Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Because they do! Trust me on this!

http://i.qkme.me/3tzyza.jpg

here we go..................................

Their jealous of our badass security state.

People always hate those with more them, even if it isn't true

Originally posted by Paul Calf
Because they do! Trust me on this! Even Americans hate Americans?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Even Americans hate Americans?

This is true since 9/11 I think the U.S. does hate itself for as SC said in jest it's "Security State" which is actually a complete destruction of it's pre 9/11 values.

At the bird guy.... Detroit?

America should fracture itself in to smaller countries. Start up some rivalries with each other. People will feel less inclined to hate Statesians if they're not collectively unified under a continent-spanning, multi-trillion dollar superpower with a massive population and a raging hard-on for global meddling.


More little guys and underdogs, is what I'm saying. Everybody loves them.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
America should fracture itself in to smaller countries. Start up some rivalries with each other. People will feel less inclined to hate Statesians if they're not collectively unified under a continent-spanning, multi-trillion dollar superpower with a massive population and a raging hard-on for global meddling.


More little guys and underdogs, is what I'm saying. Everybody loves them.

Why do people hate Britain so much then?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
America should fracture itself in to smaller countries.

City-States?

Originally posted by Paul Calf
Why do people hate Britain so much then? Close American ally, former imperial superpower, seen as a bully, too independent from the rest of Europe, also a global meddler that can't handle it's finances.

And those stuck-up accents...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
City-States? Too small. Too many large swaths of American heartland.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
City-States?

We could call them Mega Cities!!!

@LL I agree about Britain!

Mega City One still has less crime than real America. Oddly enough.

I imagine nation states akin to:

http://cf.juggle-images.com/fit/white/600x600/wg-crimson-skies-high-road-to-revenge-1.jpg

Everyone's jealous because we've only had one civil war in our history, and not the world average (skewed by South American and African countries) of three.

But seriously, I don't think most self-identified anti-Americans actually hate American people, at least not in Europe where it's best-documented. They might have bigoted ideas of Americans, some of which may be partially well-founded, but "people who hate the American government" is a much larger set than "people who hate everything American"

America =/= Americans, in general.

Like OV said.

People just have nothing better to do then prejudge others. It goes for people in and outside of the US. It is just that kind of world we live in now a days. In all honesty though, if you hate someone or a whole country without even MEETING or speaking with them; Well then you are just a childish *******.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Their jealous of our badass security state.

And spelling.

Also seems to be a bit of collective amnesia about this fine chap.http://www.benpadiah.com/otherstuff/GWB/real/dubya.jpg

Might have a wee bit to do with him.

I think a lot of people are worried about American Neo-Imperialism. Also, a lot of people buy into stereotypes about a fair amount of Americans being dumb and lazy.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I imagine nation states akin to:

http://cf.juggle-images.com/fit/white/600x600/wg-crimson-skies-high-road-to-revenge-1.jpg

keep that shit south of the 49th

Originally posted by Matr0shka
In all honesty though, if you hate someone or a whole country without even MEETING or speaking with them; Well then you are just a childish *******.

what if my hatred of Americans comes exclusively from meeting and speaking with them?

Originally posted by Oliver North
keep that shit south of the 49th Bu... but the colors! Without a u!

Is that map from Crimson Skies?

Yuh huh.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what if my hatred of Americans comes exclusively from meeting and speaking with them? Then I am assuming you have based your answer on only meeting a handful of Americans . Its impossible for you to meet every American and hell you may have ran into a bad crowd. As an example, if I went to France and some amount of people treated me like crap, I wouldn't blame the whole country. Of course that's just me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what if my hatred of Americans comes exclusively from meeting and speaking with them?

I'd say you need to catch up on current events.

Originally posted by Matr0shka
Its impossible for you to meet every American.

exactly. you can't describe a culture without describing every individual member of that culture

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say you need to catch up on current events.

lol, they don't help :P

the fact that we think we're better than the rest of the world might have something to do with it.

Originally posted by red g jacks
the fact that we think we're better than the rest of the world might have something to do with it.

You're not better than the french france.

Seriously though, lots of countries think they are better than the rest awesr

Canada IS better though

Originally posted by Oliver North
Canada IS better though

The only improvement Canada has over the US is the part that speaks french

Originally posted by Oliver North
Canada IS better though Of course patriotic people are gonna say their country is better. But there is one solid fact.

