Toxic Femininity

#5

Wylted

Debates: 34

Posts: 5,754

3

4

11

Wylted

02.22.2019 04:03AM

3

4

11

02.22.2019 04:03AM

"1) Equal Treatment for Women. it happens boo. i am sorry"

Women don't deserve equal treatment. We are your superiors. We should be worshipped and you all should exist merely as our sex slaves, laborors and as cannon fodder so we can live comfortable lives. It is absurd to think differently.

Victoria

#6

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

02.22.2019 02:18PM

3

6

02.22.2019 02:18PM

-->

@Vader

Wanting equal pay and to be treated like a human being is toxic? The last two are political points not feminism.

#7

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

02.23.2019 04:51AM

8

10

11

02.23.2019 04:51AM

-->

@Vader

Let's talk for a minute hear before I hear all the women bitch at me,

3rd and 4th wave feminism is so stupid and idiotic. You are arguing for things you already have and things you just can't solve for.

1) Equal Treatment for Women. it happens boo. i am sorry
2) Equal Pay. There is nothing you can do other than convert to communism where women will receive way less money. also it is a small difference too
3) Equality for LGBTQ+ community. Already laws making it legal
4) Trump Impeachment. It won't happen ever

Then they say men are ALWAYS RACIST, Sexist, and need to be changing. They force a child to be a girl when he wants to be a boy

Toxic Femininity

Boo. Women are the majority of all Americans (we seem to just be talking about US here), and in a democracy, majorities rule. Until women at least once had a majority in Congress, in the courts, and multiples presidencies, until women have acheived more tangible milestones in the assumption of power, we are failing, as Americans, at representing our majority.

Topic's author

#8

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,984

5

8

11

Vader

02.23.2019 06:33PM

5

8

11

02.23.2019 06:33PM

-->

@oromagi

Sorry you don't voted in to get elected. Maybe you should, idk, change your philosophy and maybe you will get elected. Be grateful you can run for president

Topic's author

#9

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,984

5

8

11

Vader

02.23.2019 06:36PM

5

8

11

02.23.2019 06:36PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

You are treated like humans. There are no laws against women. Crimes happen, there is nothing you can do

#10

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

02.23.2019 07:18PM

8

10

11

02.23.2019 07:18PM

-->

@Vader

Sorry you don't voted in to get elected.

unintelligible

Maybe you should, idk, change your philosophy and maybe you will get elected.

That is precisely what women are doing, working to assume the reigns of power. Feminism is that changed philosophy.

Be grateful you can run for president

Grateful to who? I'm a white man descended from the Pilgrims. My ancestors were holding elections here before there was an America. Those ancestors taught me never to be grateful to someone else for a fundamental right: nobody can give me that right or take it away it from me. One might acknowledge my right or violate my right but nobody else is the source or the keeper of that right and nobody deserves my gratitude for its maintenance.

I think your central point was that Feminism is irrelevant because women have achieved all the milestones of full enfranchisement. I disagree and have pointed out one the most obvious missing milestones: Federal power that reflects women's majority in the US.

#11

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

02.23.2019 10:07PM

3

6

02.23.2019 10:07PM

-->

@Vader

You do not think of women as human.

#12

revivedmuse

Debates: 0

Posts: 9

0

3

revivedmuse

02.24.2019 06:19PM

0

3

02.24.2019 06:19PM

-->

@Vader

This post is ignorant and/or horribly misguided for a multitude of reasons.

1) This is a baseless assertion. On the contrary, there are a variety of statistics that motivate the UN itself to treat gender equality for women and girls as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) [https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/]. I’m not sure if you’re referring to the situation in the U.S. alone (where the severity is reduced but still existent in some form) but as of now, the notion of women being treated equally to men is not... actually...... well anyway

2) I don’t know whether or not women getting paid less is actually true, but what I do know is that calling for equal pay between men and women depending on field of employment =/= communism lskdjjdjdjdjdk

3) Irrelevant lol, but simply implementing LGBT+ protective laws is not equivalent to or fully sufficient for social equality (assuming LGBTQ+ rights/treatment is what you meant by ‘it’, as in laws making ‘it’ legal)

4) Not even specific to feminism. “It will never happen” will never sound like an actual argument on why Trump ought not to be reelected no matter how many times it’s repeated.

5) No one means this literally unless it comes from an extreme misandrist or feminazi. Even then it’s not fully incorrect to believe they somewhat correlate given the white male dominated, supremacist nature of (Western) history and its lasting effects.

