Self Defense: "Weak men put their hands on women for any reason!"

[Thor]

For what it's worth, I DID do my own research - I already mentioned that I wrote an entire 9-page paper on the subject of current media-driven [dominant] black masculinity, how it is the same as and slightly differs from alternate forms of black masculinity [ex: Obama], and how it can be changed [since the image is very, VERY negative], although no one seemed interested so I didn't post it here. I also sourced out numerous definitions, referencing in passing no less than 2 feminist authors whose works I have partially read, and also looked at a few of your sources, but was confounded by them because I didn't understand how they supported what you were showing [I did try navigating the honey badgers thing, but I spent like 10 minutes and didn't come up with anything except why they make **** jokes, and I found the reasoning flawed anyway... and I'm pretty sure I said why] and you did not provide further explanation for what they showed.

I'm also not full of emotionally-laden bigotry - or if I am, quote exactly what it is I said that constitutes emotionally-laden bigotry. And don't make me go define bigotry either, but I will if you highlight something that is not "emotionally-laden bigotry."

I agree with Sucumbio's preivous post, I just wanted to address how this particular quote related to me.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

The fact is, being male leads you into being in a position of power and privilege simply by existing.

What powers and privileges, specifically, did I get for being male?

Rather than focusing on male rights (and let's be honest, often associated with white male rights), perhaps the better idea is to focus on issues like the societal stigma against depression (I would know, as I was just fired due to my depression! YAY!) or the stigma against loneliness.

Which of these issues would be better solved by focusing on things like depression and loneliness?
-The draft.
-Family court.
-Ignoring/trivializing male victims; men excluded and ridiculed when seeking help.
-Men receive harsher sentences than women for the same crimes.
-Men accused of **** are judged using lower standards of proof, especially at colleges.
-Gay men seen as disgusting (moreso than lesbians).

I agree that our views of depression need examined, and I'm sorry about your job, but men (of all colors) have plenty of other, equally important problems.

The reality is that we live in a world that is unsafe for women. There's a distinct difference between self-harm and inflicted harm, and women are fearful of their lives, and basically violence that is inordinately being caused against women.

False! Women are actually much safer than men: about 1.7 times less likely to be victimised by violence and less than half as likely to be murdered.

You can cite small sample data if you want to talk about women's prisons or other scenarios, but ultimately the overwhelming majority of violent acts committed against women are by men, and you cannot deny this.

How does this show that our society is "unsafe for women", when the majority of victims are men?

Actually I have - that would be the ***** "1/3 as often" that you lampshade but do not quote. You just kind of state that memories are distorted, but that doesn't mean that totals don't change year-to-year, and given that the totals cited there are still showing women are ***** more often than men, we'll have to wait a few more years and compare numbers, or else you'll need to pull a lot more data than one year from the study.

I've cited 2 independent reasons (memory bias and identity bias) why your "1/3 as often" lifetime stat underestimates the amount of male **** victims. You've cited 0 reasons why my "50/50" annual stat overestimates the amount, except that it conflicts with yours. Anyways can we agree that men are between 25-50% of adult **** victims?

And if one man or one woman is *****, it's a travesty and they should be treated with utmost care - I wouldn't argue anything else. But you act like men have this massive problem with being *****, yet last I checked, they aren't quizzed in court on what they were wearing, and don't usually receive catcalls from random creeps as they walk down the street if they look good.

Men DO have a massive problem with being *****, particularly because male victims are ignored and trivialized. Not only do men face "victim-blaming" questions, they face biased laws. Most state and national sexual violence laws use the penetration definition of ****: the DoJ updated its definition in 2012 to one which "better reflects state criminal codes", yet still requires penetration of the victim.

Please explain how women getting catcalled makes men getting ***** less of a problem.

Gender roles are enforced, but they by-and-large disadvantage women more than men, as I've already pointed out.

1) Are you abandoning patriarchy theory, which holds that gender roles are enforced primarily by men in order to secure their dominance over women?
2) What evidence have you given that gender roles disproportionately hurt women?

And maybe because [white], straight, able-bodied, right-handed men (like me, except for the right-handed part - I'm a lefty) have been the most privileged people in history, and were oppressing others along the way? Yeah men have problems too, but the problems others face for being not-white men are often significantly greater - if, like me, you think the playing field should be leveled, so that people are victimized less and treated more fairly as a whole, with everyone's problems addressed equally, you definitely don't start with how badly men are treated, especially in America.

I don't know how I'm pointing fingers at men, but I've already acknowledged male victimhood - it's present, but it's not nearly as bad for men in America as it is for a wide variety of groups elsewhere.

Don't forget "wealthy, muscular, good-looking men of the correct religion". But seriously, stop trivializing men's issues. Women and racial minorities have powerful lobby groups that sway Congress, attract TV coverage, and mobilize voters. Anti-male bias is so overlooked and institutionalized (in law and policy) that men's rights may be the best place to start fixing American society.

Also, when women spoke out or fought against gender roles, they were ignored or repressed - it's not like they were able to just all stop and change the roles, it took a long time just to get women the right to vote in the US, and that's a simple law, not an entire set of beliefs and values about how women and men acted and behaved.

Men still had a choice where to work - the multitudes of women beaten at home by men for trivial things (or at all) was certainly no less prevalent - and workplace accidents are tragic, but accidents, not intentional, and men still had at least something of a choice in where they worked - women never had that freedom.

And when men spoke out or fought against gender roles, they too were ignored or repressed. How many men had the option to be stay-at-home fathers, especially during wartime? How much of a career choice did men really have when most were forced as young boys into the family business? (HINT: think about English last names - Smith, Clark, Taylor, ...). What makes you think that wife-beating was "certainly no less prevalent" than workplace beatings, let alone accidental injuries and battlefield casualties?

 

[LarsINTJ]

Citations are so incredibly essential when Feminists can pull just about anything out of their ass and blow raspberries. It doesn't matter, @ Sucumbio chose to focus on criticizing the sparsity of sources in my posts because he had no arguments beyond 'I find that highly unlikely', more female-victimizing and suggestively straw-manning my position. If it's so easy to put the opposition in their place with relevant citations, as you say, then why not practice the theory on me?

Asking somebody to explain Feminism as it relates to sexism is like being confused about why water is wet.

 

[Thor]

What powers and privileges, specifically, did I get for being male?

The right to vote, to not be assumed to be weaker than others, to fight on the frontlines if you want, to be able to dress in a sexually provocative manner without worrying how it might affect how a judge or jury views the case if you are sexually mistreated, the right to not be stoned to death in certain countries for having your skin showing... the list goes on.

Which of these issues would be better solved by focusing on things like depression and loneliness?
-The draft.
-Family court.
-Ignoring/trivializing male victims; men excluded and ridiculed when seeking help.
-Men receive harsher sentences than women for the same crimes.
-Men accused of **** are judged using lower standards of proof, especially at colleges.
-Gay men seen as disgusting (moreso than lesbians).

I agree that our views of depression need examined, and I'm sorry about your job, but men (of all colors) have plenty of other, equally important problems.

Not trivializing male victims, because understanding that they can't be sent into depression, and it would also avoid ridicule when seeking depression treatment.
Harsher sentences may be averted for men driven to crime by lonliness. And personally, I think women should be sentenced more harshly, not sentencing men lighter - as Sucumbio clearly stated [and I believe sourced out as well]], that's what feminists want.

It helps, and it also helps other problems you didn't initially cite.

False! Women are actually much safer than men: about 1.7 times less likely to be victimised by violence and less than half as likely to be murdered.

How does this show that our society is "unsafe for women", when the majority of victims are men?

I don't know, but I'd be interested in seeing the breakdown of those statistics...

I've cited 2 independent reasons (memory bias and identity bias) why your "1/3 as often" lifetime stat underestimates the amount of male **** victims. You've cited 0 reasons why my "50/50" annual stat overestimates the amount, except that it conflicts with yours. Anyways can we agree that men are between 25-50% of adult **** victims?

You have no source for memory bias and identity bias and I stated that I don't think that makes up the difference. But yes, yes we can.

Men DO have a massive problem with being *****, particularly because male victims are ignored and trivialized. Not only do men face "victim-blaming" questions, they face biased laws. Most state and national sexual violence laws use the penetration definition of ****: the DoJ updated its definition in 2012 to one which "better reflects state criminal codes", yet still requires penetration of the victim.

Please explain how women getting catcalled makes men getting ***** less of a problem.

It doesn't make it less of a problem, but it means it's more problematic to be a woman.

1) Are you abandoning patriarchy theory, which holds that gender roles are enforced primarily by men in order to secure their dominance over women?
2) What evidence have you given that gender roles disproportionately hurt women?

There are parts of patriarchy theory I agree with, and parts I don't. But when one is raised in the system, they may unconsciously enforce it [even anti-racists of old often were subtly racist because they didn't realize it - the same can hold for women, especially those who do not try to be feminist].

My citation of reasons was earlier. I don't feel like re-listing it right now.

Don't forget "wealthy, muscular, good-looking men of the correct religion". But seriously, stop trivializing men's issues. Women and racial minorities have powerful lobby groups that sway Congress, attract TV coverage, and mobilize voters. Anti-male bias is so overlooked and institutionalized (in law and policy) that men's rights may be the best place to start fixing American society.