Originally posted by Bentley
The only improvement Canada has over the US is the part that speaks french

we all speak French

Originally posted by Matr0shka
Of course patriotic people are gonna say their country is better. But there is one solid fact.

its the hat that makes the man, no?

Originally posted by Bentley
You're not better than the french france.

Seriously though, lots of countries think they are better than the rest awesr maybe we're just better at broadcasting our perceived superiority, then.

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/5/5/8/8/5/9/coun-104012450716.jpeg#coun

The Chily being above France does peak my interest. Also Ireland.

Must be the funniest economic measures ever taken mmm

Originally posted by Bentley
Must be the funniest economic measures ever taken mmm
It has more to do with politics, rights and possibilities than economy.

Originally posted by Astner
It has more to do with politics, rights and possibilities than economy.

I stand corrected.

It must be the funniest politics, rights and possibilities measures ever taken.

Originally posted by Astner
It has more to do with politics, rights and possibilities than economy.

And who decided which politics are better and which worse?

Originally posted by Bardock42
And who decided which politics are better and which worse?
Originally posted by Astner
http://i.imgur.com/z2s9uQr.png
http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life

Originally posted by Astner
http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life

Better link:
http://www.economist.com/news/21567049-how-we-calculated-life-satisfaction-lottery-life-methodology

Again, the coming out of a dictatorship mentality and uber hard access to superior education in Chily makes me frown. They are far from being a miserable country or anything like that, but I'm honestly surprised on what elements they managed to keep such a great ranking.

In France, the political comentators -which are french, so they aren't exent from bias-, say that one of the issues with these rankings is that they accumulate characteristics that describe nordic countries quite well, so nordic countries always tend to rank high.

In a much more serious note, there is no way that ranking takes into account the sheer awesomeness of local food.

Edit: Ah, I just noticed they include divorce rates. Then I guess I understand why France is screwed.

Originally posted by Bentley
In a much more serious note, there is no way that ranking takes into account the sheer awesomeness of local food.
Snails and frogs aren't that awesome.

But we all agree that it is quite arbitrary and if one chose different factors, or chose to weigh them differently, one would arrive at a very different list which is just as meaningful...yes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
But we all agree that it is quite arbitrary and if one chose different factors, or chose to weigh them differently, one would arrive at a very different list which is just as meaningful...yes?
If they were to conduct the research in a different way they'd probably end up with a different, yes.

Then again I doubt the Economist Intelligence Unit had a hidden agenda to promote preselected countries, especially considering Britain's ranking.

Originally posted by Bentley
Edit: Ah, I just noticed they include divorce rates. Then I guess I understand why France is screwed. Another way to interpret divorce rates is through a positive perspective.

A country that has higher divorce rates could indicate the ease of the divorce process, cultural acceptability of the divorce process, and the freedom it presents for women.


So a higher divorce rate could be seen as a benefit.


Dare I say that "measure" has the divorce issue wrong?



That is just one of many different, subjective, ways to approach the topic of "best."


This is why those indices are shite: they are quite subjective.




As I said in another thread, Australia has no business being in the top 10 with their fascist censorship of the internet and other oppressive laws.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As I said in another thread, Australia has no business being in the top 10 with their fascist censorship of the internet and other oppressive laws.

Divorce is good but censorship is bad? What are you? American?!

Originally posted by Astner
If they were to conduct the research in a different way they'd probably end up with a different, yes.

Then again I doubt the Economist Intelligence Unit had a hidden agenda to promote preselected countries, especially considering Britain's ranking.

You don't need to have an agenda for your "findings" to be meaningless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You don't need to have an agenda for your "findings" to be meaningless.

If you keep up this scrutiny, you are in danger of undermining decades of social theory and policy... Do you really want that?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
If you keep up this scrutiny, you are in danger of undermining decades of social theory and policy... Do you really want that?

I don't think I agree that this would be the case.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think I agree that this would be the case.

Well, then you can carry on with clear conscience.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Divorce can be good if it is viewed from the perspective of "women are oppressed in most of the world and, therefore, do not have fair access to divorces: socially, legally, and financially."
If women have the same rights and men then they're not oppressed. So that leaves out a few Middle Eastern countries. Now how did you come to the conclusion that most of them are oppressed?

Originally posted by Astner
If women have the same rights and men then they're not oppressed.

You are mistaken about that. Oppression has to do with power, not legal rights.

I must have left all of my power over women in my other pants then.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I must have left all of my power over women in my other pants then.

Oppression of women does not necessarily mean that any individual man has controlling power over individual women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oppression of women does not necessarily mean that any individual man has controlling power over individual women.