6) Even disregarding the fact that this is purely irrelevant just as it is false, I find it quite disturbing that you’re so adamant on painting this pitifully misguided image of extremism onto feminism from your biases.

I don’t know why I decided to spend time responding to this

Topic's author

#13

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,984

5

8

11

Vader

02.24.2019 06:33PM

5

8

11

02.24.2019 06:33PM

-->

@revivedmuse

1) This is a baseless assertion. On the contrary, there are a variety of statistics that motivate the UN itself to treat gender equality for women and girls as a Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) [https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/]. I’m not sure if you’re referring to the situation in the U.S. alone (where the severity is reduced but still existent in some form) but as of now, the notion of women being treated equally to men is not... actually...... well anyway

Referring to the US exactly. And they are still treated equally. You can't let one person who is sexist define an entire culture of men, which is exactly what the 3rd and 4ths are doing

2) I don’t know whether or not women getting paid less is actually true, but what I do know is that calling for equal pay between men and women depending on field of employment =/= communism lskdjjdjdjdjdk

Getting less pay is normal for guys and girls. Some companies pay women more than men and are discriminatory toward men, some women get paid less. It is a capitalist society. You don't see under payed men doing hard work whine and bitch on the streets.

3) Irrelevant lol, but simply implementing LGBT+ protective laws is not equivalent to or fully sufficient for social equality (assuming LGBTQ+ rights/treatment is what you meant by ‘it’, as in laws making ‘it’ legal)

So what are you gonna do to stop Crazy Catholic Charlie from being homophobic. You can arrest him and it is made illgeal. It is a basic fact of life that just because it isn't allowed, doesn't mean it won't happen. You're fighting LITERALLY nothing

4) Not even specific to feminism. “It will never happen” will never sound like an actual argument on why Trump ought not to be reelected no matter how many times it’s repeated.

I talk impeachment

5) No one means this literally unless it comes from an extreme misandrist or feminazi. Even then it’s not fully incorrect to believe they somewhat correlate given the white male dominated, supremacist nature of (Western) history and its lasting effects.

Yes they have. Their kind literally talks about men being pigs. Now we have to be scared to talk because we will be accused of rape

6) Even disregarding the fact that this is purely irrelevant just as it is false, I find it quite disturbing that you’re so adamant on painting this pitifully misguided image of extremism onto feminism from your biases.

Shame on them for causing this bias

Topic's author

#14

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,984

5

8

11

Vader

02.24.2019 06:36PM

5

8

11

02.24.2019 06:36PM

-->

@oromagi

Sorry you don't voted in to get elected.
unintelligible

Hillary didn't get voted in...

Maybe you should, idk, change your philosophy and maybe you will get elected.
That is precisely what women are doing, working to assume the reigns of power. Feminism is that changed philosophy.

Bah. That was Hillary's motto and she lost. Maybe try Conservative approach and reach out to the working class farmers while keeping the feminist philosophy. Hilary lost bc of that

Be grateful you can run for president
Grateful to who? I'm a white man descended from the Pilgrims. My ancestors were holding elections here before there was an America. Those ancestors taught me never to be grateful to someone else for a fundamental right: nobody can give me that right or take it away it from me. One might acknowledge my right or violate my right but nobody else is the source or the keeper of that right and nobody deserves my gratitude for its maintenance.

I was reffering to women

I think your central point was that Feminism is irrelevant because women have achieved all the milestones of full enfranchisement. I disagree and have pointed out one the most obvious missing milestones: Federal power that reflects women's majority in the US.

1st and 2nd wave feminism was of the best things to happen in America. I think 3rd and 4th wave feminism is a disgrace and a disaster to this country and fighting for things you can not change

Topic's author

#15

Vader

Debates: 30

Posts: 14,984

5

8

11

Vader

02.24.2019 06:38PM

5

8

11

02.24.2019 06:38PM

-->

@Polytheist-Witch

Can you eat, sleep, drink, breathe, shit? Then you are human

Freedom is our right. And women have that right to do what they wan't

Your fighting for things that you can not control. You can not control a rapist. You can kill them, but that one death won't stop rape

