toxic Masculinity", which is not a feminist idea but a concept created by mens rights movements in the 1980's. Likewise there is a "Toxic Femininity" for the 2nd part of his argument but whatever, it is self evident so I am just going to chalk up a big fat L for Prager U here and move on. If you disagree then actually read up what those two are first.
After that he goes into Classical Liberalism which, as I have mentioned before, is a pile of doodoo and to remind you, it is against positive rights which means it can't grant any rights, be they of equality or otherwise. Another L for the P man.
After that he goes into how feminists supposedly argues that since men have oppressed women historically then now its only fair that women suppress men to "even things out". This is retarded and no feminist actually says this. This is a strawman argument and goes back to getting stuck on the word "feminist". Another L for the P'ster.
Then he goes into the argument of "Traditional gender roles". The problem with that is that PragerU is a Christian far right propaganda outlet, which means that their idea of gender roles are Christian gender roles, as in people who are not Christian (or Abrahamic since Judaism and Islam is basically the same as Christianity) do not share their gender roles and they are different throughout the world both today and historically. This complete lack of understanding of history on display both shows how stupid they are and the fact that its not something grounded in biology. Another L to the P to the U.
Listen. I can go on like this and point out that everything he says is bullshit but quite frankly its too easy and boring. If you got something in particular then just point that out instead and save us both some time.
And again what makes it different if i just say you're the one spreading propagandas here? I literally said it's not that it has more likes that makes him correct but he did makes better points than you. en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Classical_liberalism And there is nothing in here talking about classical liberalism being bullshit. Other than that there are other sources those people who posted and you yourself haven't even proven anything accept yapping like they are wrong well i am correct. Arguments like saying i am correct and you are wrong, what i said is the truth because i said so is also Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, hypocrite.
Toxic masculinity is the concept images likes to take advantage of even if it already exists. They like to cherry pick on that to justify their toxic femininity. But if it is wrong just because it has more like making you just want to say argumentum ad populum, it's not like only anti-feminist, americans, men and christians are allowed in youtube. You are allowed to comment on it and you are allowed post a dislike, feminist are allowed as well but where are your fellow feminists downvoting it and having a discussion about it? And it's not like articles like those are actually different if they are just in a written form or at the very last page of mobile or fall of the very corner of libraries where your sources are. Youtube is a public media for anyone and that includes you. But if youtube is bull shit, then people who gives counterargument to flat earthers youtube are also bulshit because they have more likes than dislikes and ad populum is the reason? That's not how the world works. And you are only talking about PragerU here. You're not even watching the other video. Why? You're just afraid your opinions are going to get challenge because there are other more points talked in there with other sources. People listen to PragerU because he has a degree? Dr. Shaym is an example of someone who is popular who doesn't even show that he doesn't have a degree so is not so different to you now is he? So again why should i listen to you and who are you really?
@Aiko_E_Lara Oh really? He made better points than me? Even when everything he said is not true and something that you can easily check for yourself with a bit of googling. Is it because he has nicer visuals perhaps? Should I invest in powerpoint slides to satisfy your easily distracted brain?
I have avoided talking about the other aspects of classical liberalism because we were specifically talking about rights, which is something classical liberalism does REALLY badly because they champion negative rights over positive rights. Which again, means that they dont believe in equality between genders in the first place, because that is a positive right.
But if you want some examples of why Classical Liberalism is bad in other areas, it is an ideology that believes we should not regulate businesses and that the markets can regulate themselves. That means the decision if you should have water pipes made out of poisonous lead or incredibly dangerous asbestos insulation in your walls is a choice that the business does on their own. Likewise, remember all those bank crashes? It would be up to the banks themselves not to crash by doing something risky like taking all your money and basically take it to the "casino" to bet with it.
You would have to live your entire life under the assumption that businesses had your best interest at heart... which is stupid... I hope you understand that at least. But moving on.
