Author Topic: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!  (Read 61267 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #105 on: June 11, 2014, 07:11:04 PM »
0
I'll second that proposal, not so much the renaming because naming things consciously in a way that satisfies all interested parties seems to be so extremely difficult
It is not difficult at all and we already have general human rights movements who do much more than feminists to help those who really need it.
those who are interested in human rights or egalitarianism(which is just another name for socialism) can just say so without attempting to rename something completely irrelevant.

Kaz

  • Ideological Gadfly
  • FDR Wizard
  • *****
  • Posts: 685
  • "Dangerous Liaisons" by Rene Magritte
  • Respect: +154
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #106 on: June 11, 2014, 07:33:31 PM »
0

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.

I don't think that renaming anything would make any difference.  People say all sorts of things with their mouths and keyboards, but their behaviour says a lot more.

edit: grammar

« Last Edit: June 11, 2014, 07:37:44 PM by Kaz »
Just because you have left FDR, it doesn't mean that FDR has left you.

"Taking responsibility for something and self-blame are horses of two entirely different colors. The former is empowering; the latter is paralyzing." ~ John Rosemond, Ph.D

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #107 on: June 11, 2014, 11:29:57 PM »
0

Women and men are different in some ways but similar in many many more so why can't we all just get along?  Too many people have too much hurt inside and lash out at each other instead of dealing with what is going on inside.  I think that is true of some feminists and some MRA dudes.  Maybe it is true that we should re-name the equality movement to something more equal and we can all work together instead of fighting.

I don't think that renaming anything would make any difference.  People say all sorts of things with their mouths and keyboards, but their behaviour says a lot more.

edit: grammar

Yes, I agree with Kaz.
Keep Calm And Disobey

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #108 on: June 12, 2014, 12:23:25 AM »
0
I think it is good that we are now beginning to debate the concept of equality. Warning, this is going to be a long, dense post, but I am trying to be thorough without being redundant.

I appreciate your input very much, LoverofFDRAddict​. And just to clarify to other thread participants, I do recognize biological differences, but as LoverofFDRAddict said, we are different in some ways and similar in so many more.

Quote from: LoverofFDRAddict
I think the crazy feminists... are ... lesbians

I feel a duty to comment on this, however: I'm going to overlook the 'crazy' and 'idiots' part (because ableism a whole other topic that few people recognize) but I think we can at least agree that it is out of line and scapegoating to blame misandry or delusional beliefs on homosexual females, and that just makes no sense. If you disagree and you have some belief that lesbians have something wrong with them, and you therefore do not wish to apologize for that homophobic remark, then we'll set that aside because I have something else I wish to discuss:

I want to tell you what equality means to me; then I am going to ask you all, what does equality mean to you?

To me, equality does not exactly mean 'sameness' in every sense of the word. There are particular things that everyone wants to have 'equal' stances on. Indeed, the word itself is vague and open to interpretation, and that is why a discussion on its meaning will clarify things. The challenge is that we do not have the nuances in our language to distinguish between certain types of equality, and that makes it hard to communicate. 

Quote from: Omega
IT has nothing to do with supremacy. It is simple logic that if feminism is about women issues it is not about equality by definition. If you are fighting for equality you cannot specialize on any group because this is against logic.

I'm glad you and I agree that it has nothing to do with supremacy, as in the 'white supremacy' comparisons made in this thread are false equivalences. But it does have to do with equality, as in, fighting for equal rights for women, as in, bringing women to a level of equal status in law, economics, and culture. Yes, it doesn't mean every person is being given equal attention in feminist activism, but doesn't preclude achieving equality of opportunity. It's not like I have to concentrate on every aspect of a task simultaneously, at the same time, in order to get it done.

Quote from: Omega
Your concept of equality is wrong itself.  It is exactly form of discrimination if you provide some benefits for people with monthly cycle. ... What you say is basically I have vagina so I deserve special treatment.

We have to think of this in terms of: would you provide benefits to people who had certain disabilities?

In seeking equality, I think one has to strike a certain balance. I think it is fair to provide benefits sometimes because the reality is that we are not born or raised with the very same advantages. So, my idea of an equal society is one that would balance out, or compensate for, those particular disadvantages, to where the person can compete on relatively the same level as everyone else. Not all disadvantages necessarily, and compensation can occur in a number of ways (not necessarily by government), but we can discuss specific ones.

