Feminism #2

I won't respond to most of your pos as it is devoid of content and seem only designed to ridicule me, however this part:

Originally posted by Epicurus

This isn't anecdotal evidence:
http://www.wikivorce.com/divorce/divorce-settlements.html

In fact the study goes so far as to conclude that because of the current structure of divorce laws pertaining child custody and financial support, women seem to find it advantageous to be single instead of being married.

is most definitely not a study, and nowhere in it does it state what you claim it states. If anything this supports my point about how to find an equitable settlement.

The perceived unfairness of divorce cases is mostly based on the belief that it is "his" money, when in reality both parties have decided to share their assets. If you want to change the default terms of a marriage get a pre-nup.

Originally posted by Rao Kal El
Part 1

YouTube video

I would note that this video on the military stuff could be viewed as a feminist video because feminists (the majority of them...not necessarily the most vocal of them) support egalitarianism.

So complaining about the lopsidedness of war, as it relates to gender, is also a feminist issue.

Some men don't want to acknowledge that the shitty treatment of men is ALSO a feminist issue.

I think it's obvious that there is almost a kind of awakening in the Western society .The line of bias sexual orientation is being erased or at least moved. I'm sure it will take a few more generations of this current trend until we reach the point of true equality. Even though I was raised with the idea that the role of man and woman are equal I know much of my generation still stem from the teachings that promote the man being the bread winner. It will take time for the male ego to be equalized because there's thousands of years of instinct to address, however, as a people, we've never been so civilized or intelligent and with the aid of instant messaging a good idea doesn't need a hundred years to spread across the world

Originally posted by Epicurus
You say that as if the former is more common than the latter.😬

I think they're about even, tbh. At least in western society.

Originally posted by The Renegade
There is massive ignorance surrounding MRA's. It is startlingly bad. I don't belong to them, nor do I to feminism (I once did) but they get a rap that isn't just bad. It's wrong.

On a separate note, every time I see the words "real" and "feminist" in the same sentence, the sound of bagpipes is heard off in the distance...

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's a bit sad when people won't just stop and actually do some research to decide for themselves.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would note that this video on the military stuff could be viewed as a feminist video because feminists (the majority of them...not necessarily the most vocal of them) support egalitarianism.

So complaining about the lopsidedness of war, as it relates to gender, is also a feminist issue.

Some men don't want to acknowledge that the shitty treatment of men is ALSO a feminist issue.

Are the issues men face ever going to be treated with equal importance by the Feminist groups working for change, though? That isn't me having a go, that's me genuinely asking.

And as an addition, should they?

Define Feminism, KMC.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Define Feminism, KMC.

Woman who know how to make sammiches

Originally posted by -Pr-
Are the issues men face ever going to be treated with equal importance by the Feminist groups working for change, though? That isn't me having a go, that's me genuinely asking.

And as an addition, should they?

Some, in the feminist community, do indeed fight for true egalitarianism. Many marginalize the plight of males as secondary or even unimportant. Still, further, some more extreme feminists consider that discussion to be sexist and chauvinistic (meaning, even entertaining discussions about how men are not treated fairly, is an affront to their ideologies).

Obviously, I'm the first group. I prefer to identify myself as a "pragmatic egalitarian." I readily acknowledge that humans a sexually asymmetric species meaning there are, OBJECTIVELY, fundamental differences between the sexes with strengths and weaknesses (depending upon the perspective) in each of the sexes. However, and this is a big deal, only when the sexes are viewed as a whole should these types of thoughts be considered as governing decisions and ideologies. When in direct individual situations, get to know the individual, their personality, and their behavioral propensities rather than trying to paint every male or female you meet with the generalized behavioral traits.

Here's an example:

Pretend you're a CEO of a company who has very strong policy power for your organization. Painting with the broad brush, you could come up with a paid maternity leave policy for your female employees that lasts 1 year for the women and 6 months for the men. This not sexist as women need more time to recover from having children than a man does (let's face it: men do not have to give birth and nurse babies). However, it would be sexist if you, as the CEO, FORCE all of your women to take that 1 year of maternity leave but not the men. This seems odd, at first, but when talked about and reviewed, in depth, you begin to see how this policy, while different, is "pragmatic egalitarianism."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some, in the feminist community, do indeed fight for true egalitarianism. Many marginalize the plight of males as secondary or even unimportant. Still, further, some more extreme feminists consider that discussion to be sexist and chauvinistic (meaning, even entertaining discussions about how men are not treated fairly, is an affront to their ideologies).

Obviously, I'm the first group. I prefer to identify myself as a "pragmatic egalitarian." I readily acknowledge that humans a sexually asymmetric species meaning there are, OBJECTIVELY, fundamental differences between the sexes with strengths and weaknesses (depending upon the perspective) in each of the sexes. However, and this is a big deal, only when the sexes are viewed as a whole should these types of thoughts be considered as governing decisions and ideologies. When in direct individual situations, get to know the individual, their personality, and their behavioral propensities rather than trying to paint every male or female you meet with the generalized behavioral traits.

