Are There Any Differences Between Men and Women that Justify Inequality?

[Revoltingest]

Your doubts are in error. I am a self proclaimed feminist. I identify as a feminist. In the creation of the DIR, the litmus test was and has always been self-identification.

Actually, when the new rules came out, I noticed the lack of a self-identification requirement. I suggested adding it because it looked to benefit feminist & capitalist DIRs. Admitting all posters who meet the definitions (as stated by RF) but don't identify as such would likely result in greater forum rancor. (Under the prior definition of "capitalist", it would even allow fans of the Soviet style economy. Under the prior definition of "feminist', even I would qualify.) And it was done. You have me to thank for your vaunted litmus test. But I don't do this for the glory...just the joy of system design.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Actually, when the new rules came out, I noticed the lack of a self-identification requirement. I suggested adding it because it looked to benefit feminist & capitalist DIRs. Admitting all posters who meet the definitions (as stated by RF) but don't identify as such would likely result in greater forum rancor. (Under the prior definition of "capitalist", it would even allow fans of the Soviet style economy. Under the prior definition of "feminist', even I would qualify.) And it was done. You have me to thank for your vaunted litmus test. But I don't do this for the glory...just the joy of system design.

Um, okay.

Still, doesn't argue against my opinion that being "self-proclaimed" is dismissive or insulting. That's simply a matter of opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Um, okay.

You're welcome.

That's simply a matter of opinion.

Perhaps it's like the prefix, "modern"....some self-proclaimed feminists object to it & some don't.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You're welcome.

Perhaps it's like the prefix, "modern"....some self-proclaimed feminists object to it & some don't.

I don't object to the term "modern" feminists. It's the use of the word when followed by the words "is mostly just bull****".

So, no, it's not the same. But thanks for playing, anyway.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm being too familiar, eh?
Don't be frightened by intimacy.

Okay

Wanna hug?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay

Wanna hug?

I speak of intellectual intimacy.
I don't hug.
That's something normal people do.

 

[gnomon]

It's okay. You don't have to stress yourself out over female vloggers like Anita speaking their minds about something. It's not like they're threatening people or telling people to threaten others or anything actually criminal.

If people need to be reminded that feminism addresses these very real and urgent problems over and over and over again concerning trafficking, honor killings, domestic partner violence, and genital mutilation, and think "modern" feminism is defined by how mens rights groups, 4chan, and egalitarians gripe about them....people aren't paying attention to what the majority of feminists actually address.

So, people get angry. Feminists get angry, too. Now what?

I disagree.

The beginning of the feminist movement in the United States was racist.

That's a simple historical fact.

To this day the plight of minority females has been largely ignored into this move towards "modern feminism".

I was attempting to address the actual issues where it is appropriate in the case of the OP.

I knew I should not have extended my argument but it was because that stupid and utterly barrel scraping argument has become so dominant to overshadow the long term problems.

I don't stress about Anita.

I stress about every dumb *** imbecilie who has taken the stupid "hashtag" debate to be important. Namely for diverting proper thought away from the more important issues. Namely like the case of Michelle O'Connell. While the rest of the nation flipped their collective stupid **** over Trayvon Martin and #GamersGate the case of a woman who, upon all appearances, was executed by who boyfriend of a police officer was swept under the rug.

So where is her case? Huh? We don't see it on the Atheism + blogs. Anita has covered it because she is too concerned about video games.

You really want to get me started?

And you completely ignored the beginning of my post regarding the actual biological and hormonal aspects of male or female that actually have intellectual consequences for those in the medical field.

So now what?

What the **** are going to tell me now?

That I should actually pay attention to a blithering idiot on a blog.

No thank you. Take that whole case and pour the dog**** on it for all it deserves.

Un-****ing-believable.

It's like I was never on this forum at all.

edit: The fact that I addressed the plight of females over males in the sexual slave trade you decided to quote me and talk about Anita Sarkeesian? What the ****!

 

[gnomon]

The problem is that "modern feminism" is a collection of different people & diverse flavors of feminism. Some are definitely sublithic bovine coprolites. These are the most easily noticed because they attract media attention, & they stand out in our memories. But others are reasonable & civil. Different people will tendentiously define "feminism"....its foes looking at the worst elements, its adherents looking at the paragons.

The differences are acknowledged by most. But the question is whether they require institutional differences in treatment. I favor avoiding gender based regulation wherever practical, but I accept that there will be disparate effect where caused by gender related traits, eg, strength, physical size.

Edit:
Uh oh....now you did it. You're the subject of a new thread

I'm the subject of a new thread.

What a waste that will be.