Having a period, for example, needn't be a disadvantage that prevents a woman from being able to keep a job: some level of cultural sympathy and understanding (as opposed to shaming, although we don't have that in Western cultures, I think) should be enough for the times one has to go to the bathroom. Some women have severe periods, but things can be done to lessen them or work around it. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, but some forms of birth control can stop periods altogether.

In my school, there are a small handful of people who get around in wheelchairs. People know better than to stampede them in the halls, and some have sense enough to open doors for them and give them a push sometimes, because that's courtesy to someone who has physical disadvantages. And I think a good society should treat people with physical disadvantages with dignity, whoever is in that wheelchair.

Another comparison. It is considered slimy to punch someone in the face specifically when they are wearing glasses. I'm not saying it's good to punch someone in the face, or punch them at all, but it is especially bad to punch someone's face while they are wearing glasses.

Now, most healthy women are generally able to open doors, navigate puddles, carry most things (if you have any doubts, try carrying one or more toddlers!), do maths, and so on, by themselves. And I don't think most women, especially feminists, are flattered by chivalry. If they are, they are brainwashed. Because what chivalry is, is doing things for women, even while they are perfectly capable of doing those things themselves. In effect, it's not treating them like full grown adults, and that's not very good if you want full grown adults to be responsible. Hopefully in 2014, only people from older generations still conform to chivalry, because that is a meme that needs to die off!

And I'm not saying that women should be expected to do things they are physically not able to do (such as lift large heavy objects) without injuring themselves, but neither should a man be expected to lift more than his body can lift without causing injury to himself. The difference there is not simply sexual dimorphism, because dainty men and burly women do exist (and thus it would be a clumsy policy), so it is more an issue of a body's size and strength in general, in its capacity to do certain tasks. It would of course be silly to advocate that everyone must do the very same things, regardless of their capabilities, to the point of injury, for the sake of "equality"; in fact many would find such a policy insufferable. So that is not the kind of equality I (and I'm sure others) aim for.

Quote
If I employ someone I will not bother with people who are going to cause my problems. If I employ you I expect you o work not take care of your children or anything else.

I can only make the observation that this is the natural inclination of employers in a capitalist/neoliberal economy. Now, I'm not even making a judgment on that, because regardless of political alignment, one can make these observations: The more we tend towards an economy where the employers give employees as few benefits as possible, the more the employer sees the employee as nothing more than some numbers on a balance sheet. So, they will discriminate against (refuse to hire) a range of people in order to reap the absolute maximum short term profits, and that does include women, but also disabled people, young people, and old people. They also discriminate against people of color, and homosexuals, but I have no idea what that has to do with profit margins... Anyway, in a pure free market economy, or highly neoliberal one, there is little to nothing that can stop this from happening. The system then gets tampered with, in order to fix these problems -- which has taken the form of governments mandating things like equal opportunity employment, which I know many Libertarians and other conservatives dislike. But to that end, there is no solution but to change that economic system, and yes I know Libertarians and conservatives hate that. 

Still, whatever we do, I just don't think this reality justifies the discrimination, because I don't think people are nothing more than numbers on a balance sheet. In other words, as long as you have market economy where employers and entrepreneurs are free to choose whom to hire and fire for the purposes of increasing profits to a perfectionistic degree (nocompromises), employees will be discriminated against as much as possible, because to the employer, the monetary value of the employee is all that matters; by default, there are no equal opportunities in this situation. I leave it at that, because I do not want to veer the discussion off course.

Quote
We have to realise there's a difference and that WE CANNOT LEGISLATE AGAINST INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF PREJUDICE if we want to live in a Minarchist or Libertarian world.

Zetaman is right. 

My idea of a good society is one where each person has the freedom to develop his or her full potential, regardless of his or her social standing and the preconceptions surrounding that; a society where senseless preconceptions do not create an artificial, invisible box that becomes like a jail. That's what I think about when I say I want equality.

What do you think about equality?
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #109 on: June 12, 2014, 06:29:41 AM »
0
Quote
In seeking equality, I think one has to strike a certain balance.
You provided many examples but not actual definition.

talking about people with disabilities I also disagree with that inequality when those people get special document which declares them entitles to certain things.
I believe we should take care of disabilities not people who have them. Like if you are hurt you can use parking lot for disabled people but not when you have some pimple on you ass and because some doctor doctor gives you right to use good parking lots.

I think we all agree that women are not disabled in any way and no less capable than men.
so argument of disability is irrelevant and there is nothing to compensate.