It was a joke...

Originally posted by -Pr-
It was a joke...

Just making sure no one reads it and gets the wrong idea...

You think my post was going to incite something?

Originally posted by -Pr-
You think my post was going to incite something?

I think someone could easily read your joke and think "YEAH! That's true, I don't have power over women, oppression of women is bullshit". And that potential reader should know that they are wrong.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think someone could easily read your joke and think "YEAH! That's true, I don't have power over women, oppression of women is bullshit". And that potential reader should know that they are wrong.

Anyone who thinks I was stating that women aren't oppressed would be a silly billy.

That said, for the sake of argument I think oppression when it comes to women in western society is somewhat overstated (if even a little), but that's me.

Because they're fat.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Anyone who thinks I was stating that women aren't oppressed would be a silly billy.

That said, for the sake of argument I think oppression when it comes to women in western society is somewhat overstated (if even a little), but that's me.


I am certain there would be a fair amount of people that would take it as more affirmation of their preconceived notions.

Overstated by whom? Surely not mainstream media outlets, though, and consequently the general public.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am certain there would be a fair amount of people that would take it as more affirmation of their preconceived notions.

Overstated by whom? Surely not mainstream media outlets, though, and consequently the general public.

Silly billies, then.

I disagree on that point tbh, but I really don't want to get in to a long, drawn out debate over it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Silly billies, then.

I disagree on that point tbh, but I really don't want to get in to a long, drawn out debate over it.

Fair enough. I think we've discussed it before at any rate.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough. I think we've discussed it before at any rate.

Maybe, in that gaming thread briefly.

IIRC, I was right then hmm

Originally posted by Bardock42
IIRC, I was right then hmm

lol.

I'd been basically branded a sexist/misogynist in that thread already, so iirc I wasn't keen on continuing any further.

Because we have the best and greatest variety of junk food.

Originally posted by Astner
If women have the same rights and men then they're not oppressed. So that leaves out a few Middle Eastern countries. Now how did you come to the conclusion that most of them are oppressed?

You underlined the wrong part of my post while picking a specific element out.


I'll add some emphasis to better make my point:






Basically, I am saying you cannot focus on one element of that point because it needs its whole self to make sense.

If you focus on just the legal part, you end up with points like yours. If you focus on just the social part, it forgets the money and legal part.


Equality under the law does not exist, now, in most countries. Nor does gender equality exist socially or financially.


Originally posted by -Pr-
lol.

I'd been basically branded a sexist/misogynist in that thread already, so iirc I wasn't keen on continuing any further.


Despite my seemingly pro-feminist posts, I am not a feminist. I agree more with your perspective than Bardock's. I think the "women are oppressed in the US" is mostly bullshit, depending on the particular area you'd like to focus on.

Because people tend to hate other people, sometimes unconditionally.

I'd like to see the results of the research if divorce rates weren't factored in, but marriage rates were.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You underlined the wrong part of my post while picking a specific element out.


I'll add some emphasis to better make my point:






Basically, I am saying you cannot focus on one element of that point because it needs its whole self to make sense.

If you focus on just the legal part, you end up with points like yours. If you focus on just the social part, it forgets the money and legal part.


Equality under the law does not exist, now, in most countries. Nor does gender equality exist socially or financially.





Despite my seemingly pro-feminist posts, I am not a feminist. I agree more with your perspective than Bardock's. I think the "women are oppressed in the US" is mostly bullshit, depending on the particular area you'd like to focus on.

TBH, I think women are oppressed in some areas. I just think that in some areas, men are oppressed too, so it's in each other's interests to help each other out, and to stop making enemies of one another.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite my seemingly pro-feminist posts, I am not a feminist. I agree more with your perspective than Bardock's. I think the "women are oppressed in the US" is mostly bullshit, depending on the particular area you'd like to focus on.

I do consider myself a feminist and I'd take -Pr-'s side to an extent on this issue.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do consider myself a feminist and I'd take -Pr-'s side to an extent on this issue.
I too am a feminist in the sense that I don't think sports should be separated by gender. Oh, and I support equal rights and all that too.

So does that mean cows should also participate in corridas? mmm

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do consider myself a feminist and I'd take -Pr-'s side to an extent on this issue.

To what extent?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Despite my seemingly pro-feminist posts, I am not a feminist.

lolOriginally posted by -Pr-
TBH, I think women are oppressed in some areas. I just think that in some areas, men are oppressed too, so it's in each other's interests to help each other out, and to stop making enemies of one another.