@Aiko_E_Lara
I am not saying that I am correct without providing supporting evidence, I am employing logic. Such as pointing out that when he talked about toxic masculinity it was self evident that he was wrong if you just read about toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is about how male stereotypes can be harmful to society or men themselves and in the next breath he brings up "Masculine qualities", namely "Energy", "Risk taking" and "Leadership" which are literally all toxic and harmful to men.
I mean, you can't make this shit up. He is so stupid in the video that he brings up toxic masculinity and then, while accepting that it is true by acknowledging masculinity has "flaws", proceeds to bash himself in the head by promoting MORE TOXIC MASCULINITY.
As for why I am not watching the 2nd video, I just dont care. It is such a bad video that watching it is actively painful to me so why should I subject myself to it? If it makes you feel better, the first 3 examples he brings up are bullshit and I got no reason to believe the rest are any better considering the absolute stupidity on the display of he first 3. Especially since you are supposed to front-load content so that you can grab the attention of viewers and have them watch the rest of the video.
Making me watch the 2nd video is pointless. He obviously does not have a point.
Yes he made better points than you when i can also just say everything you said is not true. Againt, its still because he still me better sense than you. You can keep guessing about what you think the reasons are but i've said it, he made better sense of than you.
So how about this, really you made better points than him? When everything you said is not true and something about that you can easily check for yourself with a bit of googling.
I can just easily twist you words just like that. Because you have no further elaboration rather than just saying what you said is bulshit. So i don't really have to elaborate when i call you bulshit because all of the point are already mention in that video.
So if classical liberalism is really that bad then how is it any different if i just say feminism is really that bad when it comes to fighting for gender equality in the first place? https://youtu.be/iU-8Uz_nMaQ here is a more explanation about classical liberalism and its common sense. If you want to talk about bank crashes, then i also remember those Feminazis justifying their hatred towards men who calls themselves feminists. If that has nothing to do with feminism then the bank crashes has nothing to with classical liberalism.
So am i employing. Which is why i use the root words of everything. Which is exactly why feminism is not really synonym to equality by itself. Because if too much of feminism can result to a one-sidedness, too much of equality will always result in equality. Which is why equality is always equality word feminism isn't. If you want to talk about toxic masculinity having the potential to be harmful to men, everything actually has a downside and it's not for toxic masculinity. Also you just like to nitpick the downside of being masculine and call it toxic ignoring gets benefits as well such as, risk taking can actually result to success and success can make you useful in society by being a provider, leader (which not all of them are evil) and can potentially change the world to make everyone's lives easier. So if this was back then during the really early times during early humans, if men we're not risk takers and hunters, do you think we would still survive today? We would be long gone eaten by other bigger predators or swallowed by nature's catastrophe if we aren't risk takers because apparently it is toxic. Because if women don't do it, then who will? So it's more like your agenda is harmful towards mens nature making them believe masculinity is wrong we don't even appreciating its benefits. And you don't call yourself misandrists? Actions speaks louder than words.
So let's say masculinism is about equality. I can give examples of the detriment of men which is also a serious issue. And of course i would just disguise it as a movements that address both genders issue and disregard femininity because femininity is toxic such as making people too emotional and making people play it safe making them just live when an unsatisfied life making people depressed which could also affect the economy. Of course you don't like how that sounds because you're a hypocrite.
You're not interested in learning that's why you don't like to watch with the other video. You already assume it's bad without even watching it. How can you even make conclusions on something you haven't even watched yourself? Feelings? That is still argumentum ad ignorantiam. And it's very hypocritical of you to say i am giving strawman arguments
@Aiko_E_Lara
*sigh* This is the problem with you people, you got too much "common sense". You go with your gut feelings on things you quite frankly dont understand. That video you just posted, do you know what he just said? First of all, he is biased. He wants to push Classical Liberalism because it would allow his church to recapture the power and influence over society it used to have back in the middle ages and whatnot. That is why he is hammering on about things like the "civil society" in 2:45. He wants the church to have more power to control you but whatever.