Chivalry is different issue which. I believe is supposed to be pickup line to start conversation
If I have no interest in that women I will just ignore her like blank space.
Sometimes it is just normal thing to hold the door for someone who is carrying heavy stuff.
Instead of killing chivalry I think women should just do same for men, unless feminists really hate men.


Quote
The more we tend towards an economy where the employers give employees as few benefits as possible
This is obsolete idea, now employers are eager to provide best possible environment for his employees because this results improved productivity.
Only low paid jobs can be neglected because productivity does not change if working conditions get worse.

So if women have some specific needs they will be always met in good jobs and this is not an issue.
People with good skills are very valuable and thus it is extremely stupid to reject certain engineer because of wrong skin color or gender. No mater how racist you are you still prefer black gay who knows his job, than some white heterosexual playboy who is who can only harass other employees.
If discrimination is taking place in some company it is good sign that this company is inefficient and dying.

What is more important that if you decide to raise kids you must go away for considerable amount of time. If you work as designer or engineer or scientist or anything else who makes important decisions you cant just halt your project for a year or more at random time and you cant delegate your job to anyone else to continue.
No amount of laws will be able to change anything here, because those jobs require absolute dedication, you can't even get sick.
Nobody who has plans to have kids will ever consider taking such job seriously, and if you declare that you have such plans it is obvious that you  are just parasite who must be avoided.

Women as statistically more wiling to raise kids and they have low interest to engineering or other creative jobs so naturally they will get paid less on average However considering that children should be raised in family of 2 parents it is not important who is paid more as long as family get enough money to survive.
Single mother or single fathers should be highly discouraged because they cant provide enough attention to their children.

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #110 on: June 12, 2014, 08:43:10 PM »
0
Yes, I agree, Omega, with most of the first part.

The bit on economics I don't. One thing is that wages don't necessarily rise in tandem with productivity. Computers made people more productive overall, but they don't get paid more for it. The underlying dynamic is it all depends on how cheap and easy you are to replace as a worker, what your employer will give you in terms of money and benefits. In the market, the price (wage) of your labor is subject to supply and demand. One notable example is that there is a disturbing trend recently where brilliant professors are being replaced by "adjunct professors" who are basically young, don't know much, and get stuck teaching a class not because they are really good at teaching or because they have innovative and brilliant ideas, but because they are desperate for money. I'm not sure this will help create more skilled engineers or whatever.

Quote
so argument of disability is irrelevant and there is nothing to compensate.

It's not irrelevant, though. We're not all born with the same capacities, sometimes in ways that make a lot of difference in how we navigate this society. Disabilities, or simply biological traits or deficiencies. I think it is relevant to how to envision a society that regards people as equal, because we can't treat everyone the same, but I think it doesn't matter because what we should do is treat everyone in a way that signifies their equal value as human beings, such that no one is inferior. It is one thing to consider, I believe.
Keep Calm And Disobey

LoverofFDRAddict

  • Guest
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2014, 11:31:16 AM »
0
I'm so sorry if I came off at homophobic!!!  I have a gay aunt and sister so I'm not one bit homophobic, I was just logically assuming that women who think all men should be killed or who think penis vagina sex is always rape are clearly not interested in sex with men so they are either damaged from abuse or lesbians.  If they're straight and like men they are idiots because well, killing all men won't help the good man shortage.  Either that or maybe they've never had good sex so they don't know what they are missing because why the heck would you want to give that up?  It wasn't meant to imply that lesbians in general feel that way or anything negative about the lesbian community.

Another thing I think is sexist is that men can go topless in any city they want, at least, from what I know, but women can't be topless in most cities.  I'm guessing most men wouldn't be opposed to changing that though…but it's something that has bothered me because I'm big believer in ending our culture's demonization of sexuality and our beautiful bodies.  But I also think full nudity should be legal for both sexes.

Random comment to let you males know all the joy of femaledom you may have missed out if you were born with a penis; I'm healed now that I eat paleo and do Crossfit, but back when I was a vegetarian I used to have debilitating cramps that would cause me to be writhing on the floor yelling out in pain sometimes.  You'd think that much pain would only happen to women during birth, but no, lucky me got to have it once a month.  I never asked for anything from work for it, just on those days I would have to sometimes be on the floor in the lab while I waited for the advil to kick in.  I'm just saying, some things about being female are just physically demanding.  I've never been pregnant but the women I know who have been say it's really hard on your body and you get tired all the time, especially during the first and last trimester.  I guess making a new human inside your body is hard work in itself :)  Anyways, I strongly feel like Lee Li that equality doesn't necessarily mean treating everyone the same all the time.