Here's an example:

Pretend you're a CEO of a company who has very strong policy power for your organization. Painting with the broad brush, you could come up with a paid maternity leave policy for your female employees that lasts 1 year for the women and 6 months for the men. This not sexist as women need more time to recover from having children than a man does (let's face it: men do not have to give birth and nurse babies). However, it would be sexist if you, as the CEO, FORCE all of your women to take that 1 year of maternity leave but not the men. This seems odd, at first, but when talked about and reviewed, in depth, you begin to see how this policy, while different, is "pragmatic egalitarianism."

I agree with pretty much everything you said, though I wasn't so much speaking about that as I was the following:

My issue is with the groups that don't fight for true equality having power and influence, and being seen by those in power as being indicative of how every Feminist feels.

They bloat statistics of things like the pay gap and rapes, and then at the same time run campaigns that paint all men as somehow being responsible for the actions of a few, and claim that no man can be a victim because of patriarchy.

I don't care if they want to run their mouth, but when they stop men getting the help they do need, which in no way oppresses women, that's a real problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I won't respond to most of your pos as it is devoid of content and seem only designed to ridicule me, however this part:

is most definitely not a study, and nowhere in it does it state what you claim it states. If anything this supports my point about how to find an equitable settlement.

The perceived unfairness of divorce cases is mostly based on the belief that it is "his" money, when in reality both parties have decided to share their assets. If you want to change the default terms of a marriage get a pre-nup.

Didn't see it till today, and thanks for pointing out the mistake. I honestly don't know how it skipped me.

And no, I disagree that my reply ridicules your post in any way. If anything, it points out holes in your stance on whether or not the US divorce laws are biased towards women or not.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I think they're about even, tbh. At least in western society.

Unless you subscribe to the bullshit propaganda spread on something akin to RooshV forums, then it is really hard to get around the fact that the number of bad men is clearly greater than the number of bad women across virtually all societies/cultures.

Originally posted by Epicurus
Sorry, I posted the wrong link. This is the right one:
http://www.deltabravo.net/cms/plugins/content/content.php?content.288

Well, this study is at least somewhat related to what you said. Even though it does not find what you claim at all. It hypothesis that maybe there are more divorces started by women (2/3rds) because they maybe can be sure to have the financial means to go through with a divorce, and may not have to deal with their partner if they get sole custody. They also qualify it by saying that there is not enough concluding evidence to support this, and they are just musing. It does most definitely not say that "women seem to find it advantageous to be single instead of being married", that's a gross misstatement. But really, correlation is not causation, and I can think of much more likely explanations for that disparity.

Originally posted by Epicurus
No they aren't. Not even close.

Unless you subscribe to the bullshit propaganda spread on something akin to RooshV forums, then it is really hard to get around the fact that the number of bad men is clearly greater than the number of bad women across virtually all societies/cultures.

I think one of the issues is in how we define bad. Since men are raised to portray aggression and anger, their "badness" may be considerably more visible than a woman's. At any rate, I would agree that the impact of "bad" men is vastly greater than that of "bad" women, regardless of the exact numbers of each, we don't have to look further than murder and assault statistics, really, imo.

Originally posted by Epicurus
No they aren't. Not even close.

Unless you subscribe to the bullshit propaganda spread on something akin to RooshV forums, then it is really hard to get around the fact that the number of bad men is clearly greater than the number of bad women across virtually all societies/cultures.

I think men and women are both capable of equal amounts of "badness" personally.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I think men and women are both capable of equal amounts of "badness" personally.

Can you go more into what you mean with "badness" though?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Can you go more into what you mean with "badness" though?

The capacity/capability to do bad things.

I'm speaking generally of course, but to me, no one gender is inherently more compassionate or cruel than the other.

Originally posted by -Pr-
The capacity/capability to do bad things.

I'm speaking generally of course, but to me, no one gender is inherently more compassionate or cruel than the other.

No, not intrinsically. However, there are factors/several variables that lead to one sex expressing more "bad" behavior or actions than the other.

Marius and I disagree on the topic of feminism regularly but I'd agree that there are more "bad" men than there are women. Our reasoning as to why might (AKA most definitely would be) be different but, nonetheless, I agree.

Men do more bad things because it's our God given right. 👆

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Define Feminism, KMC.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, not intrinsically. However, there are factors/several variables that lead to one sex expressing more "bad" behavior or actions than the other.

Marius and I disagree on the topic of feminism regularly but I'd agree that there are more "bad" men than there are women. Our reasoning as to why might (AKA most definitely would be) be different but, nonetheless, I agree.

I'm not debating that more bad men have done bad things. Men have typically more power in places where they've been allowed to flex that power and oppress others.

I'm talking more about the capability and motivation for doing bad things.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'm not debating that more bad men have done bad things. Men have typically more power in places where they've been allowed to flex that power and oppress others.

I'm talking more about the capability and motivation for doing bad things.

No one is saying or implying you were. My response wasn't to refute.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No one is saying or implying you were. My response wasn't to refute.

Then I'm confused, lol