#16

revivedmuse

Debates: 0

Posts: 9

0

3

revivedmuse

02.24.2019 07:14PM

0

3

02.24.2019 07:14PM

-->

@Vader

1) “entire culture of men” again, the only people who do this are feminazis and misandrists. No one else is defining the very notion of being male to be sexist. Saying “men are trash” for instance isn’t literal (made clear many times) and just isn’t oppressive especially in comparison to the grand scheme of things, like, say, the disproportionate likelihood for women in the U.S. to be raped than men (1 in 5 to 1 in 71 respectively (!!!)) [https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics]. Even knowing this, no one needs this repetitive “not all men” rhetoric because it merely states the obvious without presenting a unique motive that people haven’t heard or understood. It kind of sounds like gaslighting to me but I’m not sure

2) Is/ought fallacy. Just because a pay difference is normal or the status quo doesn’t mean that disparity ought to exist. Granted, that disparity has narrowed [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/09/gender-pay-gap-facts/] but it still persists, and it’s insufficient to justify keeping that inequality just because it’s normal or the difference is small.

By the way, I personally haven’t heard of companies that discriminate against men by pay (I could be ill-informed) so could you provide examples? (Note you would have to provide enough to show such a trend is significant enough for your statement to hold that much substance)

3) So what are you trying to achieve here with this statement? If you’re discussing anti-discriminatory laws, we could cross-apply your argument to every single existing law and derive the premises:

1) Laws exist,

2) But so does crime, or acts against laws

C) Therefore, laws are useless and should be repealed???

If you’re talking about giving them rights in general - even completely disregarding the 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage across the U.S. which is an immense milestone by itself, the implementation of pro-LGBT+ laws have been effective in assisting in normalizing them and integrating them into society as equal human beings. The point is, there is more that can be done in terms of social treatment and perception of these people, and it is simply naive to assert that such movements are useless when they are clearly not lol. Even then, no one is saying that people against the community will becompletely eradicated or something. No one actually thinks that’s gonna happen. Social improvement/activism isn’t mutually exclusive with people against LGBT+ people.

4) Impeached, sorry. My argument still stands.

5) Again, you’re trying to baselessly attribute an extremist belief or statement to a non-extremist group. Feminism is not synonymous with misandry.

6) Are you just blame-shiftingnow? Do you realize how nonsensical it is to blame feminists for YOUR OWN bias about them lmao. You’re the one with the skewed perception of them, after all.

#17

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

02.24.2019 07:42PM

3

6

02.24.2019 07:42PM

-->

@Vader

You being pro rape is not my problem.

#18

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

02.24.2019 08:02PM

8

10

11

02.24.2019 08:02PM

-->

@Vader

Hillary didn't get voted in...

Well, she did win the majority of the votes. She wasn't made president because our present system gives more electoral weight to rural regions in economic decline at the expense of prospering urban voters: not particularly democratic or intelligent.

Bah. That was Hillary's motto and she lost. Maybe try Conservative approach and reach out to the working class farmers while keeping the feminist philosophy. Hilary lost bc of that

By any measure, Hillary Clinton is more Conservative than Donald Trump. Anybody who thinks Donald Trump is trying the Conservative approach doesn't understand the meaning of the word or the history of that faction in American politics.

There is no such thing as a working class farmer. The majority of the 3.2 million Americans who identify as farmers make less than $10,000/yr from agriculture and hold some other job as their primary source of income. In a 2012 census 46% of farmers reported no net farming income (in other words, any money made was by govt. subsidy) Of the 758,000 people who actually work the fields, roughly 50% are noncitizens according to the USDA. Roughly a quarter are women. Some 230,000 are under the age of 18. 42% of agriculture fatalities are under the age of 18, half of those under the age of 15. The average legal wage for field workers is $18,000/yr (below poverty level). Illegal workers are estimated to make 15% less than that. The big picture is that there are people who own farms and are often eligible for substantial govt. subsidy. And then there are the farmers, the people who actually work the farms, who are among the most destitute and disenfranchised of Americans.

I've heard Hillary talk about these farmers and their problems. As far as I can tell, the present administration has been nothing short of catastrophic for farmers.

Be grateful you can run for president
Grateful to who? I
I was reffering to women

I know you were. The point was that if women have the same rights as men, then women owe nobody gratitude for their birthright.