Given that in this thread I found my statements about absolute facts about in regards to medical issues and how females are far more prone to being subjected to slavery....what will that thread entail. I'm not going to look. If it has anything to do with social media or the fact that I made a remark towards the imbecilic social media phenomenon of "gamersgate" I will have nothing to do with it.

edit: But my interest is piqued. What thread is that? May not be the best time for me to look at it because I'm quite pissed, in both meanings of the term, at the moment. I'm going to take a bit of a break and come back but I'm interested in how a post in which I state biological facts, allude to the devastating issue of female slavery and somehow I provoked a "feminist" response because I alluded to the imbecility of social media.

Link it for me, please. I'll be back in a few.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm the subject of a new thread.

What a waste that will be.

Given that in this thread I found my statements about absolute facts about in regards to medical issues and how females are far more prone to being subjected to slavery....what will that thread entail. I'm not going to look. If it has anything to do with social media or the fact that I made a remark towards the imbecilic social media phenomenon of "gamersgate" I will have nothing to do with it.

Some things are best dealt with by looking away.
People love to complain about people complaining about their complaining, with the complaint that they shouldn't complain, as they complain about others' complaints.
Clear?

 

[gnomon]

Some things are best dealt with by looking away.
People love to complain about people complaining about their complaining, with the complaint that they shouldn't complain, as they complain about others' complaints.
Clear?

Yeah?

I'll just look away, then.

In the mood I'm in and the respect I have for some members it's best not to push it.

I'll just take it, then.

Wouldn't be the first, second or even third time for that.

For ****'s sake.

I'm an ******* and can accept being ******* for others for their misguided **** all misguided dickishness.

They want to get off on something than let them get off on it. I'll be their *****.

I'm finding this pint of Tennessee whiskey far more enjoyable anyway.

Maybe I'll sober up in a few days and set 'em straight.

Set 'em straight in the sense that "No! Seth Rogen is not funny!".

Watch Edgar Wright movies instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you've always been a perfect gentleman towards me!

 

[gnomon]

Never mind.

I found the thread.

Disappointing to say the least. I had a rather nice write up that would have gotten me banned from RF.

But let it go.

Let the horse**** have fun with itself and let the maggots feed.

I'm done with this thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

I like the idea that putting "modern" in front of "feminism" is to silence them.
Echo chambers can let a paranoid victim mentality run amok.
Disagreement does not mean oppression.
Must be rough to be so fearful.
I'll be see'n ya.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I disagree.

The beginning of the feminist movement in the United States was racist.

That's a simple historical fact.

To this day the plight of minority females has been largely ignored into this move towards "modern feminism".

I was attempting to address the actual issues where it is appropriate in the case of the OP.

I knew I should not have extended my argument but it was because that stupid and utterly barrel scraping argument has become so dominant to overshadow the long term problems.

I don't stress about Anita.

I stress about every dumb *** imbecilie who has taken the stupid "hashtag" debate to be important. Namely for diverting proper thought away from the more important issues. Namely like the case of Michelle O'Connell. While the rest of the nation flipped their collective stupid **** over Trayvon Martin and #GamersGate the case of a woman who, upon all appearances, was executed by who boyfriend of a police officer was swept under the rug.

So where is her case? Huh? We don't see it on the Atheism + blogs. Anita has covered it because she is too concerned about video games.

You really want to get me started?

And you completely ignored the beginning of my post regarding the actual biological and hormonal aspects of male or female that actually have intellectual consequences for those in the medical field.

So now what?

What the **** are going to tell me now?

That I should actually pay attention to a blithering idiot on a blog.

No thank you. Take that whole case and pour the dog**** on it for all it deserves.

Un-****ing-believable.

It's like I was never on this forum at all.

edit: The fact that I addressed the plight of females over males in the sexual slave trade you decided to quote me and talk about Anita Sarkeesian? What the ****!

Feel better?

And the thread I created wasn't about YOU. You mentioned the phrase, and it reminded me of how I and others had heard it before several times. So, it's a topic for a dir thread that is relevant to feminists.

You can pay attention to whomever you wish whether it's Sarkeesian or not, but there were several things I wanted to address in your post. So I did. Addressing different parts of your post did not mean that I completely ignored the first part of your discussion of hormonal and structural differences in terms of where the overlap between men and women doesn't occur.

I don't care about "getting you started" in anything. I'm having a debate. You're free to engage too.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you still think my new thread was anything personal against you, regardless of how many times I've countered to the contrary with another member, there's nothing more I can tell you.

We can most certainly discuss other aspects of inequality. How problematic various gender equality movements have been throughout history. I just find it interesting how mentioning Anita Sarkeesian can get some people so angry.

No worries about disagreeing, though. Have a good one.

 

[gnomon]

Feel better?

And the thread I created wasn't about YOU. You mentioned the phrase, and it reminded me of how I and others had heard it before several times. So, it's a topic for a dir thread that is relevant to feminists.

You can pay attention to whomever you wish whether it's Sarkeesian or not, but there were several things I wanted to address in your post. So I did. Addressing different parts of your post did not mean that I completely ignored the first part of your discussion of hormonal and structural differences in terms of where the overlap between men and women doesn't occur.