Of course men are oppressed by patriarchal gender norms as well. Again, the only one speaking up in any meaningful way about the oppression of men are feminists. The only one doing anything about it are feminists.

Originally posted by Bentley
So does that mean cows should also participate in corridas? mmm
If you by cows mean women, then yes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course men are oppressed by patriarchal gender norms as well. Again, the only one speaking up in any meaningful way about the oppression of men are feminists. The only one doing anything about it are feminists.

I don't agree completely, but then again, I don't want to get in to some long debate about it, because I can tell that we're not going to agree with each other.

I'm in the middle of waiting for Old Republic to finish updating, and that takes priority over long posts.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't agree completely, but then again, I don't want to get in to some long debate about it, because I can tell that we're not going to agree with each other.

I'm in the middle of waiting for Old Republic to finish updating, and that takes priority over long posts.

Well, then don't get into a debate about it.

It doesn't really matter though, no one tackles the very real oppression of men, definitely no male groups who under some MRA label, all they do is attack feminists and uphold the status quo. Perhaps it's a bit hyperbole to say only feminists of course, there's also other civil rights groups who champion the issue, but there's definitely no mainstream, male group addressing it in any meaningful way.

Tbh, in my experience, the only time ever when "men are oppressed too" comes up with people, is when feminists talk about the oppression women face, and it's basically shorthand for "shut up about it".

I wasn't getting in to a debate about it, just clarifying a point of view. Clarifying, not debating.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I wasn't getting in to a debate about it, just clarifying a point of view. Clarifying, not debating.

Regardless, if you say something that I don't agree with I will point out that I don't agree with it and why I don't.

I can totally understand if you don't want to have a discussion about it, I myself have chosen not to discuss things plenty of times. But that doesn't mean I won't write about why I disagree, you know?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Regardless, if you say something that I don't agree with I will point out that I don't agree with it and why I don't.

I can totally understand if you don't want to have a discussion about it, I myself have chosen not to discuss things plenty of times. But that doesn't mean I won't write about why I disagree, you know?

And that's fine; I'm not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying I don't want to take it any further than that, even if the temptation is there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite my seemingly pro-feminist posts, I am not a feminist. I agree more with your perspective than Bardock's. I think the "women are oppressed in the US" is mostly bullshit, depending on the particular area you'd like to focus on.

"oppressed" is a bit of a strong word, but "moderately disadvantaged" does fit the fact that women still make less money than men, and have vastly lesser political power and representation. It doesn't remotely compare to what it once was, but much like racism, sexism still exists in a noticeable quantity here in the States.

I mean, this has nothing to do with you, but I hold about as much respect for the "men's rights" advocates as I do for "white right's" advocates; nobody denies that we men have it bad in some areas, but when you control (to ass-pull reasonable numbers) >95% of the world's political and economic muscle, whining about comparatively trivial problems is equivalent to setting up a charity to help rich people, only much less altruistic.

What's ironic is that anti-male discrimination, such as the lack of acceptance of male nurses/cheerleaders, and the inherent advantage women receive in custody battles, has actually decreased correlating with the rise of feminism, yet the people who whine about anti-male oppression the most are the ones that get all red in the butt when they hear the f word.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To what extent?

To this extent:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course men are oppressed by patriarchal gender norms as well. Again, the only one speaking up in any meaningful way about the oppression of men are feminists. The only one doing anything about it are feminists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, the only one speaking up in any meaningful way about the oppression of men are feminists. The only one doing anything about it are feminists.

No and no.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No and no.

If you're referring to useless and bitchy "men's rights advocates", they haven't done a load of crap to fix anything.

Someone doesn't like men, I take it.

Someone's a sock troll.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Someone's a sock troll.

Possibly.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No and no.

Honestly, some feminists (who I would call "real" feminists, as they want actual equality) really do speak out about men's issues. but like you said, it isn't only them. Ugh, I'm doing it again, aren't i.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Honestly, some feminists (who I would call "real" feminists, as they want actual equality) really do speak out about men's issues. but like you said, it isn't only them. Ugh, I'm doing it again, aren't i.

So then, by your standards, you're not a "feminist" but you are a "real feminist". The degree of doublethink there is remarkable.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Someone doesn't like men, I take it.

Given that I am male, your ad hominem falls quite flat, kid.