Ooh nice catch. But I disagree with your assertion - cracking down in the jail system and raising taxes are the best two places to start fixing American society, and neither of those actually advance men's rights [unless you count equality of jail time, but that hurts women, not helps men]. After that, we need to stop the images of masculinity put out by the media that disrespect other human beings and develop more positive role models to improve the future of America, but that's my opinion.

I also think anti-male bias pales in comparison to some of the favoritism men receive elsewhere that is also hidden.

And when men spoke out or fought against gender roles, they too were ignored or repressed. How many men had the option to be stay-at-home fathers, especially during wartime? How much of a career choice did men really have when most were forced as young boys into the family business? (HINT: think about English last names - Smith, Clark, Taylor, ...). What makes you think that wife-beating was "certainly no less prevalent" than workplace beatings, let alone accidental injuries and battlefield casualties?

They lost one job, not many, because of not being viewed as able to raise kids - a substantially smaller piece of the pie.

Many men signed contracts with various craftsmen to get jobs in various industries - they likely had at least a small choice. And if they ran away, they could actually potentially work in a factory or as a farmhand, while a woman would still have to do her "natural" jobs.

Women were hit when they were disrespectful - it was a cultural norm almost everywhere - I can source it out but I figured it was common knowledge that women who disobeyed were beaten because of how the Bible and other sources that were held in great esteem discussed the issue [then again, LarsINTJ seems to think that feminism=evil is common knowledge, so I guess we'll have to throw those assumptions out here...]

Citations are so incredibly essential when Feminists can pull just about anything out of their *** and blow raspberries. It doesn't matter, @ Sucumbio chose to focus on criticizing the sparsity of sources in my posts because he had no arguments beyond 'I find that highly unlikely', more female-victimizing and suggestively straw-manning my position. If it's so easy to put the opposition in their place with relevant citations, as you say, then why not practice the theory on me?

Asking somebody to explain Feminism as it relates to sexism is like being confused about why water is wet.

If citations are essential, why am I the one who does the most of them [next to fungus]? And you'll have to tell me what I pulled out of my butt, because it's nothing of import that I've said so far.

Sucumbio did significantly more than that, but you appear unable to appreciate that, so I don't think you'll comprehend my follow-up either. I'll let him discuss your ridiculous response.

And wet is the state of being saturated with water, but feminism is not the state of being sexist - you have once again begged the question, which is a logical fallacy, making both your comparison and your argument invalid.

 

[LarsINTJ]

If citations are essential, why am I the one who does the most of them [next to fungus]? And you'll have to tell me what I pulled out of my butt, because it's nothing of import that I've said so far.

Sucumbio did significantly more than that, but you appear unable to appreciate that, so I don't think you'll comprehend my follow-up either. I'll let him discuss your ridiculous response.

And wet is the state of being saturated with water, but feminism is not the state of being sexist - you have once again begged the question, which is a logical fallacy, making both your comparison and your argument invalid.

Why is @ AfungusAmongus clearly making zero progress with you despite their usage of citations?

Sucumbio did provide an argument? Where? What's 'more than that'?

I asserted that Feminism and sexism go hand in hand, and you think that's a fallacy because you deny the obvious without reason?

The sky is blue because the sky is blue = begging the question.
Feminist ideology is sexist because feminist ideology is sexist =/= begging the question.
Water is wet =/= begging the question.

 

[Claire Diviner]

This should explain everything there needs to know about what true feminism is, and what its purpose entails. If this fails to bring about a better understanding; if this still invokes "all feminists are man-haters", then clearly there is absolutely nothing in existence that will sway Lars (or other naysayers), even if all forms of concrete proof to its definition and genuine intentions are brought to them:

http://www.feminist.com/reflections.html#inc

 

[LarsINTJ]

This should explain everything there needs to know about what true feminism is, and what its purpose entails. If this fails to bring about a better understanding; if this still invokes "all feminists are man-haters", then clearly there is absolutely nothing in existence that will sway Lars (or other naysayers), even if all forms of concrete proof to its definition and genuine intentions are brought to them:

http://www.feminist.com/reflections.html#inc

It seems fitting that the most common question we are asked at Feminist.com is “What is feminism?” The truth is, it is an almost impossible question to answer definitively since the term has so many different meanings and interpretations, all of them personal and specific to whoever is defining it.

A movement/ideology is and will always be defined by its actions and accomplishments, what an individual thinks is completely irrelevant.

i.e. I call bullsh*t on this airy-fairy relativism.

By addressing a woman’s inner reality, we hope to help women become more in touch with themselves by freeing them from the habitual, destructive thinking which women often fall into as a result of our cultural conditioning. Women are often confronted by and internalize external pressures to conform to ideas of who we should be rather than honoring and accepting who we actually are. As we work for the freedom to make our own choices – over our bodies and our lives – we must also learn to turn inward and trust our instincts and our wisdoms so we can ensure we are making decisions that serve our true selves.

Translation: Feminism frees women from the reality that they are responsible for their own actions, your own personal desires matter infinitely more than anyone else, including your own children (children are just tools after all). All that cultural conditioning regarding motherhood is a lie enforced by the patriarchy designed to keep you down, prevent you from achieving your glorious dreams.

At Feminist.com, we don’t take “feminism” literally as purely a gender definition; we believe that both women and men have inner and outer feminine qualities worthy of nurturing. We believe men must be included in feminist work in order for true equality and understanding to occur.

I see! Dirty masculinity is not even worthy of mention, men need to get in touch with their prissy inner man-hating woman.

We believe and are witness to the fact that more and more men are recognizing how men benefit from feminism – how feminism can free men from their own stereotypical expectations and pressures, and how feminism is working to also allow men more freedom in their lives and a more genuine expression of their true nature.

Translation: Men need to be freed from their manhood so that they are able to express true inner perfection (femininity).

And men are beginning to realize how including women in leadership roles in different sectors in society and around the world might generate new thinking and fresh solutions to the many serious problems and conflicts that confront humanity today.

...because women are just so gosh-darn peaceful, loving and caring.

We help broaden the scope of what is commonly thought of as feminism by demonstrating that feminism addresses much more than just rights for women, that it promotes dignity, respect and unity for all living beings, regardless of gender, race, class, culture, sexual orientation, religion or any of the many other classifications our society often uses to divide us.

The complete opposite of filthy masculinity! All the greed, all the war, all the prejudice, all the poor helpless little animals being squished by the uncaring, bloody steel-capped boot of mankind.

 

[Thor]

Why is @ AfungusAmongus clearly making zero progress with you despite their usage of citations?

Sucumbio did provide an argument? Where? What's 'more than that'?

I asserted that Feminism and sexism go hand in hand, and you think that's a fallacy because you deny the obvious without reason?

The sky is blue because the sky is blue = begging the question.
Feminist ideology is sexist because feminist ideology is sexist =/= begging the question.
Water is wet =/= begging the question.

He's making progress - if you noticed, we've come to an agreement about some stuff.

And I don't think you understand what the hell a debate IS - there isn't much "progress" in most debates because there are two sides to every story - we are debating out the points of this, clarifying our ideas and beliefs as we move on - there's been a LOT of progress, and I think AfungusAmongus would agree with me on that.

Feminism and sexism are opposites - you call it a fallacy because you deny the obvious without reason?

The sky is blue because the sky is blue = tautology, not begging the question.

Feminist ideology is sexist = begging the question BECAUSE I have sourced out MULTIPLE definitions showing feminism is NOT sexist, YET you PERSIST in asserting this as fact with evidence to the contrary THEN use that to refute the evidence I provided. That is begging the question, clear as day and the sky is blue.

Water is wet = circular definition. Saying water is wet because water is wet = tautology.

Learn English, it would help you out.

I will also change one word in this quote and wonder at what will doubtless be your subsequent inability to understand my point [and your assertion that will likely be exactly the same as how I would respond], it's humorous because it's true:

Just go back and read LarsINTJ's first reply, notice the hostility? Don't forget all the other passive aggressive insults sprinkled throughout each subsequent reply.

Sucumbio's arguments? I don't need to bother highlighting them - and most of them are actually just arguments about why you should answer me, something you are hopelessly incapable of doing.

(Bullll... sh*t)
A movement/ideology is and will always be defined by its actions and accomplishments, what an individual thinks is completely irrelevant.

So people are unable to influence a movement, despite the fact that people are the ones who cause the actions and accomplishments? That's like saying voting has no influence - it's factually incorrect.

And you still never answered my question, but I'm not going to bother requiting it again since you either will take the time to answer my queries or [what will happen is] you will ignore me.

Translation: Feminism frees women from the reality that they are responsible for their own actions, your own personal desires matter infinitely more than anyone else, including your own children (children are just tools after all). All that cultural conditioning regarding motherhood is a lie enforced by the patriarchy designed to keep you down, prevent you from achieving your glorious dreams.

See, it's your inability to use English properly that makes this translation laughable, and worthless.

Here's a REAL translation:

Feminism wants to free women from the reality that men want women to raise the kids exclusively and expect women to conform to a man's desires, and protect them from being viewed as sexual objects. Your desires matter just as much as any man or child's. As human beings we should be free to make our own choices, as they allow us to be humans, not objects.

And since humans are necessarily responsible for their own actions, feminists wish to have their decisions respected, although they NEVER state that they want exemption from responsibility - that's a baseless assertion you added.