I don't care about "getting you started" in anything. I'm having a debate. You're free to engage too.

So, as far as I'm concerned, if you still think my new thread was anything personal against you, regardless of how many times I've countered to the contrary with another member, there's nothing more I can tell you.

We can most certainly discuss other aspects of inequality. How problematic various gender equality movements have been throughout history. I just find it interesting how mentioning Anita Sarkeesian can get some people so angry.

No worries about disagreeing, though. Have a good one.

Wow.

Yeah. No thanks.

Bye.

 

[suncowiam]

So I bought up pregnancy and some felt this was outside the topic.

I don't think so... It's a legitimate difference. From a nature perspective, pregnant animals are more vulnerable to predators. There are health risks with pregnancy. Pregnant women have opportunity costs that men would not have. In some cases, its marginal but I argue the woman will always bear more cost than the men.

I'm all for equal rights but not with the delusion that men and women are physically and mentally the same.

Oh, and we need a break from this feminism debate...

 

[Revoltingest]

So I bought up pregnancy and some felt this was outside the topic.

I don't think so... It's a legitimate difference. From a nature perspective, pregnant animals are more vulnerable to predators. There are health risks with pregnancy. Pregnant women have opportunity costs that men would not have. In some cases, its marginal but I argue the woman will always bear more cost than the men.

Even if this were generally true, it would not be true for all individuals. And it is individual variation, inter & intra gender, which strongly supports removing gender based discrimination.

I'm all for equal rights but not with the delusion that men and women are physically and mentally the same.

Of course, neither are all men the same as each other. Ditto for women.

 

[suncowiam]

Even if this were generally true, it would not be true for all individuals. And it is individual variation, inter & intra gender, which strongly supports removing gender based discrimination.

Of course, neither are all men the same as each other. Ditto for women.

How about the following scenario then? Since no one disagrees about maternity leave. What if it was single pregnant mom... Should the biological father be given paternity leave if the father is not in the relationship and wont continue to bring up the child?

My answer is no. The father has little to no opportunity cost from a financial and time perspectives.

Men and women are not the exact same beings. I can easily distinguish a man from a woman.

Certain things concerning equality are overblown and becomes sensitive. I do all the heavy lifting in my family. I open doors for disabled and old. I'm not complaining that I'm spending too much of my energy where others should do more. But if you follow this equality dogma to the T, then I shouldn't be doing all these things predominantly...

There are fundamental rights that I agree with which I argue for women, minorities, religious beliefs, and more recently, sexual orientation. But other things just fall below my subjective line. Not everything can be categorized as the same.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about the following scenario then? Since no one disagrees about maternity leave. What if it was single pregnant mom... Should the biological father be given paternity leave if the father is not in the relationship and wont continue to bring up the child?
My answer is no. The father has little to no opportunity cost from a financial and time perspectives.

Equal treatment under the law needn't be as you present it. If leave due to a child (eg, birth, adoption, death, illness) is necessary, it could be awarded on that basis of such a need.

Men and women are not the exact same beings. I can easily distinguish a man from a woman.

Hey, me too! Usually.

Certain things concerning equality are overblown and becomes sensitive. I do all the heavy lifting in my family. I open doors for disabled and old. I'm not complaining that I'm spending too much of my energy where others should do more. But if you follow this equality dogma to the T, then I shouldn't be doing all these things predominantly...
There are fundamental rights that I agree with which I argue for women, minorities, religious beliefs, and more recently, sexual orientation. But other things just fall below my subjective line. Not everything can be categorized as the same.

Many rights typically associated with one gender can be worded such they'd apply more generally. This has advantages in handling unanticipated needs. (I recall a genetically male person becoming pregnant recently. We may expect more such novel events.) It also forces people to think outside the box. (Please excuse my use of that cliche.)

 

[ShivaFan]

Everything should be on an individual to individual bases and largely determined by the individual to one's self, not carte blanche such as "men", "white", "female" ...

Individual differences far exceed any differences between sexes. One gal can be a you know what, another an angel. But carte blanche, that is too broad to put all women in one box and all men in another and then say "should one be treated unequal?" based on the "difference" between these two boxes. Again, each is far more diverse than the "box".

If the individual joins an "organization" in some cases an "organization" as a unit might be treated unequal to another - but that can be touchy. For example the Nazi Party is treated unequally compared to their fellow Socialist Party(s) in Germany.

No, there shouldn't be FORCED unequality on whites, women, etc... especially not FORCED by the government. Now if a female voluntarily acts out in a manner considered "unequal", that is the individual's choice. Sometimes however they may say it is voluntary but it isn't. Those things are diffucult to deal with, and perhaps humans are too incompetent to "do something about it" because as soon as these smartypants children get the power to "do something about it" they instead use such power to get those they don't like and treat them unequally. For example Eric Holder. Who probably should be in prison. So nothing is "easy", a lot of things have no "solution" and never will. Just different shades.