Try again, this time with contentions supposed by some semblance of a logical argument.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So then, by your standards, you're not a "feminist" but you are a "real feminist". The degree of doublethink there is remarkable.

Not really; I honestly don't know if I would be considered any kind of feminist, tbh.

I just think that feminism, like many movements, has its share of people who try to twist and warp it in to something it's not, that's all.

Originally posted by Master Han
Given that I am male, your ad hominem falls quite flat, kid.

Try again, this time with contentions supposed by some semblance of a logical argument.

lol, you so tough, you e-warrior you.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Not really; I honestly don't know if I would be considered any kind of feminist, tbh.

You defined "real feminism" as people who want equality. Would you say you don't want equality?

Originally posted by -Pr-
lol, you so tough, you e-warrior you.

Don't give this speech when you started off the bat by insulting me, despite our having no beef or problem whatsoever.


So, terrible sportsmanship and unwarranted hostility aside, taking shots at other people without actually positing an argument is just poor taste.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You defined "real feminism" as people who want equality. Would you say you don't want equality?

I scrolled back up to read your post and now I don't see it.

Edit: Weird, now it's there again.

Anyway, I was saying what I only think would constitute a real feminist i.e. from my limited understanding of feminism, its true goal is equality between the sexes. That's what I've read as being the true motivation behind it. I could be wrong.

What double thinking are you talking about, exactly?

Originally posted by Master Han
Don't give this speech when you started off the bat by insulting me, despite our having no beef or problem whatsoever.


So, terrible sportsmanship and unwarranted hostility aside, taking shots at other people without actually positing an argument is just poor taste.

The irony in your statement speaks volumes about your intent to troll, tbh.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Possibly.



Honestly, some feminists (who I would call "real" feminists, as they want actual equality) really do speak out about men's issues. but like you said, it isn't only them. Ugh, I'm doing it again, aren't i.
What you are describing as "real feminists" are actually called egalitarians. And there are several feminist movements with different ideologies.

Yes, there is an egalitarian movement.

Originally posted by -Pr- \
The irony in your statement speaks volumes about your intent to troll, tbh.

Interesting. You call me a troll, yet I'm the only one here providing an actual argument, and you initiated hostilities with a pointless ad hominem.

Basically, your logic boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
What you are describing as "real feminists" are actually called egalitarians. And there are several feminist movements with different ideologies.

Yes, there is an egalitarian movement.

Oh, okay; my bad then.

I've only recently began looking in to this kind of thing, so I'm sure that If I'm wrong, I'll be corrected.

Originally posted by Master Han
Interesting. You call me a troll, yet I'm the only one here providing an actual argument, and you initiated hostilities with a pointless ad hominem.

Basically, your logic boils down to "anyone who disagrees with me is a troll!"

No, that's not it at all, but how presumptuous of you to say so.

Hell, I wasn't even the first person to accuse you of trolling.

Originally posted by -Pr-
What double thinking are you talking about, exactly?

You've been convinced that the word feminist, when used without qualifiers, implies shrill misandrist whining. At the same time you're obviously clear that this doesn't reflect reality. You flickered between "feminism means this" and "feminism means the other thing" within the space of a single paragraph.

Originally posted by -Pr-

Anyway, I was saying what I only think would constitute a real feminist i.e. from my limited understanding of feminism, its true goal is equality between the sexes. That's what I've read as being the true motivation behind it. I could be wrong.

This...doesn't make any sense.

First, you declare that you are not a feminist. Then, you label "true" feminism as precisely what you (presumably) support.

Logic dictates that you are, therefore, a feminist. Yet you deny it; talk about conclusions not following from premises.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You've been convinced that the word feminist, when used without qualifiers, implies shrill misandrist whining. At the same time you're obviously clear that this doesn't reflect reality. You flickered between "feminism means this" and "feminism means the other thing" within the space of a single paragraph.

Okay, that wasn't what I was saying at all, so my bad if it came across that way.

I'll have to read back over my posts to see where I went wrong.

Originally posted by Master Han
This...doesn't make any sense.

First, you declare that you are not a feminist. Then, you label "true" feminism as precisely what you (presumably) support.

Logic dictates that you are, therefore, a feminist. Yet you deny it; talk about conclusions not following from premises.

I declared no such thing.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh, okay; my bad then.

I've only recently began looking in to this kind of thing, so I'm sure that If I'm wrong, I'll be corrected.


IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I declared no such thing.

Let's lay out your argument, and feel free to point out where I go wrong.