I have actually discussed this issue a ton with other female physicists and we as a group feel it would be really stupid for society to throw away our awesome skills, abilities and what we can contribute to science just because we also want to have families.

I'm no expert in child rearing but I do think babies should be breast fed for at least 6 months but better for a year and they should be home with a parent or other guardian who can give them the attention they need till they are maybe 2-3.  It's way easier for the mother to do this than the dad during the breast feeding time.  Some women I know came back to work part time and their partner also worked part time, so they could both get back to work but also have a parent with the child during that first few years and only have to pump part time.  I'd love to find a man willing to do that!  I think most of the science gals I know actually want to go back to work at least some because they miss using their brains, but they also want to be there for their kiddos.  I'm pretty sure I'd feel that way after being home for a long time alone with a baby and no other adults to talk to.

To me, having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity and the pressure I see here to chose between a family and career just seems like a false dichotomy.  What if someone told men in careers that they had to stop seeking sex from females or some other fundamentally masculine thing that you find is part of your identity as a male?  Why throw away all the skills and ability because we may need to take a bit of time off when we make a baby inside our bodies?  Procreation is part of the definition of life for goodness sakes!  I would find life to be very empty without the emotional connection I have to other humans, which is part of why I find FDR to be so destructive as it encourages people to push away people who love them.  The ultimate love is the love between a parent and a child;  this is biologically true at least for women, as the same neural circuits that are meant to make us fall in love with our babies are used to a much lesser degree to make us fall in love with the men who put the babies in us in the first place.  (Read the book "The Chemistry Between US" to learn about this, very interesting book)  As much as my heart is hurting now I would never go back and take away the time of love and joy that I had with my boyfriend before he joined FDR.  Love is amazing!  I think it is the best and the worst drug.  You want to tell me that I have to chose between the ultimate love and doing something higher with my life outside of the home?  WHY!!?!!!

To me that is not equality.  That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity.  Why can't we all work to our strengths?  It doesn't have to be a battle, both genders have a lot to offer and families are also important to take care of.  People live a long time and children only need really intensive, one on one care for the first few years, so, if women on average have two children that's just ~6 years of less than intense work but another ~30 are left for kicking ass out in the world.

On the other hand, I do see women in dual income households often end up quite stressed and getting anxiety, depression, stress, which can't be good for us, our menfolk or the children.  In fact, I read a paper recently that said that women are LESS happy now than they were back before feminism.  Personally, I just think modern life is pushing all our brains and bodies to the limits of our genes; we aren't really meant to do this much and it's stressing us out, but it seems to effect women worse since we are more often diagnosed with mental illnesses.  Or maybe we just seek out help more often?  Maybe we are all sick in the head in modern life.  Certainly my ex boyfriend is :(  Poor guy.

Sorry if this is all over the place but I'm going through a breakup so you can imagine my brain isn't up to it's normal self.  Right now I'm really wishing I had a job that was manual labor because knowledge work is really difficult when you are having personal problems!

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2014, 01:59:57 PM »
0
Thanks for your post LoverofFDRAddict! I enjoyed it and am in agreement.
Keep Calm And Disobey

ZetaMan

  • The Master Debator and Cunning Linguist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
  • Respect: 0
    • Eclectic Vibrations Radio
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #113 on: June 14, 2014, 01:30:05 AM »
0
LoverofFDRAddict:
How is having to make a practical choice a lack of equality?
Do you want to start complaining about how you can't be a rock star because you're so busy curing cancer or whatever it is you do in your lab?
Sure, it's unfair. A lot of things are unfair in this world. I don't ever recall anyone telling me that anything had to be fair - nor have I ever met anyone with the authority to give me that assurance.

Instead of it being a gender-based issue, why don't we just give people in general the right to take extra-long extended breaks (partially with pay) from their career. Everyone deserves to spend some time doing something different, surely. One or more of those periods could be used to raise children.
And when it comes to raising children, the time you've allotted for that commitment is very, very small considering what we know about child development.

You just love your work. Admit that. And stop complaining that you can't do anything else because you're so committed to it.
This is what Feminism does to womens' minds - convinces y'all that you're actually owed something. Like "The Patriarchy" is forbidding you from having something.