I see! So dirty masculinity is not even worthy of mention, men need to get in touch with their prissy inner man-hating woman.

What qualities of masculinity are desirable? You'll need to give them to me before even attempting to make this statement.

But no, they state that men are also capable of being sensitive, of crying, of caring for others, and that all people should care for humanity as a whole. That's you blatantly and intentionally misreading something to make a point.

Translation: Men need to be freed from their manhood so that they are able to express true inner perfection (femininity).

Nope. Men should be free to cry, to want to shop for cool clothes [and wear any clothing and any color [pink], regardless of traditional sex roles], to be allowed to raise the family instead of being forced to work in a dead-end job one hates, and how they don't have to act tough and violent.

And what does being free of manhood mean? It says men can be complete, not an image put out by the media - in this world, it would be acceptable, or rather, possible, for 50 Cent to shed tears - as it is, such an image cannot exist in the world today.

...because women are just so gosh-darn peaceful, loving and caring.

Because men are just so gosh-darn peaceful, loving and caring.

Oh wait.

And did you not watch the Ted Talk I linked [if I didn't I'll link in the next post I make]? It already discussed this exact point and clarified well beyond what you've said - at this point you're straw-manning their argument just to find some footing to attack it.

And last I checked, they do it because they care, believe it or not [misguided? I won't say yes or no]. I wouldn't personally spank a child, but I certainly don't condemn or even judge other parents [or my own] for spanking their children.

The complete opposite of filthy masculinity. All the greed, all the war, all the prejudice, all the poor helpless little animals being squished by the uncaring, bloody steel-capped boot of mankind.

What argument are you making? Everyone does these things - as I've said throughout the ENTIRETY of the thread, feminists promote equality on multiple levels, as this says - feminism DOES NOT necessarily contrast itself to masculinity - that is an assumption I am explicitly contesting, and I have stated my disagreement with it earlier, because it is NOT a tenet of feminism. You have established a false dichotomy between masculinity and feminism, which does a lot for me to help explain your virulent hatred of feminism.

Hey look! Progress. You can defend your binary, or else you can continue to ignore everything I say, which will doubtless make your arguments ever more empty.

 

[Claire Diviner]

A movement/ideology is and will always be defined by its actions and accomplishments, what an individual thinks is completely irrelevant.

i.e. I call bullsh*t on this airy-fairy relativism.

You are seriously too damn ignorant for words right now.

Translation: Feminism frees women from the reality that they are responsible for their own actions, your own personal desires matter infinitely more than anyone else, including your own children (children are just tools after all). All that cultural conditioning regarding motherhood is a lie enforced by the patriarchy designed to keep you down, prevent you from achieving your glorious dreams.

First of all, this has nothing to do with children, so get your head out of the deepest reaches of your a** in this debate. The main point is that women need to break from a stereotypical mold where we are expected to perform specific roles because of our gender. The fact that you are completely denigrating us by attacking our own abilities at motherhood, which by the way, was completely unwarranted and utterly disregards a point, showing your malice towards any woman, let alone a feminist.

I see! So dirty masculinity is not even worthy of mention, men need to get in touch with their prissy inner man-hating woman.

No, that wasn't the point either. The point is for men to be more sensitive and empathetic toward women so that we can all be on equal grounds.

Translation: Men need to be freed from their manhood so that they are able to express true inner perfection (femininity).

No! It's so that men don't have to try too damn hard to be a stereotypical macho man. It's okay to be a macho man, if that's how one chooses to live, but if that's not another guy's thing, he doesn't have to feel shame or anxiety for being less brawny. Those who choose to be the rugged type can do so, but with an understanding that they are no better or no more powerful than a woman.

...because women are just so gosh-darn peaceful, loving and caring.

What in the f*** does that have to do with anything?! First off, spanking a child is a completely different topic altogether and does absolutely nothing to support your ludicrous claim. On the contrary, it only further refutes your arguments, since spanking is something that isn't exclusive to any one gender or race, nor is it exclusive to any form of sexual orientation, should you try to go down that route for some reason.

The complete opposite of filthy masculinity! All the greed, all the war, all the prejudice, all the poor helpless little animals being squished by the uncaring, bloody steel-capped boot of mankind.

No! This isn't saying that only feminism is capable of those qualities and are the only ones promoting it. Feminism promotes those qualities alongside any other group that promotes said qualities regardless of who runs them, man or woman, in an attempt to make society better.

Everything you've been saying has either had nothing to do with the topic via hogwash that has no reputed source(s), or has been a direct attack to any and all forms and ideas of not just feminism, but to all forms of the female sex altogether. You're a horrifically biased man, and a terrible troll. You haven't debated anything at all, at least not with anything that would help establish a point where your argument is remotely accurate. Do everyone a favor and rather than just spew pure drivel, learn to actually debate with reputable sources, without total bias, and most of all without discrimination. Good day!

 

[LarsINTJ]

I hope the lurkers can comprehend my intent in clarifying the empty bias amorphism of Feminist 'thought' through example. If you're going to highlight the blatant sexism of Feminism then keep your guard up, you might receive a bomb threat (not even kidding, that happens).

'We're not sexist! Men can be like women too because femininity is the ideal!' Give me a break.

Spare me your stereotypical 'macho' perception of masculinity (which only exists as a result of female preference). Masculinity is about each individual respecting their own desires as they relate to others, Femininity entails social cohesion and self-sacrifice - both are equally important and exist within both genders. There is a massive imbalance within society toward femininity, quite corrupted without the counterweight of masculinity.

...and no, Thor, the wetness of water does not constitute a tautological explanation regarding its essential nature, it is a valid description compared to the invalid antithesis 'water is dry'.

Keep playing victim, @ Claire Diviner , white-knights @ Thor and @ Sucumbio to the rescue.

 

[Thor]

The insults are so real here lol.

... and no LarsINTJ, giving the reasoning "Water is wet because water is wet" IS a tautology, as is saying "I'm right because I'm right." Saying water is wet is merely circular definitions, because wetness is, by definition, saturation of water.

Spoiler: Definitions!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wet

1wet

: covered or soaked with water or another liquid : not dry

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

tau·tol·o·gy

: a statement in which you repeat a word, idea, etc., in a way that is not necessary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek tauto, "the same" and logos, "word/idea") is a logical argument constructed in such a way, generally by repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology, that the proposition as stated is logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion. (A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic.)[a]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_definition

A circular definition is one that uses the term(s) being defined as a part of the definition or assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined.

So sayng "Water is wet because water is wet" is a tautology because it is irrefutable yet has zero valid reasoning behind it, that is, nothing is actually explained about it. Saying "water is wet" is not a tautology, but notice, I never said it was, I only said it was a circular definition. It is a description of its essential nature, but using "because water is wet" as the explanation for why it is wet IS tautological.

Spare me your stereotypical 'macho' perception of masculinity (which only exists as a result of female preference). Masculinity is about each individual respecting their own desires as they relate to others, Femininity entails social cohesion and self-sacrifice - both are equally important and exist within both genders. There is a massive imbalance within society toward femininity, quite corrupted without the counterweight of masculinity.

Spoiler: More Definitions!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/masculinity

masculinity, n
the set of qualities considered appropriate for or characteristic of men <some men believe that wearing pink would undermine their masculinity>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/femininity

femininity, n

1
: the quality or nature of the female sex
2
: effeminacy

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/individualism

individualism, n

1
a (1) : a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount; also : conduct guided by such a doctrine (2) : the conception that all values, rights, and duties originate in individuals
b : a theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action, and interests; also : conduct or practice guided by such a theory

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

collectivism, n

1
: a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2
: emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

You have individualism and collectivism confused with masculinity and femininity [at least as what you have said reads when I substitute words accordingly - I think Claire and Sucumbio would agree that it fits your last post perfectly]. At best you could argue they work in tandems, but I'll say this - America is one of the most individualistic countries in the world, and you can look to a plethora of sources for that [we name people, not family names, when crimes are committed and reported in papers, among other things]. And I also dispute that masculinity does not entail working together [being with other men - man time and man caves with the other men, or whatever] and that femininity does not entail alone time [hop in the hot tub, get nails done, shop alone] - I've laid out a metric crapton of stereotypes that run counter to your assertion.

... So dude, I'll put it like this: you've been watching too many Dr. Pepper 10 commercials. I have nothing against individualism, and I'm hardly a fan of collectivism, but that's for a different thread - this is about masculinity and femininity/feminism, and I am asserting [and offering definitional support for the claim that] those are vastly different from individualism and collectivism.

And for what it's worth, Claire's definition you quoted DID discuss how women should be able to be themselves, not bound to motherhood and in the home... that seems less about self-sacrifice and significantly more about respecting the woman's own desires to hold a job.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

What is this thread about again.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What is this thread about again.

That domestic violence should be equally recognized and frowned upon whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

That domestic violence should be equally recognized and frowned upon whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman.

Don't we all agree on this already. Don't we all agree that all domestic violence is bad. However, there is a 'context' to consider when appointing blame to one party according to the events as they occurred.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I hope the lurkers can comprehend my intent in clarifying the empty bias amorphism of Feminist 'thought' through example. If you're going to highlight the blatant sexism of Feminism then keep your guard up, you might receive a bomb threat (not even kidding, that happens).