1. You are not a feminist.
2. "true" feminism = gender egalitarianism
3. you support gender egalitarianism
4. Ergo, you are a feminist (by your supporting its defining ideal)

Do you see the contradiction between points 1 and 4?

I suppose presumption 3 could be wrong, but that's about it.

Sorry for the double post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway.

I don't see the contradiction here.

Abolitionists were largely egalitarians, but they called themselves "abolitionists" because the emancipation of slaves was their focus, even if their ultimate, driving ideology was egalitarianism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway.

Ah, okay.

Originally posted by Master Han
Let's lay out your argument, and feel free to point out where I go wrong.

1. You are not a feminist.
2. "true" feminism = gender egalitarianism
3. you support gender egalitarianism
4. Ergo, you are a feminist (by your supporting its defining ideal)

Do you see the contradiction between points 1 and 4?

I suppose presumption 3 could be wrong, but that's about it.

You're already wrong at #1. I said I didn't know If I was, not that I wasn't. I very well might be, as I'm not going to discount the possibility.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You're already wrong at #1. I said I didn't know If I was, not that I wasn't. I very well might be, as I'm not going to discount the possibility.

How could you not know if you are "any kind" of feminist, when your own definition of feminism fits your ideology perfectly?

I mean, few people deny wanting gender equality.

Is it simply a product of the taboo the label "feminist" has, especially among men? I mean, if you're male and label yourself a feminist, you might fear guys calling you a pussy, or getting labeled some homophobic slur.

Originally posted by Master Han
How could you not know if you are "any kind" of feminist, when your own definition of feminism fits your ideology perfectly?

I mean, few people deny wanting gender equality.

Is it simply a product of the taboo the label "feminist" has, especially among men? I mean, if you're male and label yourself a feminist, you might fear guys calling you a pussy, or getting labeled some homophobic slur.

Like I said, I don't know, as I don't know all of the facets and kinds of feminism that exist in the world.

I have no problem being called a feminist, as long as it's true.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Like I said, I don't know, as I don't know all of the facets and kinds of feminism that exist in the world.

You questioned if you were "any kind of feminist". Gender equality is doubtlessly one kind of feminist, so you are indeed a feminist, by your own definition.

Whether or not this accurately reflects mainstream feminism is up to debate.

Originally posted by Master Han
You questioned if you were "any kind of feminist". Gender equality is doubtlessly one kind of feminist, so you are indeed a feminist, by your own definition.

Whether or not this accurately reflects mainstream feminism is up to debate.

If I am, then I am. shrug

Or I'm an egalitarian, like DDM said.

Why the either/or?

Originally posted by Master Han
Why the either/or?

because like I said, I really don't know which is more accurate a description/classification.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IIRC, some feminists fit an almost exact definition of "egalitarian" but choose the divisive label of "feminist", anyway.

srug Its other people who want it to be divisive.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
srug Its other people who want it to be divisive.

Okay, I think I figured out where I misled you, so I'll try to clarify.

When I said "real feminist", I mean that they were an actual feminist, ie, they are what a feminist is supposed to be, in terms of the definition as I understand it. They want to help women. All good and well, as there are things that women really need addressed in modern society.

real/actual/true/genuine feminist = feminist.

What I was talking more about, or trying to at least, was that I don't consider those that talk about castrating men, or how the patriarchy is keeping them down and that all men are the enemy, as being actual/real/genuine feminists, or to be more precise, any kind of feminist at all.

Does that make any kind of sense? I get that my lack of eloquence is hurting me here, but I'm trying.

==

Also, is it me or did this really go off topic somehow?

Originally posted by -Pr-
What I was talking more about, or trying to at least, was that I don't consider those that talk about castrating men, or how the patriarchy is keeping them down and that all men are the enemy, as being actual/real/genuine feminists, or to be more precise, any kind of feminist at all.

Does that make any kind of sense? I get that my lack of eloquence is hurting me here, but I'm trying.


Fair enough.

Now explain to me why my dismissing men's rights advocates led you to accuse me of hating men.

You do realize there's a difference, right?

Originally posted by Master Han
Fair enough.

Now explain to me why my dismissing men's rights advocates led you to accuse me of hating men.

You do realize there's a difference, right?

You didn't just dismiss men's advocates, you came across as diminishing men's rights in general.

If that wasn't your intention, then fair enough, but frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time reading up on said MRA groups, you come across as being unusually harsh and judgmental.

Originally posted by -Pr-
You didn't just dismiss men's advocates, you came across as diminishing men's rights in general.