Lets just focus on the first example he uses. "Liberty", or in this case to translate it for you: Negative rights. This is exactly what I have been telling you, however it is framed in a way that makes it sound positive. Liberty sounds like a common sense thing to want and you dont want the government telling you what to do right?
Well, what would that look like in reality? Well for starters, the government would not tell businesses what they can or can't do, meaning that there is nothing to stop them from for example hiring children to work. According to Classical Liberalism it is the duty of the individual to enforce our beliefs that children should not work. In other words, if you are a child then you should not apply to start working. Nothing stops the businesses from employing children or children from accepting this and enter the workforce.
Furthermore, negative rights or Classical Liberalism "Liberty" does not protect you from slavery. In fact, Classical Liberalism has historically been used to argue in favor of slave owners with the argument that the government does not have the right to deprive you of your private property, which in this case is people.
But yeah, what he is saying in the video is just "Common Sense". Get a grasp man, you dont even know what you believe in.
And you don't think you are the problem. Goes to show how narcissistic you are. I have already explained to you how my sources are. If you like to talk something like that about classical liberalism then i can also just simply say iy was only made by groups Christians and has nothing to do with manipulating people nor religion. It's just simply christians making it and they're not even calling it christianism or whatever like what femimists do to show supremacy. It's not different if i just say feminist just want power to control you and you are being biased as well.
And no. Here is what liberty really means and liberty in the label itself has no focus on any groups.
www.google.com/search so i can simply just say that none of what you said is actually just true. I mean there are multiple sources i can still send to you which is basically saying the same thing as what i am saying. https://youtu.be/Bsba-dNApvw because it is common sense. Nobody have to tell you that you can drink water because it's common sense. Which is exactly why most people agree with those videos. You can say argumentum ad populum all you want but that doesn't remove the fact that you or anyone who disagrees with it are still welcome to actually post and make discussions about it, making counter arguments about it. Because i am not using popularity as the reason why i believe it, but it's because it made better sense than your propaganda and which is what makes it popular in the first place. So in your dream world where feminism becomes popular and most people in the world are in for feminism because apparently it makes sense, what is that make you just wrong because you are appealing to population according to your logic?
@Aiko_E_Lara
*facepalm* not more fucking videos from liars. Seriously, just stop. You are not accomplishing anything by proving that you have no idea about what you are talking about.
Even if we take what Dave the liar Rubin said then it just reinforces my arguments. For example, he said "your happiness was not the governments right to give, but rather yours to take". That is him rejecting positive rights, AKA the rights you are given and promoting negative rights, AKA restraints on others such as the government from interfering with you.
Dave Rubin is promoting the same argument that I used previously with child labor and slavery while fooling you into thinking it gives you more freedom. It does not. With positive rights you can choose to for example receive an education or get the same opportunity anyone else would get because your rights are protected. In a negative rights society you need to provide your own education without access to things like schools or libraries unless someone else gives you access to theirs and people and businesses have the freedom to freely discriminate against you based on your ethnicity, sexuality, gender or any other reason they want.
A negative rights society is a shitty place to live where the rich and powerful gets to do anything to anyone where as the poor and powerless has to rely on the charity of others to even survive. We usually call these situations a dystopia.
This is not the same as some supposed feminist not understanding the actual feminist ideology, this is a problem with the core foundation of the classical liberalism ideology. This is what classical liberalism is, there is no getting away from it.
@Soteris And not more claims from liars like you. Like i said, it's easy for you to call them liars. It's also easy for me to call you a liar in attempt to just dismiss everything.
And no. That could also mean they're given rights to be given for citizens being oppressed during colonial times. You see how you project extremes into that statement? Easily can be done to any feminism theory. And that negative rights have nothing to do with classical liberalism. The world "classical" and the world "liberalism" has it's own meaning to it. But both of them together, you get classical liberalism and it's not rocket science. And by the way, the videos I've presented to you about feminism arguments debunked still stands actually. But yeah you choose to be so uneducated about it.