I think your central point was that Feminism is irrelevant because women have achieved all the milestones of full enfranchisement. I disagree and have pointed out one the most obvious missing milestones: Federal power that reflects women's majority in the US.
1st and 2nd wave feminism was of the best things to happen in America. I think 3rd and 4th wave feminism is a disgrace and a disaster to this country and fighting for things you can not change

3rd and 4th wave feminism are social media straw men, radicals on both sides arguing over labels and picayune exceptions. If you think second wave feminism (embodied by women like Clinton) is a social good why don't you agree with that movement when it states that Feminism is still essential?

Jimmy Carter says that there is no social problem in the world that can't be solved by placing women and the priorities of women first in politics. I agree with Jimmy.

#19

ResurgetExFavilla

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

ResurgetExFavilla

02.24.2019 08:22PM

3

2

7

02.24.2019 08:22PM

-->

@Vader

Feminism is just a symptom of capitalism. Schumpeter predicted this ages ago. When people succumb to individualism and materialism in a mass society which inculcates those attributes (capitalism), an hedonistic, solipsistic calculus begins to override collective concerns. What would appear to be insanity to any impartial observer proliferates, and social structure breaks down. Feminism is just that process, dressed in ideology. There's a reason that the upper classes still follows the old rules about things like out of wedlock births: they have the resources to resist the antinomian orgy that is consuming the lower classes, and in doing so will maintain their political dominance until systemic failure sets in.

#20

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,969

3

4

10

Greyparrot

02.24.2019 10:14PM

3

4

10

02.24.2019 10:14PM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

Feminism did not move a large percentage of women out of the home. The industrial revolution did that.

#21

ResurgetExFavilla

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

ResurgetExFavilla

02.24.2019 11:28PM

3

2

7

02.24.2019 11:28PM

-->

@Greyparrot

No, the Clearances and Enclosure did that. It didn't just move the women, it moved the whole family. That's when capitalism began, that was the beginning of the proletariat as a large, exploitable class. Whenever they were able to manage it, they returned to domesticity, and whenever capitalists were able to manage it they pried them away, diluting the labor pool and reducing the economic power of the working class. Now the wealthy get a two-for-one deal in terms of labor cost, and families struggle to raise children.

#22

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,969

3

4

10

Greyparrot

02.24.2019 11:47PM

3

4

10

02.24.2019 11:47PM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

Technology moves faster than our DNA. We still have the most of the genetic makeup required to live in conditions 2000 years ago, along with the genetic instincts and impulses.

#23

IlDiavolo

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,509

3

2

5

IlDiavolo

02.25.2019 02:04AM

3

2

5

02.25.2019 02:04AM

-->

@oromagi

Boo. Women are the majority of all Americans (we seem to just be talking about US here), and in a democracy, majorities rule. Until women at least once had a majority in Congress, in the courts, and multiples presidencies, until women have acheived more tangible milestones in the assumption of power, we are failing, as Americans, at representing our majority.

The first thing Americans should understand before demanding gender equality is that men and women are different in nature, so the results and performance of each gender are going to be different, depending on the type of activity or job. Forcing otherwise is not just moronic but unfair.

The law has been making its job, which is give equal opportunities to either men or women. If men outperform women in most activities despite law, that is the way mother nature made us. Going against nature is a call to mediocrity and inefficiency.

Il Diavolo

#24

ResurgetExFavilla

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

ResurgetExFavilla

02.25.2019 08:38AM

3

2

7

02.25.2019 08:38AM

-->

@Greyparrot

Technology didn't necessitate capitalism. Capitalism arose after most of the technological developments which sparked the industrial revolution. It's perfectly possible for healthy human social structures to produce the requisite technology, as happened throughout much of the middle ages. Also, the idea that technology is the aim and goal and that what is human should be deformed and broken in order to fit that mold is also insane; we're human first. Our technology is just something that we do, not the purpose of our existence.

#25

Greyparrot

Debates: 4

Posts: 25,969

3

4

10

Greyparrot

02.25.2019 09:44AM

3

4

10

02.25.2019 09:44AM

-->

@ResurgetExFavilla

Then how do we as a species resolve our out-dated DNA? Most humans are not genetically compatible with an automated existence. Something has to give.

#26

ResurgetExFavilla

Debates: 0

Posts: 627

3

2

7

ResurgetExFavilla

02.25.2019 10:12AM

3

2

7

02.25.2019 10:12AM

-->

@Greyparrot

We don't. The same thing will happen that has happened every other time that society became too decadent to support human life: civilizational collapse, mass migration, and a resolution to a more suitable level of technology. When an ecosystem tilts out of balance, one thing corrects it: death on a massive scale. Just look at the Bronze Age Collapse or the Dark Ages. DNA doesn't get outdated; man outpaces nature and is then violently corrected.