If that wasn't your intention, then fair enough, but frankly, as someone who spends a lot of time reading up on said MRA groups, you come across as being unusually harsh and judgmental.

I don't know why you took off wrong with me, when we seem to hold nearly identical positions.

My problems with MRA's:

1. They haven't accomplished anything (note that I don't disagree with legitimate disadvantages men possess, but point out that feminists have been the primary driving force for rectifying such disparities).

2. 99% of their complaints are petty.

3. I didn't mention this, but there's a very fine line between being a MRA, and bashing everything that even remotely supports females - note almost every MRA website's token denigrating of RAINN.

There is no egalitarian movement that desires the liberation of women (and men) to speak off (I have to qualify it because there are egalitarian movements with other goals). It's a bullshit phrase. Another bullshit term that just means "stop talking about the oppression of women".

Feminism has real people behind it. It has actual goals. It has years of thought and scholarship put into it. It has actually achieved things. Neither Men's Right's Activism or any "Egalitarian" movement with supposed similar goals has any of these things.

If you truly believe in equality for all genders, and you understand how oppression works and that it's not magically vanishing when the laws written down are "equal", then you should be feminist. The thing is most people who say "we should all just be Egalitarians" do not believe in equality, they do not understand how oppression works and they only say it cause they don't want to hear any more hard truths about their privileges.

Originally posted by Master Han
I don't know why you took off wrong with me, when we seem to hold nearly identical positions.

My problems with MRA's:

1. They haven't accomplished anything (note that I don't disagree with legitimate disadvantages men possess, but point out that feminists have been the primary driving force for rectifying such disparities).

2. 99% of their complaints are petty.

3. I didn't mention this, but there's a very fine line between being a MRA, and bashing everything that even remotely supports females - note almost every MRA website's token denigrating of RAINN.

1. They are an incredibly young movement, one that is still finding its feet. Its not like the movement has been around as long as, say, feminism. At the very least, they've done a job informing men and smashing some preconceptions.

2. Don't agree in the slightest. In fact, when it comes to their genuine complaints, I think they have a lot of weight.

3. Don't agree either. There are plenty of MRAs that just want equality in those situations in which men are at a disadvantage. Sure, there are the assholes that try to incite hate, but you get those in any organisation. Not saying it's right. It isn't. Just that it exists, and that a bad minority shouldn't speak for a more reasonable majority.

Pr, if you know of a men's rights advocacy site that:

1. Does not have a cliched attack on RAINN / all rape advocacy groups
2. Does not attack evilllll feminists in literally every other webpage
3. Does not disturbingly promote 18th century societal customs
4. Is not also an extremist right wing refuge

please post the link (srs request).

Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no egalitarian movement that desires the liberation of women (and men) to speak off (I have to qualify it because there are egalitarian movements with other goals). It's a bullshit phrase. Another bullshit term that just means "stop talking about the oppression of women".

I would be more correct in saying what you posted here is bullshit. The only people I know that label themselves as "egalitarian" are actually after equality. I cannot say the same of many feminists. More on this, later.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Feminism has real people behind it. It has actual goals. It has years of thought and scholarship put into it. It has actually achieved things. Neither Men's Right's Activism or any "Egalitarian" movement with supposed similar goals has any of these things.

It seems you do not know much about egalitarianism. Egalitarianism precedes the feminist movement, significantly. It has "real scholarship", as well. Some movements have real goals, as well. It actually achieved things; things that are far superior to anything that any feminist movement aspired to be. But maybe you think women have it worse than slaves?

And you need to put down "egalitarian movements", not "movement".

Originally posted by Bardock42
The thing is most people who say "we should all just be Egalitarians" do not believe in equality,

This is false. It is the opposite. You sound like you've had a bad experience with someone that did not know what egalitarianism actually is.


Originally posted by Bardock42
...they do not understand how oppression works and they only say it cause they don't want to hear any more hard truths about their privileges.

Yeah, you're talking about an extremely narrow group that inappropriately use the label "egalitarian". That would be like me thinking that all feminists are fat militant lesbians that want the complete and total oppression of men.


Here is how it breaks down (to include all of each type of movement):

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z238/dadudemon/egalitarianism.png

Of course what you said has literally nothing to do with reality in any way.