This is why no one can take you seriously.

'We're not sexist! Men can be like women too because femininity is the ideal!' Give me a break.

I never said feminism was about making men more feminine. It's an ideal that involves making them more empathetic, as stated before. Clearly, you've never heard the term "tomboy", because those exist, and in case you don't know:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tomboy

Women and feminists alike don't look down upon tomboys for choosing to be more like males, so where's your argument against women who choose to be more masculine?

Spare me your stereotypical 'macho' perception of masculinity (which only exists as a result of female preference). Masculinity is about each individual respecting their own desires as they relate to others, Femininity entails social cohesion and self-sacrifice - both are equally important and exist within both genders.

This is coming from the man with a "fetish" for stereotypes involving feminists' supposed man hate. Your idea of masculinity is on par to what the idea of femininity is about. Feminists want to abolish gender outright, as to remove unnecessary labels and stereotypes associated to any gender, period.

There is a massive imbalance within society toward femininity, quite corrupted without the counterweight of masculinity.

In society? I don't know what country you're from, but around the world, the imbalance of the scale tips in favor of men as a whole worldwide. Tell me of a country or any society where men aren't beaten to death for showing their skin, or for bedding multiple women. Show me a society where men are sold off as sex slaves against their own will. Yes, you're right about one thing: There is indeed an imbalance, but not in favor of what your conspiracy theory believes to be.

Keep playing victim, @ Claire Diviner , white-knights @ Thor and @ Sucumbio to the rescue.

Speak for yourself. You're constantly talking about how women want to overthrow all men and usurp the positions of power around the world, all with your half-baked ideas that all women are inherently evil, especially all feminists, and you show nothing reputable to back up your benighted claims. As for the "white knight" card (you must hail from 4chan, which would make sense, if that were the case), Thor and Sucumbio do not debate on my behalf or to defend me; they counter-argue your posts because even they know you're just spouting inconceivable senselessness fueled by unbelievable bias and hate for all things that makes a woman. We, on the other hand, post without any bias as all, but I suppose trying to convince someone as insipid and as nescient as you is a fool's errand. There are opinions, and then there are extremist views fueled by the mind-warping teachings of others, crap mainstream media spoon-feeds people, or potentially tragic and traumatizing events from one's past. I'll hazard a bet your views are fueled by one or more of those.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

It's impossible to post without bias.

You can try to avoid posting with slant, but that is a slant in and of itself to try to gear what you view as being an impartial voice and rhetoric into a conversation. Also what someone may view as being an unbiased approach is also biased upon their own prejudices and personal judgment. In the most absolute and truest sense of the term it is impossible for anyone to post without bias, much less three individuals.

You can express the opinion that you feel that you're comparatively less biased than the target poster i.e. Lars.

But yeah, I don't understand the whole feminism angle that is going into this conversation nor have I tracked the progression of it. Is this somehow integral to the core point of discussion.

 

[Thor]

Feminists want to abolish gender outright, as to remove unnecessary labels and stereotypes associated to any gender, period.

LarsINTJ, let's just be clear that this doesn't mean feminists abolish that men and women have different physical attributes, rather they remove labels and colors/jobs/roles that are assigned to men and women because they are men/women, not because they wish to do so of their own accord.

It's impossible to post without bias.

You can try to avoid posting with slant, but that is a slant in and of itself to try to gear what you view as being an impartial voice and rhetoric into a conversation. Also what someone may view as being an unbiased approach is also biased upon their own prejudices and personal judgment. In the most absolute and truest sense of the term it is impossible for anyone to post without bias, much less three individuals.

You can express the opinion that you feel that you're comparatively less biased than the target poster i.e. Lars.

But yeah, I don't understand the whole feminism angle that is going into this conversation nor have I tracked the progression of it. Is this somehow integral to the core point of discussion.

We probably actually need a different thread on this entirely... LarsINTJ posted something like "Feminism in a nutshell = man-haters" and I was just like "No that's not what it is at all" and then it sort of spiraled.

Pretty much everyone here seems to agree so far that domestic violence can be perpetrated by either sex, and both sexes can strike back if they are the victim of an unprovoked assault.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It's impossible to post without bias.

You can try to avoid posting with slant, but that is a slant in and of itself to try to gear what you view as being an impartial voice and rhetoric into a conversation. Also what someone may view as being an unbiased approach is also biased upon their own prejudices and personal judgment. In the most absolute and truest sense of the term it is impossible for anyone to post without bias, much less three individuals.

You can express the opinion that you feel that you're comparatively less biased than the target poster i.e. Lars.

I suppose. I mean, I'm no feminist, and I never intend nor care to be one (though after all of this, I probably should be one). I suppose when someone posts with understanding and a neutral mindset while the other clearly does not, things can spiral a little out of control. Then again, who is to say what goes through people's minds and why they believe the way they believe?

But yeah, I don't understand the whole feminism angle that is going into this conversation nor have I tracked the progression of it. Is this somehow integral to the core point of discussion.

I was actually going to post a single question along the lines of "Hey, remember that time when this thread was about domestic violence?" However, I figured it would somehow degrade the caliber of the debater (me, in this case).

It appears the only one who seems to wholly disagree, with a certain partiality to his own views I might add, with any and all forms of anything that is a female is Lars. Seeing as this subject has gone nowhere, with debaters repeating things to and fro, let's just wrap this up and stay on topic as to domestic violence.

If you ask me, no one - man or woman - should ever put their hands on the other, no matter the reason. If a man is being threatened physically, then he has a right to defend himself. That said, what about moments where a woman slaps a man across the face? Usually, there's no malicious intent to harm more than to literally slap sense into the man, yet when it's the other way around, it's seen as immoral. Personally, I see either situation to be unwarranted, because I have a firm stance against all forms of domestic violence, especially when children who are usually present during those moments are very impressionable.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The consequences of our physical differences go deeper than superficiality. We're not the same at all, but that doesn't mean one gender's purview is superior to the other, nor is it necessary (or advisable) for each to become adept at each other's areas of expertise.

My primary issue with Feminism is how it rallies government to force its doctrine upon everyone else. Nothing good can ever come of that, they condemn the idea of patriarchy while attempting to bring their own matriarchy to the forefront. Feminism is a political movement, politics has never had anything to do with equality - all that emotionally convincing fervorous oration? Self-serving manipulation for the sake of appeasing special interests.

All I ask of Feminists is to turn their attention to the proper raising of children instead of politics, that is how we will change the world for the better. You don't even need to call yourself 'Feminist', a decent human being doesn't need a confusing label.

Women have such incredible power to shape the future, far more than men could ever accomplish. Men do in fact bend to the whims and preferences of women, if certain attributes can get a man laid then they will strive to conform. I am sure that women wrestle with their base lizard-brain desires like men do even if it contradicts their conscious ideals.

- Female attractiveness implies healthy offspring (a constant)
- Male aggression implies an efficient provider (contingent on context, whatever it takes to be an efficient provider)
...these are the concerns of the lizard-brain, both have nothing to do with emotional compatibility. Female courtship is a competition with other women over seducing the best male providers. Male courtship is a competition with other men over who is allowed to spread their genes with the healthiest females. This primal dance is potentially destructive from both sides.

Homosexuality breaks the mold somewhat, although there are similarities.

EDIT: Instances of **** encompass psychological issues which go deeper than our biological programming, nor is it gender specific. No human is born a thief, murderer or rapist (or anything for that matter), unrepentant sociopaths are conditioned by a predatory environment. Exception: freak scenarios may involve a brain tumor.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

@Octillus: Thor stole your thunder!

The right to vote, to not be assumed to be weaker than others, to fight on the frontlines if you want, to be able to dress in a sexually provocative manner without worrying how it might affect how a judge or jury views the case if you are sexually mistreated, the right to not be stoned to death in certain countries for having your skin showing... the list goes on.

1) voting - not a male privilege in the West.
2) assumed to be stronger - not really a privilege since it volunteers me for physically demanding tasks and leads to trivializing male victims.
3) fight on frontlines - this dubious privilege is scheduled to be abolished from USA in 2016.
4) victimization taken seriously regardless of clothes - prove it! Remember, men's intimate partner victimization is taken less seriously than women's.
5) sharia law - not in the West, Al-ḥamdu lillāh (thank God)!

These "privileges" are pretty underwhelming. Am I supposed to feel lucky that men oppress women in Saudi Arabia? What benefits does their oppression generate for me?

Not trivializing male victims, because understanding that they can't be sent into depression, and it would also avoid ridicule when seeking depression treatment.
Harsher sentences may be averted for men driven to crime by loneliness. And personally, I think women should be sentenced more harshly, not sentencing men lighter - as Sucumbio clearly stated [and I believe sourced out as well]], that's what feminists want.

It helps, and it also helps other problems you didn't initially cite.

That's quite a stretch. While proper acknowledgement of the complexity and legitimacy of men's emotions would help male victims and destigmatize depression, focusing simply on depression seems like an indirect and ineffective way to fix the anti-male biases in law and popular opinion. What's the motivation for this change of focus?

You have no source for memory bias and identity bias and I stated that I don't think that makes up the difference. But yes, yes we can.

I gave sources for memory bias (women are more likely to remember emotional childhood events) and identity bias (Male victims do not freely admit being victims of intimate partner violence at the hands of females), although I didn't make up spiffy names for the biases when I posted the links so I understand your confusion.