#27

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

02.25.2019 04:08PM

3

6

02.25.2019 04:08PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Yeap. Feminism is the result of monotheism and the movement of women as the head of the home in pre Christian cultures to men in Christian dogma.

#28

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

02.25.2019 05:08PM

8

10

11

02.25.2019 05:08PM

-->

@IlDiavolo

The first thing Americans should understand before demanding gender equality is that men and women are different in nature, so the results and performance of each gender are going to be different, depending on the type of activity or job. Forcing otherwise is not just moronic but unfair.

OK, done. I think I can say with confidence that better than 99% of all Americans understand that there are gender differences.

The law has been making its job, which is give equal opportunities to either men or women. If men outperform women in most activities despite law, that is the way mother nature made us. Going against nature is a call to mediocrity and inefficiency.

I don't disagree except that I get the impression you're suggesting that men outperform women in the activity of government- which I don't buy. Obviously, there have been far fewer women in the top spot in any style of government but when you evaluate the average quality of leadership shown by those women against the average quality of leadership shown by men, the women are far, far, superior. Now, small sampling sizes can skew the comparison but I think that history demonstrates the superiority of female heads of state to a sufficient degree to warrant a popular embrace of women in executive positions across the board.

#29

IlDiavolo

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,509

3

2

5

IlDiavolo

02.26.2019 01:45AM

3

2

5

02.26.2019 01:45AM

-->

@oromagi

I don't disagree except that I get the impression you're suggesting that men outperform women in the activity of government- which I don't buy. Obviously, there have been far fewer women in the top spot in any style of government but when you evaluate the average quality of leadership shown by those women against the average quality of leadership shown by men, the women are far, far, superior. Now, small sampling sizes can skew the comparison but I think that history demonstrates the superiority of female heads of state to a sufficient degree to warrant a popular embrace of women in executive positions across the board.

Due to a basic understanding of how hormones work in men, I can say with confidence that men are born to own this world. It's not our fault, it's just how nature made us. That is why Christinity put men as head of family. Evidently, I can't deny there were conspicous women who performed very well as leaders, which make us think that nature is sometimes generous with women giving them a little bit more of male hormones (testosterone).

So, I have to disagree with your statement. I can mention some male figures that can make my point, like Alexander the Great, Constantine, or Napoleon.

In contrast, the idea of women being in executive positions without any sort of male supervision could be counterproductive as it actually happened in a well-known company:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/why-yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-is-the-least-likable-ceo-in-tech.html

I hope you stop thinking there is any remote possibility that women can be in the "top spot" as leaders, regardless of some honorable exceptions.

Il Diavolo

#30

oromagi

Debates: 117

Posts: 8,696

8

10

11

oromagi

02.26.2019 05:14AM

8

10

11

02.26.2019 05:14AM

-->

@IlDiavolo

Due to a basic understanding of how hormones work in men, I can say with confidence that men are born to own this world.

What is that understanding? How do those hormones work?

It's not our fault, it's just how nature made us. That is why Christinity put men as head of family.

Men were traditionally head of the household in all the cultures of the early Christians- Roman, Greek, & Hebrew. I don't think it can be fairly said that Christianity made some conscious move towards elevating men. If the Nag Hammadi literature tells us anything, it's that women were more important in the early Christian church than just about any other Mediterranean religious institution- Isis worship, perhaps.

Evidently, I can't deny there were conspicous women who performed very well as leaders, which make us think that nature is sometimes generous with women giving them a little bit more of male hormones (testosterone).

unsubstantiated, unsubstantiatable, and blech.

So, I have to disagree with your statement. I can mention some male figures that can make my point, like Alexander the Great, Constantine, or Napoleon.

I said average. Are you putting forward Alexander as an average male leader?

In contrast, the idea of women being in executive positions without any sort of male supervision could be counterproductive as it actually happened in a well-known company:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/why-yahoo-ceo-marissa-mayer-is-the-least-likable-ceo-in-tech.html

I hope you stop thinking there is any remote possibility that women can be in the "top spot" as leaders, regardless of some honorable exceptions.

I'm thinking of Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Zenobia, etc. You're countering with tech bro surveys? You have attributed effective female leadership to an excess of testosterone but also to male supervision- do you mean both?