@Aiko_E_Lara
Yes, it is easy for me to call them liars (because they are) but I have not used that as my argument against what they are saying. That is a very important point to emphasis. I have not used the fact that they are liars to dismiss their arguments unless I had already proved my point. Like for example I feel perfectly validated in skipping their 5th or 6th argument if I already destroyed their first 4 and prove that their arguments are really fucking stupid.
Classical Liberalism has everything to do with negative rights. Its even on wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
"Classical liberals asserted that rights are of a negative nature and therefore stipulate that other individuals and governments are to refrain from interfering with the free market, opposing social liberals who assert that individuals have positive rights, such as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. For society to guarantee positive rights, it requires taxation over and above the minimum needed to enforce negative rights."
Furthermore, every video except the one I could not bare to watch has also promoted negative rights. It is a core concept, the foundation of their whole ideology and it is a fucking problem. The fact that you have still not accepted that Classical Liberalism is built on negative rights is just further evidence that you are simply not mentally prepared to have this conversation.
@Soteris @Aiko_E_Lara you two are still goingšš
https://youtu.be/guuPHxg4XXc this video still stands and you can skip at 8:52 and 11:01 for more points. However you are just too scared to click on it.
Also might take about masculinism or men's rights movement is also something you completely ignored. Maybe because it would backfire your own logic.
If that's the case then you are a liar. I have also already debunk the way you just wanna defend feminism and oppose classical liberalism. Like for example you choose to ignore more of those points and other takes i mentioned like MRA, the second video, and also how i debunked how you ''prove'' their argument is stupid.
I could use the very same argument. It says classical liberals, not talking about the movement by itself which is like feminism exactly. What feminists do versus in theory and that is exactly how you are backfiring your own logic. I couldn't care less about classical liberalism though because another thing that actually liberated everyone is actually just development and change of society and has nothing to do with any of those movements.
Just like how you always strike gold with people who keep insisting feminism is about equality. You can't get over how you think equality is not enough for you.
You are still ignoring my take about MRA/Masculinism. Why is that?
@Aiko_E_Lara @Soteris i admire both of your energy to talk this longš¤šš»
@Aiko_E_Lara
Well first of all, the way you write is incredibly confusing so quite frankly I have no idea what you are talking about whenever you go on those rants against feminism and whatever. Secondly, I intentionally cut out branching discussions from time to time because otherwise we are not going to get anywhere. As such, I try to keep it focused on a narrow group which you decided on when you began talking about Classical Liberalism and sending me videos.
Nice of you to finally admit that you never cared about classical liberalism. Now we can finally close that chapter on the note that you were wrong, I was right and you had absolutely no idea about anything you were talking about. Moving on to the next topic that you appear to have chosen, feminism and mens rights activism.
In fact, since we are leaving the abhorrent Classical Liberalism behind ill even do you a favor and watch the two time stamps in that stupid video you sent me, after I get some wine to drink of course. can't do this shit sober. The lengths I go for you people, truly. Even having to drink my cooking wine since that is all I have at hand.
@Aiko_E_Lara
Wow, really? Is this the first point you want me to comment on? That "Feminism can't be about equality because they oppose the patriarchy"? That feminism is at its core an anti-male ideology? That feminism is hostile to mens rights groups?
and "One does not need to read up on what feminism is in theory when one can see what feminism is in practice"?
Before I even bother responding to this horseshit can you at least confirm that this is what you meant before I waste my time educating you on why this is retarded?
It doesn't really take a genius to understand what i said. Of course it's not going to get you anywhere. That is basically how uneducated people do things. Not get anywhere.
I actually cared more on backfiring your own logic instead of caring more about certain movements thats not equality by itself. Of course i knew what i'm doing and it really worked. The way you keep ranting about classical liberalism. It's not really that different how i give you reasoning is to why feminism sucks. How negative feminism really is. The bigger difference is just that there are more popular articles that also agreed with me. And of course what he said really does make sense. That truly is what feminism is about. You can just deny it just like what you always do and id just be like ''Wow, that's your definition of feminism?'' Like mocking your own definition of feminism that way you mock those video. Of course you're just going to waste your time explaining it because i'm going to predict you're wrong and sound like a moron.