----

I don't mean to ignore and fly right past everything else you've shared. I've taken it all on board.

I once dated a girl who had SERIOUSLY SEVERE menstrual pains. I've witnessed it and counted my lucky stars I didn't have this problem. Turns out she had cysts inside her. She couldn't move AT ALL. She curled up and remained completely still.

My wife is going through difficulties lately. She's improved a lot in the past 4 months when it started to come back on the regular - but 2 years prior she would bleed, bleed, bleed, have chunks fall out of her, bleed, bleed, bleed. Last year was the worst - she couldn't walk 10 seconds without losing her breath for the lack of iron and blood to carry oxygen.

I may not know what it's like to endure that physical pain, but note that very few women have these complications - but every man has to put up with the passive-aggressive shit that results from every cycle.
"Suppose they had a gender war, and men showed up"
- Paul Elam

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #114 on: June 15, 2014, 07:57:33 AM »
0
Instead of it being a gender-based issue, why don't we just give people in general the right to take extra-long extended breaks (partially with pay) from their career. Everyone deserves to spend some time doing something different, surely. One or more of those periods could be used to raise children.

This will not solve anything, because men will just not use these breaks, since they are more committed to their work than women.
One notable example is that there is a disturbing trend recently where brilliant professors are being replaced by "adjunct professors" who are basically young, don't know much, and get stuck teaching a class not because they are really good at teaching or because they have innovative and brilliant ideas, but because they are desperate for money. I'm not sure this will help create more skilled engineers or whatever.

Only mad employer will employ worker who is desperate for money to work in any creative job.
If that happens it is evident that university turned in to factory. which does not need any new ideas, but only needs to work according to rules.

Quote
I think it is relevant to how to envision a society that regards people as equal, because we can't treat everyone the same, but I think it doesn't matter because what we should do is treat everyone in a way that signifies their equal value as human beings, such that no one is inferior. It is one thing to consider, I believe.
I am not sure what exactly you mean here, but I asume that society must allow everyone to be useful in some way.
However what i was talking about is compensation of disabilities, like if we have Olympic champions and here is some cripple with no legs who also wants to participate in the race. and demands to make different rules for him than for everyone else because his disability does not allow him to compete with others.
Same way in job market, women demand different laws for them to compete with men to compensate their supposed disabilities.
I think everybody agrees that men and women are different and can express their value in different areas. If someone is choosing wrong area to express themselves it is their own problem.
But it is wrong to use disability as advantage when If I am one eye blind blind I will get paid twice more for same job as one  with two eyes.

But I also think full nudity should be legal for both sexes.
I thing this is different issue from feminism, because full nudity is banned for same reason as prostitution, it will undermine sexual value of nude body.
And also this is too provocative, because I believe it is very nasty thing to display something to other what they cant get. I guess you don't want men to touch your naked body in the street or drool while seeing it and take photos or videos.

Quote
I'm just saying, some things about being female are just physically demanding. 
being man is also not so easy men live shorter than women after all.

Quote
I have actually discussed this issue a ton with other female physicists and we as a group feel it would be really stupid for society to throw away our awesome skills, abilities and what we can contribute to science just because we also want to have families.

There are plenty of people with skills who cannot be utilized because of some reason, usually we have to make choices what skill we will utilize.

Quote
I think most of the science gals I know actually want to go back to work at least some because they miss using their brains, but they also want to be there for their kiddos.  I'm pretty sure I'd feel that way after being home for a long time alone with a baby and no other adults to talk to.
So are you using your work as source of fun or you use it as source of money?
I think most people hate their jobs and just endure that torture to get paid.



Quote
To me, having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity and the pressure I see here to chose between a family and career just seems like a false dichotomy.
It is not false dichotomy because quantum mechanic rules do not apply to humans, you cant be everywhere at once.  so you have to chose.
You will be incapable to work and raise kid at same time because of laws of physic.
also you cannot interleave jobs when they are highly competitive. As scientist  or businessman you probably should feel it as constant battle who will do it first. It is like asking for time to rest in Olympic race.


Quote
To me that is not equality.  That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity.  Why can't we all work to our strengths?
 
This is not inequality, it is fundamental flaw in mind of female when you desire to do something you can't do physically.