It doesn't make it less of a problem, but it means it's more problematic to be a woman.

You're implying that catcalling+**** is significantly worse than "just" ****. Might wanna rethink that one!

There are parts of patriarchy theory I agree with, and parts I don't. But when one is raised in the system, they may unconsciously enforce it [even anti-racists of old often were subtly racist because they didn't realize it - the same can hold for women, especially those who do not try to be feminist].

Fair point, but it follows that men may unconsciously enforce gender roles as well, often to their own detriment, especially those who don't reflect on men's rights.

My citation of reasons was earlier. I don't feel like re-listing it right now.

WEAK SAUCE

Ooh nice catch. But I disagree with your assertion - cracking down in the jail system and raising taxes are the best two places to start fixing American society, and neither of those actually advance men's rights [unless you count equality of jail time, but that hurts women, not helps men]. After that, we need to stop the images of masculinity put out by the media that disrespect other human beings and develop more positive role models to improve the future of America, but that's my opinion.

Good luck raising taxes, did you just say that to piss off Lars? Have to agree about the jail system: ending the war on nonviolent drug offenders is probably the easiest and most impactful fix. [insert joke about stoners failing to lobby Congress because whoa man this painting is trippy]

I also think anti-male bias pales in comparison to some of the favoritism men receive elsewhere that is also hidden.

Such as...?

They lost one job, not many, because of not being viewed as able to raise kids - a substantially smaller piece of the pie.

A smaller but safer slice of the pie, yes.

Many men signed contracts with various craftsmen to get jobs in various industries - they likely had at least a small choice. And if they ran away, they could actually potentially work in a factory or as a farmhand, while a woman would still have to do her "natural" jobs.

Women did have other options: they worked as spinsters since the 1400's and as factory workers since the 1800's.

Women were hit when they were disrespectful - it was a cultural norm almost everywhere - I can source it out but I figured it was common knowledge that women who disobeyed were beaten because of how the Bible and other sources that were held in great esteem discussed the issue [then again, LarsINTJ seems to think that feminism=evil is common knowledge, so I guess we'll have to throw those assumptions out here...]

What sources show that wife-beating was "certainly no less prevalent" than workplace beatings, accidental injuries, and battlefield casualties? Isn't it common knowledge that historical dudes often died horrible premature deaths because of their jobs?

 

[Thor]

The consequences of our physical differences go deeper than superficiality. We're not the same at all, but that doesn't mean one gender's purview is superior to the other, nor is it necessary (or advisable) for each to become adept at each other's areas of expertise.

My primary issue with Feminism is how it rallies government to force its doctrine upon everyone else. Nothing good can ever come of that, they condemn the idea of patriarchy while attempting to bring their own matriarchy to the forefront. Feminism is a political movement, politics has never had anything to do with equality, ignore the emotionally convincing fervorous oration - self-serving manipulation.

All I ask of Feminists is to turn their attention to the proper raising of children instead of politics, that is how we will change the world for the better. You don't even need to call yourself 'Feminist', a decent human being doesn't need a confusing label.

Women have such incredible power to shape the future, far more than men could ever accomplish. Men do in fact bend to the whims and preferences of women, if certain attributes can get a man laid then they will strive to conform. I am sure that women wrestle with their base lizard-brain desires like men do even if it contradicts their conscious ideals.

- Female attractiveness implies healthy offspring (a constant)
- Male aggression implies an efficient provider (contingent on context, whatever it takes to be an efficient provider)
...these are the concerns of the lizard-brain, both have nothing to do with emotional compatibility. Female courtship is a competition with other women over seducing the best male providers. Male courtship is a competition with other men over who is allowed to spread their genes with the healthiest females. This primal dance is potentially destructive from both sides.

Yes, occasionally broken men step out of line and ignore female permission, reprehensible, just as the instances of manipulative parasitic life-destroying women should be considered reprehensible.

Homosexuality breaks the mold somewhat, although there are similarities.

I break the mold too, and I don't really give a damn about most other people on the planet. I also don't bend my will to anyone who doesn't give me a very good reason, and "Getting laid" isn't one of those reasons - never has been, never will be.

Feminism is trying to legislate changes that will stop people from viewing women as sexual objects and also treat them as equal before men under the law [except for the jail thing]. EVEN IF lizard-brains are driving people, the idea that we should simply accept our lizard-brain is FALSE - lizard-brains will kill to achieve anything - those without a moral compass [which more often then not runs directly opposed to hedonistic (lizard-brain) whims] are psychopaths/sociopaths [I forget the correct term] and we've seen where that leads us.

There is no self-serving manipulation - you've attributed an ulterior motive where one does not exist. Your claim is also non-falsifiable given the lack of sourcing, which makes it unhelpful considering it is not a given.

You still have no source for your women shaping the future, and I still affirm that men shape far more than women ever could from their positions of power - men influence children significantly more that you accredit them for.

@Octillus: Thor stole your thunder!


1) voting - not a male privilege in the West.
2) assumed to be stronger - not really a privilege since it volunteers me for physically demanding tasks and leads to trivializing male victims.
3) fight on frontlines - this dubious privilege is scheduled to be abolished from USA in 2016.
4) victimization taken seriously regardless of clothes - prove it! Remember, men's intimate partner victimization is taken less seriously than women's.
5) sharia law - not in the West, Al-ḥamdu lillāh (thank God)!

These "privileges" are pretty underwhelming. Am I supposed to feel lucky that men oppress women in Saudi Arabia? What benefits does their oppression generate for me?

Octillus can add more, disagree with me, say whatever he wants about this, I'm just responding to what you said.

And I'm a Pika, isn't that my job?

Anything that is something women do not have somewhere is necessarily a benefit being a man confers - if one side is disadvantaged by something asymmetrical, the other side is necessarily advantaged. So that moots your responses to 1 and 5 right off the bat. 2 and 3 are relevant as well because of the same thing - if you and a woman are both potential targets for theft, and you are of similar build, the woman is the one who likely will be targeted, because she's assumed to be weaker and more compliant.

I'll give more - the ability in pretty much every public facility in the world to have easier access to bathrooms [there are many facilities where women's bathrooms were only installed in a few locations instead of equally], the ability to more easily acquire jobs from sexist companies/job interviewers [they're out there, like it or not - and being a man will help you beat out females, a direct advantage], the right to not be questioned for doing something on the basis of being a woman [it happened to Hilary Clinton, it can happen anywhere]. There are also rights conferred biologically [not having to take time off from work in the weeks before a childbirth and worry about your job being replaced] but I don't really count those.

That's quite a stretch. While proper acknowledgement of the complexity and legitimacy of men's emotions would help male victims and destigmatize depression, focusing simply on depression seems like an indirect and ineffective way to fix the anti-male biases in law and popular opinion. What's the motivation for this change of focus?

Depression is a piece of the pie, and it also directly shows that men can cry and be sad and it's ok, which are the primary emotions men are supposed to show - they are already allowed to be happy, jealous, angry, surprised, excited, etc.

I gave sources for memory bias (women are more likely to remember emotional childhood events) and identity bias (Male victims do not freely admit being victims of intimate partner violence at the hands of females), although I didn't make up spiffy names for the biases when I posted the links so I understand your confusion.

Ok then.

You're implying that catcalling+**** is significantly worse than "just" ****. Might wanna rethink that one!

I'm implying being catcalled sucks. And I said it's more problematic, because it instills fear even in those not *****, not significantly worse. If you want, I'm sure I can go pull statistics that say more women fear men than ****, and things like catcalling are surely part of the problem.

Fair point, but it follows that men may unconsciously enforce gender roles as well, often to their own detriment, especially those who don't reflect on men's rights.

WEAK SAUCE

Yep. Although I never seek to actively limit men's rights, I admit there are more problems than I first saw. Thanks.

Weak sauce that you can't reread what I already wrote. Why should I repeat myself when you can just reread it? It's wasting space on SWF.

Good luck raising taxes, did you just say that to piss off Lars? Have to agree about the jail system: ending the war on nonviolent drug offenders is probably the easiest and most impactful fix. [insert joke about stoners failing to lobby Congress because whoa man this painting is trippy]

No, I say that because people need to raise taxes if we are ever to raise ourselves out of this ~20 trillion debt in any reasonable timespan, and dragging it out won't help. For what it's worth, I think we also need rather deep spending cuts coupled with the tax increases. [Economics be damned, it may slow the economy but it will die if people stop lending to us, and I would rather slow it now then slow it at 70 trillion in debt several years down the road.]

Such as...?

Everything I listed above about voting and so forth, that which we take for granted and have when others do not have it (sort of how we often only appreciate electricity when we don't have it).

A smaller but safer slice of the pie, yes.

Women did have other options: they worked as spinsters since the 1400's and as factory workers since the 1800's.

Men still did have more options, and for what it's worth, women invented almost nothing major - because they had no ideas, or because they couldn't pursue ideas they had/weren't educated to think more?

What sources show that wife-beating was "certainly no less prevalent" than workplace beatings, accidental injuries, and battlefield casualties? Isn't it common knowledge that historical dudes often died horrible premature deaths because of their jobs?

http://jmichaelphillips.blogspot.com/2010/12/women-and-media-in-1950s-and-1960s.html

This is the 50s where wife-beating is legal [as is spousal ****] and child battery occurred frequently. And there are passages in the Bible and so on that discuss how wife-beating is completely acceptable as long as it's done "properly" or whatever, and there were fewer mores relating to violence against a woman who "misbehaved".

Perhaps it was not statistically as likely, but it was certainly a distinct and relevant hazard for being a wife.

And of course historical dudes died premature deaths because of their jobs.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The consequences of our physical differences go deeper than superficiality. We're not the same at all, but that doesn't mean one gender's purview is superior to the other, nor is it necessary (or advisable) for each to become adept at each other's areas of expertise.

Well, no one really said that a man needed to be like a woman, or for a woman to be like a man. The main issue was for better treatment of women in the professional workplace, not just in terms of equal pay, but to treat women with more respect. Not that there aren't men who don't go through this, but there are far more reported cases of sexual harassment toward women than there are men. If this is due to the men's misplaced sense of pride in not reporting such abuse can very well be a problem, and that pride is a stereotype worth ridding from society.

My primary issue with Feminism is how it rallies government to force its doctrine upon everyone else. Nothing good can ever come of that, they condemn the idea of patriarchy while attempting to bring their own matriarchy to the forefront. Feminism is a political movement, politics has never had anything to do with equality - all that emotionally convincing fervorous oration? Self-serving manipulation for the sake of appeasing special interests.

Feminism doesn't seek to force anything, at least not the non-extremist forms of feminism. Also, that talk about "self-serving manipulation"? The same could be argued against civil rights of blacks, equality for the LGBT community, etc. from those who are wholly opposed to their ideals. The only real difference is a lack of discriminating crimes, including murder, against women, but the point still stands as there are people - not just men, but even some twisted conservative women - who believe that a woman who gets ***** deserved it on the grounds that her clothing was what got her ***** in the first place, as if the victim is the one to blame, and this issue was actually a thing as recently as earlier this year and late last year. That doesn't include other issues women face.

All I ask of Feminists is to turn their attention to the proper raising of children instead of politics, that is how we will change the world for the better.

You act as if all feminists are terrible mothers, and on what grounds exactly? Unless said feminist mothers are teaching their children to hate and/or kill all men (which again, only the extremists do), anyone, including feminists, are doing perfectly fine as mothers, so long as child or domestic abuse isn't a thing in their household.

Women have such incredible power to shape the future, far more than men could ever accomplish.

Last I checked, much of history has taught that there were far more men in power that shaped the world to the way it currently is than women have. That's not to say there are no historic figures of interest of the female sex, but the number of male figures in history compared to the number of females is quite large.

Men do in fact bend to the whims and preferences of women, if certain attributes can get a man laid then they will strive to conform.

I can understand that first part well enough, and I don't have any argument there, although the same can be said for the other way around; there are plenty of women who will bend backwards for the men they love. That underlined portion, however, is a bit unclear, so you'll need to elaborate further, if you please.

I am sure that women wrestle with their base lizard-brain desires like men do even if it contradicts their conscious ideals.

- Female attractiveness implies healthy offspring (a constant)
- Male aggression implies an efficient provider (contingent on context, whatever it takes to be an efficient provider)
...these are the concerns of the lizard-brain, both have nothing to do with emotional compatibility. Female courtship is a competition with other women over seducing the best male providers. Male courtship is a competition with other men over who is allowed to spread their genes with the healthiest females. This primal dance is potentially destructive from both sides.

This speaks for all creatures at a primal level, and though the same can be easily stated for human beings, this isn't always the case, especially since there are plenty of women deemed "ugly" by society getting laid with men deemed "sexy" and having kids and vice versa. Also, not all men and women of top physical conditioning get laid either, as the same scenario applies as the previous. This is why I believe Darwinism, although it should apply to homo sapiens, isn't applied because we live in a society where all human beings are seen as precious and equal to fair chance at life regardless of health, but that's a whole different topic altogether. While I do agree that we have this primal instinct, the last, I dunno, four or five, or even more generations, especially with how society has evolved has suppressed these instincts quite heavily. It's why we have the phrase, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Instances of **** encompass psychological issues which go deeper than our biological programming, nor is it gender specific. No human is born a thief, murderer or rapist, sociopaths are conditioned by their environment (exception: freak scenarios may involve a brain tumor).

This goes without saying. Though one must beg the question as to where these acts originate from. It can be argued it's from primal instinct of survival, including ****, since there are animals that have been known to **** to pass down their genes by force. In today's society, things, like those actions, have been rendered totally unnecessary in almost any scenario, yet are taught either directly or inadvertently by other individuals or - as stated by you - the environment.

Homosexuality breaks the mold somewhat, although there are similarities.

Homosexual couples are at much of a risk of domestic violence as any other straight couple, so the issue is pretty much universal. Also, the rules of attraction and the suppressed instincts as stated in my last couple of responses still apply.

 

[LarsINTJ]

(@ Thor replied before I finished editing, but there's no significant differences besides clarity)

I break the mold too, and I don't really give a damn about most other people on the planet. I also don't bend my will to anyone who doesn't give me a very good reason, and "Getting laid" isn't one of those reasons - never has been, never will be.

Really, then why are you so concerned about what I say?

Also, what do your own preferences and experience have to do with biology? I'm a Zeta, i.e. exclude myself from the courtship paradigm, but that doesn't mean my choices somehow invalidate a system which has been in place since the dawn of human history.

Feminism is trying to legislate changes that will stop people from viewing women as sexual objects and also treat them as equal before men under the law [except for the jail thing].

Sexual objects, huh? How about women stop obsessing over their own physical appearance before reprimanding men for being inevitably turned on (as intended). How about Feminists admit that women also possess a prevalent tendency to view men as 'sexual objects'. We're all 'sexual objects', that's why we're alive.

EVEN IF lizard-brains are driving people, the idea that we should simply accept our lizard-brain is FALSE - lizard-brains will kill to achieve anything - those without a moral compass [which more often then not runs directly opposed to hedonistic (lizard-brain) whims] are psychopaths/sociopaths [I forget the correct term] and we've seen where that leads us.

'Lizard-brain' refers to the foundation of our brain structure, a foundation which we share with many other animals. Evolution does not fundamentally change life over time, it gradually builds upon the old. The human aspect of our brain is extremely new compared to the 'lizard-brain' aspect.

...and it's utterly fallacious to assume that 'lizard-brain' somehow implies a murderous free-for-all. A species would have quickly gone extinct if it were unable to cooperate, protect or nurture itself.

There is no self-serving manipulation - you've attributed an ulterior motive where one does not exist. Your claim is also non-falsifiable given the lack of sourcing, which makes it unhelpful considering it is not a given.

Politics is self-serving, that's pretty damn evident. It's all about what I want, what I think is best, the change that I desire. I'll force my beliefs on everyone else then insist that everything would be hypothetically worse without my clueless intervention regardless of the consequences. That's how politicians make their living.

You still have no source for your women shaping the future, and I still affirm that men shape far more than women ever could from their positions of power - men influence children significantly more that you accredit them for.

It doesn't matter what you affirm - come on, you can't possibly say with a straight face that women aren't over-represented as primary school teachers, childcare workers, homemakers, single parents etc. Women dominate early childhood and the future consequentially guided by our collective early childhoods. This kind of power puts the political bickering of men to shame, yet Feminists shun it as if they've been herded into a gender-based cage.

Independence is a great thing, we should all strive for it, but women should not expect to reach the top of the business world and have kids (without neglecting them), the two realms do not mix.

 

[Thor]

Really, then why are you so concerned about what I say?

Also, what do your own preferences and experience have to do with biology? I'm a Zeta, i.e. exclude myself from the courtship paradigm, but that doesn't mean my choices somehow invalidate a system which has been in place since the dawn of human history.

I care about equality, even if I don't care about the individual people as individuals. Seeing inequality [injustice in the world] makes me mad/is upsetting, and seeing someone attack a group that is for equality [I understand as being for equality] feels relevant. I'm explaining it poorly, but I hope this will suffice.

My own experience suggests biology can be overcome - in this case I think that's desirable, and since it has been done [by you as well, it appears], there would not seem to be an obvious barrier to others doing so and breaking the behavior.

Sexual objects, huh? How about women stop obsessing over their own physical appearance before reprimanding men for being inevitably turned on (as intended). How about Feminists admit that women also possess a prevalent tendency to view men as 'sexual objects'. We're all 'sexual objects', that's why we're alive.

Psychology finds that women obsess because of biology - it's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that men are justified in viewing women as sexual objects (or that women should view men as such either). And the problem is when someone allows themselves to view others as sexual objects first, people second [or sexual objects only] - that kind of objectification is bad for a variety of reasons [I can go into it right now, but I'd hope you can guess why].

I also don't think that's why we're alive, but that's an existential question I don't want to deal with. Unless I'm taking you too literally, but I don't think people were born just to reproduce.

'Lizard-brain' refers to the foundation of our brain structure, a foundation which we share with many other animals. Evolution does not fundamentally change life over time, it gradually builds upon it. The human aspect of our brain is extremely new compared to the 'lizard-brain' aspect.
...and it's utterly fallacious to assume that 'lizard-brain' somehow implies a murderous free-for-all. A species would have quickly gone extinct if it were unable to cooperate, protect or nurture itself.

I know that about the lizard-brain part, I got what you were saying [Limbic system].

And it's not necessarily a murderous free-for-all, but unlike other species, we don't have a pecking order defined by might [muscle] alone - guns exist and disrupt the order, whereas a weak animal knows it can't possibly challenge a pack leader, and the pack leader gains nothing by killing the little ones who let it lead. I think our morals tend to serve that function, but it could very well be a murderous free-for-all because anyone can get weapons and be on top, which means those on top must move to defend themselves in a world where that is morally acceptable. I think nurturing is instinctual in both sexes of humans.

Politics is self-serving, that's pretty damn evident. It's all about what I want, what I think is best, the change that I desire. I'll force my beliefs on everyone else then insist that everything would be hypothetically worse without my clueless intervention regardless of the consequences. That's how politicians make their living.

Some feminists are apolitical [though that would be grossly ineffective in certain things]. And while I also detest career politicians, there are political interventions that improve situations - aid to developing countries may serve the US via ally-building, but vaccines have saved lives and improve situations, and allowed some care centers to open where they otherwise very well might not exist. I think implementing laws that criminalize martial **** [spousal **** is another name for it] are very good and an example of successful feminism - that women have rights over their body, even while married to a man. It's a form of equality [I don't know how common martial **** of a man is, but if there aren't laws about that, there darn well should be].

It doesn't matter what you affirm - come on, you can't possibly say with a straight face that women aren't over-represented as primary school teachers, childcare workers, homemakers, single parents etc. Women dominate early childhood and the future consequentially guided by our collective early childhoods. This kind of power puts the political bickering of men to shame, yet Feminists shun it as if they've been herded into a gender-based cage.

Your affirmations don't matter either, it's about the data that is out there. This is a point I have been making the entire thread [more or less], but somehow your former affirmations were unequivocal facts and mine are irrelevant. How cute.

For what it's worth, I think in a top 5 of my most influential teachers, at least 3 of them, and I think 4, are men [top 6, 4 are definitely men, but ranking 5 and 6 is tricky], and I know that for many men I know, the most influential teacher in their life was a man. Male teachers may be the minority, but they affect a lot of people.

And women can't just brainwash kids - many kids escape abusive religions, change political ideologies, and someone had to reject the teaching that black people and/or women were inferior and belonged in the households for women and people who weren't white to start making changes toward equality. I think people shape their own destiny and influence their own futures much more than you'd like to admit.

Also, the men end up predominantly in the political sphere and can thus affect how childcares and schools are run, which helps them influence those institutions more.

And, even if that WAS true, I pointed out that there is something like 20% stay-at-home dads [I can go get the stat again if I need to]. That means if you are right that parents necessarily control how kids grow up, men are starting to get more control, and that number has been rising for quite some time, and there are no trends that would stop this increase as of now.

 

[LarsINTJ]

We're alive because our parents had sex, just to be clear. I didn't mean to suggest that sex is the meaning of life, we're not capable of answering that question so it's pointless to dwell upon.

Also, @ Thor , I would guess that the reason you generally remember your male teachers more fondly than females was because you (as is the case for most children nowadays) yearned for masculine role-models amidst a sea of childhood femininity.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Also, @ Thor , I would guess that the reason you generally remember your male teachers more fondly than females was because you (as is the case for most children nowadays) yearned for masculine role-models amidst a sea of childhood femininity.

Or it could be because they happen to be more fun than his female teachers. I've had my fair share of male and female teachers, and the one I remembered fondly was my (female) Chinese class teacher. She made everything so fun, and the Chinese language films she'd have us watch, and the songs and rhymes we'd sing. Mind you, this is from high school alone.

Second place goes to a male art teacher who was really chill. Everyone swore he was a hippie, based on his dress and his attitude, and it was awesome being in his class.

The point I'm making is that Thor remembering a male teacher more fondly can very well be coincidental, and saying he "unconsciously yearned for a male role model" is drawing a huge assumption, and is reading way too deep into it.

 

[Thor]

We're alive because our parents had sex, just to be clear. I didn't mean to suggest that sex is the meaning of life, we're not capable of answering that question so it's pointless to dwell upon.

Also, @ Thor , I would guess that the reason you generally remember your male teachers more fondly than females was because you (as is the case for most children nowadays) yearned for masculine role-models amidst a sea of childhood femininity.

My very top teacher is actually a female Calc teacher I had, who pretty much everyone loved though... then there was [in no particular order] my Calc III teacher who was a math professor and studied topology, my Physics teacher who made Physics relatively easy [the one day we had the other teacher as a sub was super confusing and he had to recover half the stuff so we understood it, and people in that class who had him as a sub a few times preferred him], a Chemistry teacher who made Chem fun/interesting and made me realize I might do well in science, and probably my Psychology teacher, or else one of two communications teachers, one of whom was male and one of whom was female. But the top is certainly a female, for what it's worth.

I didn't really need a male role model - I always thought my dad was someone I should be like, and there were some people on TV who seemed worth being like [and Bill Nye] (though searching for role models in mass media has created some of the problems with black masculinity today, interestingly enough, since most people search for same-race role models).

I also think you're reading into it a bit much - I kina of wanted to be a math teacher like either of my math professors, but I didn't really want to be a Chem teacher or a Lit teacher even though I think they made a signifcant difference in my education/I enjoyed their classes. I think I appreciated those teachers because they cared a lot about their subjects - I've had sucky teachers before [only a few] and I didn't like the at all - I know there was at least one male and at least one female among those teachers I think were terrible, so I don't think it was me clinging to male teachers for some sort of masculinity, given that I remember a male teacher or two in a (very) negative light.

 

[Sucumbio]

Independence is a great thing, we should all strive for it, but women should not expect to reach the top of the business world and have kids (without neglecting them), the two realms do not mix.

/thread ...

 

[Claire Diviner]

Independence is a great thing, we should all strive for it, but women should not expect to reach the top of the business world and have kids (without neglecting them), the two realms do not mix.

Wow, how in the hell did I miss this?!

Are you seriously saying that with a straight face? How many women out there who are globally successful have children? I can tell you the answer is quite a few of them.

Terry Press
Nina Jacobson
Kate Winslet
Anne Sweeney
J. K. Rowling (one of my personal favorite role models)
Indra Nooyi
Jill Abramson

This is just to name a few. Where in the hell did you get that idea? I know for a fact it wasn't through statistics, since there are women, including the ones I've listed, who already disprove the fatuity of your half-baked claim.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Not just women, men too. Don't underestimate the dedication required to raise a child properly, I'm not referring to material sustenance (which is necessary, but not sufficient). I have no sympathy for irresponsible parents who ignorantly declare they're doing 'the best they can' while the child's emotional health is crippled under a pile of unnecessary gift-wrapped distractions.

@ Claire Diviner , it seems you are unaware of the kinds of exponential sacrifices one must make to be increasingly successful in the free market, sacrifices which all too often involve neglect. Constant travel, longer work hours, additional responsibilities (particularly for things which go wrong), it's exhausting stuff. Now try to combine that with the exhaustion of raising kids. Either your business relations are going to suffer, or your kids are going to suffer. There's no such thing as a super-mother/father who is capable of flawlessly achieving everything, our time is limited.

Dreams must be put on hold while raising children, lest future relationships turn unsavory. Again, regardless of gender.

Also, it's almost always the case (not always!) that the personal lives of famous people are absolute wrecks under the glamorous surface, they're hardly any sort of ideal we should aspire to emulate. i.e. The famous are not much different from common folk.

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ Claire Diviner , it seems you are unaware of the kinds of exponential sacrifices one must make to be increasingly successful in the free market, sacrifices which all too often involve neglect. Constant travel, longer work hours, additional responsibilities (particularly for things which go wrong), it's exhausting stuff. Now try to combine that with the exhaustion of raising kids. Either your business relations are going to suffer, or your kids are going to suffer. There's no such thing as a super-mother/father who is capable of flawlessly achieving everything, our time is limited.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/hollywoods-power-women-10-ways-663962

These women seem to be successful, and they don't neglect their children if they make sure they're well taken care of. Nanny agencies and daycares, as well as assistants exist for a reason, so that if the parent(s) can't be there, their children are still fed, educated, and socialized with the money said parent(s) provide.

You seem to speak harshly about mothers in your post, but fail to mention successful fathers who happen to not spend enough time at home. Why do they have the benefit to "neglect" their children by working in their businesses while a woman apparently cannot without receiving your ire for trying to make a living despite having a child, even though their intention is to provide a better living for their children? You have to stop the bias. Parenting roles are not gender-specific.

 

[LarsINTJ]

@ Claire Diviner . Yeah, whatever. If you're not even making an effort to comprehend (or even read?) what I'm saying then I'm not going to pretend we're having a discussion.

 

[Sucumbio]

She understood, she just doesn't agree with you, lol. There's no evidence to suggest that a child raised in day care is any worse off than a child raised by a stay-at-home mom or dad. Not to mention the fact that most of the country's in such economic shape that both parents have no choice but to work full time jobs... or even worse, 2 part time jobs... each. Should we all put breeding on hold until the country can go back to WWII era (it'll never happen, btw)? Is that right? That way Man can go join the Navy then come home impregnate Woman with 6 kids and start an oil business and one day be president? Sure, that's ideal. Except it's not. Why should it be this way? Why did Barbara Bush drop out of college? Why was she ingrained at home and again at boarding school to learn her place in society so that it wasn't her that joined the navy, it wasn't her that started an oil business? And can you really blame her? Or her societal conditioning? Nope. She had -no choice-. Women didn't fight in the Navy. They sure as heck didn't start multi-million dollar businesses. It wasn't until Feminists decided that hey wait a minute, this isn't right...