@spongebobssocks
They are plastic figures you glue up into poses and paint. Can also use it to play boardgames but I am not that interested in that aspect personally.
This is about how they should look like. Mine does not look like that. I am better at computer graphics and sketches if I had to pick, not amazing but better. I made this a while back actually:
Its in early development with the idea being to actually make it a small 3d model that I could print out and have sitting on my desk. Never got that far obviously.
@Aiko_E_Lara
Does not take a genius to understand what you wrote eh? What the hell do you mean by:
"Because if too much of feminism can result to a one-sidedness, too much of equality will always result in equality. Which is why equality is always equality word feminism isn't. If you want to talk about toxic masculinity having the potential to be harmful to men, everything actually has a downside and it's not for toxic masculinity."
As far as I am concerned, that is completely incomprehensible.
It means too much of feminism can result to one sidedness. That statment says all. Which is exactly why it's not ''equality''. Specially modern feminism which exists because of feminism in the first place. And you're talking about masculinity as if the toxic masculinity is the only thing we should be concerned off.
But i guess that's too much for your small brain to process
This still stands however.
''I actually cared more on backfiring your own logic instead of caring more about certain movements thats not equality by itself. Of course i knew what i'm doing and it really worked. The way you keep ranting about classical liberalism. It's not really that different how i give you reasoning is to why feminism sucks. How negative feminism really is. The bigger difference is just that there are more popular articles that also agreed with me. And of course what he said really does make sense. That truly is what feminism is about. You can just deny it just like what you always do and id just be like ''Wow, that's your definition of feminism?'' Like mocking your own definition of feminism that way you mock those video. Of course you're just going to waste your time explaining it because i'm going to predict you're wrong and sound like a moron.''
@Aiko_E_Lara
Even your explanation that "It means too much of feminism can result to one sidedness" is grammatically incorrect and nonsensical and the following sentence "Specially modern feminism which exists because of feminism in the first place" is also grammatically incorrect and nonsensical. Trying to parse what you say is hurting my brain for real.
And yes, I am talking about toxic masculinity but you are making a crucial mistake here. Toxic Masculinity is about improving the rights and lives of men. Toxic Masculinity is for the benefit of men, not women. If feminism were only concerned about women then they would not care about toxic masculinity and if, as you said previously, feminists hated men then they would support more toxic masculinity or try to deny that it even exists because that would cause the most harm to men.
You would know this if you actually read up on toxic masculinity back when I actually told you to.
If that is the case in every of your explanation is also grammatically incorrect. It's also easy for me to say that but i ever i'm not someone like you was having a hard time processing something with their small brain.
You can talk about toxic masculinity but another thing that also exists is toxic femininity which is also destroying the lives of women. And you are also just mistaking masculinity to toxic masculinity like a lot of feminist do. Like men's natural traits being risk-takers and providers are just interpreted of toxic to feminist. May have been done deliberately just to put men of the bottom and to put themselves on top. And if feminists really don't hate men, they would have really admire masculinity and support men's nature which is actually what's keeping this world alive and what made our lives easier.
And you would know this if you have read on what makes feminism toxic
https://youtu.be/r8Icwgux5c0 the result of mistaking normal masculine behavior and just call it toxic. https://youtu.be/qloY4OJxBoQ boys punished for their normal masculine behavior in school. That's something feminists don't think off because apparently they are trying to get rid of ''toxic masculinity'' making men soy boys. Of course you think it's healthy
I love how you still have no say to MRA. One can also just say MRA is about equality and to teach men how to properly use their masculine behavior
@Aiko_E_Lara @Aiko_E_Lara
At least my writing is understandable English, people who read what I type can understand what I am trying to convey. If I can't read what you are typing then it is not my fault that your English sucks.