Quote
Personally, I just think modern life is pushing all our brains and bodies to the limits of our genes; we aren't really meant to do this much and it's stressing us out, but it seems to effect women worse since we are more often diagnosed with mental illnesses.  Or maybe we just seek out help more often?  Maybe we are all sick in the head in modern life.  Certainly my ex boyfriend is :(  Poor guy.

I see women as very contradictory beings who have too many mental contradictions like that one you mentioned. It also includes sexuality where women are physically attracted to completely unsuitable males but feel cold to those who are well suited for them.
That's why women are often considered to be mentally inferior to men because they just cant make up their mind, they have so many contradicting needs that can not be satisfied. Females were all considered to me mad in old times because you newer know what they will do.

Men are much more straightforward because they have mostly one goal in life which is domination (getting better that others)

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #115 on: June 15, 2014, 11:12:56 AM »
0
Omega, to your whole post: citation please. You are making sweeping generalizations.
Keep Calm And Disobey

Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #116 on: June 15, 2014, 11:25:58 AM »
0
Omega, one more observation: rather than being interested in answering my question of what you think equality looks like, you started pontificating about women. I'd prefer to hear what your ideal society sounds like.

Edit: realized 'pontificate' was the word I was looking for
« Last Edit: June 15, 2014, 12:41:51 PM by Lee Li »
Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #117 on: June 15, 2014, 09:36:02 PM »
0
Omega, one more observation: rather than being interested in answering my question of what you think equality looks like, you started pontificating about women. I'd prefer to hear what your ideal society sounds like.
Edit: realized 'pontificate' was the word I was looking for

Ttis was my reply to LoverofFDRAddict who made claims that she wants contradictory things.
lie eating cake and keeping it too.

Talking about ideal society , I already described it earlier, I would like gender to become matter of choice. while everything else stays essentially same as it was.

Quote
Omega, to your whole post: citation please. You are making sweeping generalizations.
I do not see reason for citations, if you disagree with something specific, you can ask for proof, If you think something is irrelevant just ignore that part .

here are no generalizations since all those conclusions come from claims of the poster to which I reply.








Lee Li

  • Libertarian Socialist
  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
  • Respect: +2
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #118 on: June 16, 2014, 01:18:56 AM »
0
Omega, you need proof for all the claims you made about women. All of them. Yes, every single one. Why? Because those are extraordinary claims. Because they are not based in science. Because I can tell that you are making stuff up. If you make an assertion, generally you need to back it up.

Quote from: Omega
Only mad employer will employ worker who is desperate for money to work in any creative job.
If that happens it is evident that university turned in to factory. which does not need any new ideas, but only needs to work according to rules.
Well, that is what is happening, apparently. Adjunct professors are on the rise -- they are not getting paid well, they iirc don't get tenure, they are less equipped to teach students, etc.

Quote from: Omega
Talking about ideal society , I already described it earlier, I would like gender to become matter of choice.
Okay, well that's basically what feminists want. ;)

Keep Calm And Disobey

Omega

  • Banned
  • FDR Authority
  • *
  • Posts: 374
  • Respect: 0
Re: But Feminists ARE Socialists with panties!
« Reply #119 on: June 16, 2014, 03:33:50 PM »
0
Omega, you need proof for all the claims you made about women. All of them. Yes, every single one. Why? Because those are extraordinary claims. Because they are not based in science. Because I can tell that you are making stuff up. If you make an assertion, generally you need to back it up.
As I already told you these my claims are derived from text of LoverofFDRAddict. and she is generalizing that all women by saying "having children someday is a fundamental part of me expressing my femininity", "That's rejecting a fundamental aspect of femininity."

also my claims are based on PUA science. I also doubted if these claims are true, but considerable amount of men did lots of research how to pick up and seduce women and they developed decent theories how female brain works.
If you like I can find you few lectures on you tube of books about that.

Quote
Okay, well that's basically what feminists want. ;)
No, it is not what feminists want, they want advantages of masculinity while retaining femininity.
in other words they want to eat their cake and keep it too.

If feminists just wanted to be capable to chose their stereotypical gender  they would demand to change how men live.
If woman decides to enter society of men she must start acting like man not demand every man to turn into woman and adapt to her needs.

lest say you enter group of men who make dirty jokes and cuss like sailors. how do you behave:
1: Join them doing same
2: Get offended by their behavior and demand to change it to suit your needs.

if you enter workplace where other are men and get sexually harassed what do you do:
1 retaliate by kicking offender in the balls
2 get offended and complain to authority or feminist friends.