No you.

dadudemon, that you belong to a group focusing on a specific aspect of human rights does not suggest that you don't care about the whole set of human rights in general. I assume that many abolitionists were egalitarians, yet they still stuck by a label defining specifically their primary objective. Similarly, a person fighting against human trafficking does not feel apathy towards gang violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/map-opinion-of-us.jpg

I'm sure +/- 10% is not going to turn out to be statistically relevant (though maybe significant), but it would be nice to see which way all of those neutral countries leaned... though I imagine it would change from day to day depending on the headlines

What does it mean that -50% of the population has a positive view of us?

: Nevermind, that's not a way of representing data I've ever seen before. Clever.

So 50% could mean that 75 percent have a positive and 25 a negative, for example?

At any rate, I do think this chart (limited as it is) supports the idea that the US is somewhat disliked around the world (although I guess there may be a lot of neutral people)

This is the article it came from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/12/40-maps-that-explain-the-world/

Damn, I wanted to see the statistics for countries that like the U.S. to see if 100% of the U.S. population liked the U.S.

Originally posted by Astner
Damn, I wanted to see the statistics for countries that like the U.S. to see if 100% of the U.S. population liked the U.S.
I believe I saw a poll once that suggested the number is 70-80% in America, which put America's approval rating in America lower than in Kenya.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
This is the article it came from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/12/40-maps-that-explain-the-world/

I'm floored that Germans are so pro-EU.

I'm very pro-EU

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm very pro-EU

The way we hear it in the US, Germany loathes the demands that poorer EU nations have been placing on it during the recession.

I'm not sure when the data was taken, I could imagine that feelings towards the EU are more negative now. However I do think we all know the EU has also done good things for us, and that Europe has experienced a level of unprecedented peace since the second world war. Generally the negative sentiment I hear is not towards the EU, but rather towards countries of the EU whose economies are failing (Greece in particular). Whether that is fair or not I can't really say, I personally think both countries could be a bit more understanding of the other's position, but it's not usually a hatred for the EU (unlike ****ing Britain, which should shut up already, get the Euro, and take it's place as the third most important European country.

"If you are sitting on top of the world, remember it turns over every 24 hours."

- Anonymous

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm floored that Germans are so pro-EU.
I'm surprised that Turkey is several bars higher than Iran in terms of hospitality. Probably just a stereotype, but Persians are supposed to be famous for their hospitality, while Turks consistently report disliking virtually every other country in the world.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
"If you are sitting on top of the world, remember it turns over every 24 hours."

- Anonymous

Wait...but the "top" of the world would be around the north pole...and that doesn't really turn over...

Also, even if you would define some spot on the equator as the "top" you'd be on top again after 24 hours. A better, while still not accurate, saying would be:

""If you are sitting on top of the world, remember it turns over every 12 hours."

- Anonymous"

- Bardock42

If you by on top of the world mean at some point on the equator relative the earth's core, then sure.

If by on top of the world you mean yo mamma, then, yes, we are on top of yo mamma and we be taken turns every 24 hours.

Originally posted by Astner
If you by on top of the world mean at some point on the equator relative the earth's core, then sure.
Isn't that sort of what I said, but less funny?

Wait, so if America is on top of the world...

Asia's on the bottom?

RACIST!

I do not understand where this talk of women in this thread came from. Anyway, America is the most democratic of nations and a beacon to the rest of the world about how it should behave in terms of freedom and democracy.

Originally posted by Master Han
Wait...but the "top" of the world would be around the north pole...and that doesn't really turn over...



Yea, but the rest of the world is. Those that want your spot. Badly.

You not turning is called resting on your laurels. And that's not a good thing to do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, even if you would define some spot on the equator as the "top" you'd be on top again after 24 hours. A better, while still not accurate, saying would be:

""If you are sitting on top of the world, remember it turns over every 12 hours."

- Anonymous"

- Bardock42

It's suppose to be figurative, not literal, Bardock.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Yea, but the rest of the world is. Those that want your spot. Badly.


But...they'll fail miserably in your analogy, since no matter how long the world turns, the north pole's going to be near the top for the foreseeable future.

(but we get your point)

Originally posted by Reflection
I do not understand where this talk of women in this thread came from. Anyway, America is the most democratic of nations and a beacon to the rest of the world about how it should behave in terms of freedom and democracy. For a Saudi, you're awfully not Saudi.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's suppose to be figurative, not literal, Bardock.

Yeah, I get that. I still disagree though, you know.

Like, it seems to be basically a just-world hypothesis, and it's just not true. Some people stay on top all their life, and others are always at the bottom (economically, personally, psychologically, whatever)