And yes, Toxic Femininity is also a real thing. Pretty sure you only know about that term because I told you about it previously in fact. This is not a "Gotcha" moment when its literally something I had to educate you on in the first place.
Let me educate you further on a core aspect of feminism to push this conversation forward a few steps. Feminism is against all forms of gender stereotypes. Why? Because they are all detrimental for the individual. Even if you think that some of them are good qualities such as the whole "risk-takers" argument you keep using, putting aside that taking risks is statistically likely to backfire on you and harm you in the process, the fact that there is a measurement of how "masculine" you are is a problem in and of itself.
That means that if you are a man and you DONT take risks then you are inherently inferior to other men who do take those risks. This social hierarchy is as such detrimental to men overall because it oppresses men who dont or can't pursue what you consider to be masculine traits.
Men are suffering from a lot of problems in society today, and you are one of them. You are not much of a mans rights activist if I do say so myself.
If you want my opinion on MRA then I just have to point out that MRA's are a reactionary movement. They do not have an ideology aside from just being anti-feminist.
So is my writing understandable in English and it's not rocket science nor it doesn't take a genius.
And i'm pretty sure you only know you have only heard of toxic masculinity and even mistaking it for something else. Which is why you cannot even differentiate masculinity and toxic masculinity.
Just like the prediction i was talking about, i'm just going to predict you're wrong and can simply just mock what you said. ''Wow, that's your definition of feminism''. You see, you're only talking about how much women are oppressed, how much in detriment they are hence why it's called ''feminism''. That alone cannot accurately be described as a quality because you're only looking at one side but even if you are looking at both sides as you say, how you describe feminism assumes women just have it worse. Speaking of risks, there is such thing as calculated risk and a part of risk. While risks are being a part of men's behavior naturally, a cause of risks failing is due to how you like to keep men safe leaving them depressed and unsatified, that they are not educated on how to properly calculate risks. Which is why some men are not even risk-takers anymore but they just end up becoming a loser, unsatified, tesosterone drop due to the lack of masculinity support. Masculinity when used wrong will not result into something good, and when something bad happens to masculinity, you just blame it to masculinity by itself. What are you trying to do? Transforming men into women? A very feminist thing to do.
Reactory movement you say? I could say the same thing about feminists reacting to gender differences.
@Aiko_E_Lara
Reactionary. Its called Reactionary. MRA are reactionary because they were primarily started by the people who had lost the culture war against feminists previously and were looking for a moral high ground where they could still attack Feminism from without being rejected by society. As such, MRA were not started to support mens rights but as a platform from which they can attack feminism from. That is why you dont see MRA actually promoting policies that support mens rights in reality where as you definitely see Feminists promote feminist policies.
They are not the same. Feminists are built on an actual ideology, MRA are built to oppose feminists.
Which is pretty funny overall since you claim I am only talking about how women are oppressed when in reality, I dont think I have even mentioned it once so far. During our rather long conversation I have only actually spoken about how men are oppressed due to toxic masculinity, which is an actual mens rights talking point.
And you can try defend the stupid behavior of taking risks, calculated or otherwise but that is just like listening to a gambler trying to defend his gambling addiction. Its sad quite frankly, but ultimately it is pointless. Because my objection to your argument of risk-takers are not that taking risks is bad but that having a metric from which you can measure a mans value, their "masculinity" is inherently bad.
Masculinity is a zero sum game. If one man becomes more masculine then that means the rest becomes less masculine by comparison. If all men are "Masculine" then no one is which means there will always be losers, people who are not masculine by your definition. People who are "lesser". People who are oppressed by your very idea of masculinity. You are the oppressor of other men.