I also think a difficulty you're having is that you perceive pregnancy as an affliction. But in the real world, it's not a disease. It's not debilitating. I've plenty of co-workers who get pregnant. They work right up until a day or so before going into labor. And are back at work within a week of giving birth. Their friends and family and hired help, do what they have to do to ensure the child is taken care of while they continue on their job. This is life... this is what people do. This idea that once a woman is pregnant her whole life has to stop for the next 18 years IS a patriarchal concept, and it's over now. And it's not even their fault, really. It's teabaggers. Red state politics and spending habits that's led to this. Bush Jr. did this to us. He made it so impossible to keep the American lifestyle in the ideal as YOU perceive it that we all have to work now, just to live kinda good. Hell, Me and my wife make close to 50k a year, in the poorest state in the Union, and we STILL LIVE WITH HER PARENTS. >< I'm almost 40 ****in years old, and I don't even Own A Home. Yeah... times are very different. Hell, I had 5 parents doting on me, and only 1 of them had a job! The others were retired, my grandparents and grandaunt, and my mother, who (big surprise) quit her job when she got pregnant with me. And my dad got laid off, and because she quit her job, no money, we had to move in with HER parents. We just never left. Had we left, once he got a job again, then we'd have grown up very differently. But my father was always a bit selfish, more interested in spending 'his' money on 'his' things so the necessary stuff was bought and paid for by the other four. It was a nice system actually aside from the whole, my dad was kinda useless thing, but whatever. Now had my mother been allowed to work, instead, well shoot, no telling what'd been like. Before retiring she had 2 major contracts she fulfilled. She designed the Ocean Spray Cranberry World, Co. Ltd. graphic arts at their headquarters and museum. Then she designed the foreign bird exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science. She's still got money in her savings account from those two pay offs. And she quit. So dad could be a man. If I could pull a stewie griffon and slap some sense into her I would, but that time's past. Now is a new time, the new generations of Americans and this kind of folly is finally beginning to fade.

BTW

You never answered my questions. You may not think they're relevant, but they are.

Oh and just so I don't do you the same discourtesy, the reason I gave no citations in the last few posts is because by default the citations given previously are in play. Wikipedia. Once you are able to prove that the Feminism page on wiki is in fact biased, then I'll look for something else, how's that?

Edit: We should change the "like" feature on SWF to a thumbs up thumbs down like on FB. Who's with me on this!

 

[Claire Diviner]

@ Claire Diviner . Yeah, whatever. If you're not even making an effort to comprehend (or even read?) what I'm saying then I'm not going to pretend we're having a discussion.

Your head is so far up your a**, you are confusing my disagreement with the inability to cognize. That is your problem, and so too are your chances of being taken seriously in this debate.

 

[kiteinthesky]

I really hate how these debates about discrimination against men or women always devolve into ****-fights and flamewars about the nature and credibility of feminism. Who cares? What matters is whether discrimination is happening or not and what to do about it. You don't need to be associated with a movement to look at behavioral trends and see that they're wrong. It would be just as silly for an argument about racism to devolve into what the civil rights movement is all about.

Are there any actual statistics proving a bias against men in divorces, or domestic violence cases? I know there are stats showing that most rapists get away with their crimes. Is there a breakdown by the gender of the victim?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Are there any actual statistics proving a bias against men in divorces, or domestic violence cases? I know there are stats showing that most rapists get away with their crimes. Is there a breakdown by the gender of the victim?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States

This link points to statistics of **** in the United States alone (never mind other countries, especially those where women are treated with less worth than dogs). For those who cry "foul" over the fact it's a Wikipedia link, it has citations linking to the sources of the statistics and info, so look to those if the Wiki article isn't enough to suffice.

 

[AfungusAmongus]

Divorce - (custody) - women 4x more likely than men to win custody in court.
Divorce (child support) - women almost twice as likely to win child support as men (when they get custody).
Divorce (alimony) - men are 97% of alimony payers, women are only 3%.
Domestic violence - men imprisoned 8-26% more often, and for a year longer, than women for the same offenses.

Criminal sentencing - Sex effects favoring women are far more frequent than race effects favoring whites.

 

[Sucumbio]

Divorce - (custody) - women 4x more likely than men to win custody in court.

Divorce (child support) - women almost twice as likely to win child support as men (when they get custody).

Divorce (alimony) - men are 97% of alimony payers, women are only 3%.

Men typically have higher paying jobs than women. Software developers, computer admins, project managers, 90% male. Administrators, school teachers, nurses 90% female. Even though men do make more than women in the same job, it is only by about 2-3% (it's still wrong, of course to pay men more by virtue of their gender alone, but that's not the point). Point being that once a couple splits, the courts have to decide who is most likely to make the most money. And as is obvious, the man is. Not only do men have a better chance to get the jobs that pay the most, but women earn fewer raises, and are more likely to "top out" at an earlier age, with 10s of thousands in the difference, 90k for men and 60k for women.

So yah, women are going to typically be awarded child support, because men are in the vastly better position to be the ones to pay the ****. AND, since they make more in general, of course they're the ones who'll be expected to pay the alimony.

The court is self interested in this as well. The more high-paying jobs that are filled, the more taxes can be withheld. Since high paying jobs are more likely to be offered to men, it makes sense for the courts to award custody to women, because women won't be getting any jobs anyway that count for anything and they'll be getting their child support and Welfare payments to make up the difference.

Criminal sentencing - Sex effects favoring women are far more frequent than race effects favoring whites.

Men make up the overwhelming majority of inmates in the United States (table 1). Blacks ares 6 times more likely to be imprisoned than whites; blacks and Hispanics make up 68% of total prison population. It's clear that men are, yes, more likely to be found guilty of crimes, but that minorities are more likely as well, meaning that gender and race are closer not "far more."

Domestic violence - men imprisoned 8-26% more often, and for a year longer, than women for the same offenses.

Men make up the overwhelming majority of arresting officers in the United States (table 76) while females are put to office jobs, like the military (and I saw your post about women being allowed to one day fight on the front lines but let's be real it won't be 50/50 it'll be 9999/1). Meanwhile, male judges far outnumber women. What this means is that at the most crucial time during an incident, the making of the arrest report, it is male police who are deciding who the victim is and once again, "women are delicate flowers." This ends in court, run by mostly men, and so the sentencing difference (the sentences are the same just that all sentences come with a "maximum," it's not as if males get an automatic +1 on top of maximum just for being male, just that on average males get a harsher sentence, and it's usually a year more, according to your study). Therefore, the real reason why domestics seem to be skewed in favor of men, is, ironically, men.

I really hate how these debates about discrimination against men or women always devolve into ****-fights and flamewars about the nature and credibility of feminism. Who cares? What matters is whether discrimination is happening or not and what to do about it. You don't need to be associated with a movement to look at behavioral trends and see that they're wrong. It would be just as silly for an argument about racism to devolve into what the civil rights movement is all about.

Defining Feminism is important if the debate is "Feminism = Man-hate." Just as in a debate over racism it is important to identify what racism actually is. You'd be surprised to learn that some people didn't think segregation was inherently racist. Though I appreciate your need for a "common sense" approach, it's impossible when multiple parties disagree on what "common sense" prescribes for things such as race, gender equality, etc.

Are there any actual statistics proving a bias against men in divorces, or domestic violence cases? I know there are stats showing that most rapists get away with their crimes. Is there a breakdown by the gender of the victim?

Statistics are dead information, unfortunately. Within any unspecified amount of time the "results" could have changed. Aside from that, statistics can be pulled with bias, either in the subjects polled, or the questions asked. And then the debater themselves can use statistics either incorrectly or out of context. The better "proof" is in examining policy and understanding the implications implicit to those policies.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That's an example of what I like to call "bro feminism", it's serving a feminist issue(namely anti-DV) but it reinforces gender roles both male and female and because of that is ultimately opposed to feminism.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I thought I should share this here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...home-after-receiving-harrowing-death-threats/

Mind you, all she was talking about was how games tend to sexualize women, objectifying them. Sure, we have the female protagonist, but the vast majority of them were made with males in mind to give them eye candy to look at. The fact that gaming is a male-dominated medium that holds on to the motto, "sex sells", does little to favor a woman's image to most men other than being a "piece of meat" which they can just have.

That said, this article is a showcase of how this woman simply sharing how she feels about a female's representation in games triggered gross and unwarranted maltreatment by a bunch of male gamers, many going as far as to send her death and **** threats of her and even her family. Now, I don't know if this is just me and my knowledge of what freedom of speech allows is muddied up or something, but this kind of online hazing is not only completely unnecessary, but it should be deemed illegal across all states (if it hasn't already).

It's things, like this, that make feminists fight for equality, so that they don't have to deal with issues such as this. Incidentally enough, it is also gross misogynists who perform despicable acts like these that can turn a feminist (or even non-feminists for that matter) into the men-hating extremists that do exist (not that I approve in any way an extremist's point of view).