Actually, i can just justify that MRA is actually just a movement for men's rights in the name itself. If you want to talk such propaganda about MRA, then i stand by Feminism was explained to the Youtube videos I presented to you. One can easily just say those who oppose women and those who hates feminism are not MRA. Real MRA is an ideology and for equality. However tho, i am not someone who is ashamed of admitting I truly despise feminism so you're right, im not an MRA, for the same reason why i am not a feminist. Because I believe in equality. This goes to show really that you're ironically giving double standards about the movement. If women wants feminism then men wants MRA. But if you dislike that idea because of whatever reason or interpretation you have with that, then you're just being a hypocrite and hypocrisy is an opposite to equality.
@Aiko_E_Lara There you go again getting caught up by the word "Feminism" as if it only helps women. It does not. The "Real" MRA joined feminism long ago, only people like you who are reactionary, who hates feminism really remained as MRA and they have not done shit for mens rights ever since.
The only group I have seen consistently fight for and achieved progress for mens rights are feminists. That is just a fact and that once again shows how you are the enemy that is oppressing men, not feminists. Trying to pretend that you stand for MRA or "Equality" does not change how you are the enemy of everything you claim to stand for. Kinda sad actually.
Ask if you haven't got caught up by the how most people would describe femimism. So if that's the case MRA is about equality then but you're only associating it with people who are reactionary. Meaning men should just be MRA while women should just be Femimists. Basicly dividing the two while pretending to get a long. Real MRA is joining feminism you say, but does Feminists even join MRA? I don't think so. And i think you are missing the part where i said because i am not really ashamed of admitting my hatred towards feminism, i don't consider myself MRA. If that's your anecdote then i can just simply tell you that the only people that are destroying men's right are feminists and of course there are plenty of examples i can share to you. Just like the video i gave, they are examples of feminist. But no only your anecdotes matter. Right?
https://youtu.be/rGtdAHiPBwk these feminists got destroyed. Examples of claims that are bulshit getting destroyed. I don't have to tell you my anecdotes when you can jusr see this for yourself
If feminists really are about equality, they would have also joined MRA but apparently those feminists are confused why we need MRA. According to you it's, reactionary which means you are not supporting it so that means you're not really a feminist then.
if they do decide to join the army in large enough numbers, they are definitely getting rid of that schedule guaranteed and changing the work culture to be more "feminized" plus standards would be lowered even more
Yupš
Plus i heard before women had same standards as men to join but not even 1% could get in so they had to lower it lol
i am not a feminist and i could not join due to the medical issue i have. the schedule is normal, i could handle it, i do way more in healthcare and start at 4am and go 14 hours non stop rarely even getting lunch or snack time, no to mention the stuff i have waiting for me at home, like lawn cutting, cleaning house, cooking, laundry etc.
how many feminists on here wanna come home from war with ptsd, shrapnell in their bodies, missing limbs and best friends lost in battle?
Well said!
xD i don't wanna be in the army and i'm not even a feminist :D
All of them should want that. Feminism is about equality remember? They should all want to face the hardships men face in the name of equality.
@Exterminatore yeah including the fact that nobody helps you when your marital partner beats you, nobody believes you when you actually did not rape your marital partner and nobody gives you the right for custody of your own child, if your expartner isn't a straight up criminal or drug addict...
I'm not a feminist but I would join the army if my husband wasn't already in. It really depends on MOS for how hard you day is. Some jobs are easier then others.
Many strong women are in the army. So it ain't surprising to see many feminist.
šš
@christoff92 - almost none will call themselves a feminist. The word feminist today means act like a slut.
Well let's see...
Women make up 51% of the US population.
And what percentage of the active-duty military do they make up?
SEVENTEEN
Seems like "equity" only applies when it comes to getting benefits and not to fulfilling responsibilities.
Lol the biggest feminist on this site won't answer this question, she knows what questions to avoid.
šš
I'll just be here for the comment section and to see how many feminists would actually answer this question
ššš»
I'm a feminist and already joined. Too old to re-enlist, now..
I used to want to because I wouldn't mind dying.. but they hardly put women on the really dangerous missions.. and I would hate to be yelled at by people on the daily..
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions