Feminist type.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Do you feel that most females are inferior to most males?

Not in any broad way, no. Most females are worse in spatial reasoning, but then again, most males are worse at verbal communication. However, in terms of an overall statistical average of abilities, moral character, and importance (importance in a hypothetical society free from sexism), I really can't say. It's easy to say that I'm better than Limbaugh. It's much harder, and completely irrelevant, whether it's men or women who are "better" on average. Regardless of which it is, it doesn't affect the fact that we should judge people as individuals.

[Korintar]

Some of them are inferior. I am better than Rush Limbaugh. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to mince any words on this.

Do you feel that most females are inferior to most males?

From what I gather- reverse female and male and you have your answer.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Is that you Hipster Cat?

No. I'm not hip. I'm the uncool kind of non-mainstream.

[Conserative Morality]

No. I'm not hip. I'm the uncool kind of non-mainstream.

Don't worry, Hipsters are pretty uncool too.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Don't worry, Hipsters are pretty uncool too.

But unlike them, I have no pretense of coolness.

[The Araucania]

Idk, individualist feminism? You sound like a pretty mainstream conservative honestly.

But I'm not conservative at all. I still want people to be able to choose to have sex. I just think it's the wrong choice.

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

[Natapoc]

Then you are a feminist that does not subscribe to any particular style or movement. However, because of your insistence on using the word "equality" or "equal" in a different way then most feminists you will frequently encounter people who declare you anti feminist. They do this because they attach a different meaning to the word then you do and do not know that you do such.

I'm a very pedantic person when it comes to certain semantics issues.

Your viewpoint on the word "equality" is incorrect. You seem to believe that equality must mean equal in every respect. The word is almost never used to mean this except when used as the symbol = in mathematics.

Even then one can make the argument that 2=1+1 is incorrect because 1 is a different symbol then two and two contains less information than 1+1 (ie 1+1 allows you to identify the process by which 2 came about whereas 2 alone could have resulted from any number of mathematical operations)

In mathematics "equals" usually means "has the numerical value or set of numerical values, ect"

When discussing equality one rarely means that the entirety of that discussed is in every way equal to another thing.

In fact, we can know that the above is never the case for a true statement (ie nothing can be equal in all ways to something other than itself.)

Equality or equal then more properly means that one or more properties of an object or individual are the same in type, value or rank with the specifics of what is equal left to implication.

[Conserative Morality]

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

Gotta watch out for them liberal perversions.

[Nationstatelandsville]

I guess you're just a regular feminist. I don't know what to say, really.

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

Gotta watch out for them liberal perversions.

Mhm. They'll steal your babies.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

I'm not Christian. I know that sex is natural, but so is one creature killing another for food. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Your viewpoint on the word "equality" is incorrect. You seem to believe that equality must mean equal in every respect. The word is almost never used to mean this except when used as the symbol = in mathematics.

Even then one can make the argument that 2=1+1 is incorrect because 1 is a different symbol then two and two contains less information than 1+1 (ie 1+1 allows you to identify the process by which 2 came about whereas 2 alone could have resulted from any number of mathematical operations)

In mathematics "equals" usually means "has the numerical value or set of numerical values, ect"

When discussing equality one rarely means that the entirety of that discussed is in every way equal to another thing.

In fact, we can know that the above is never the case for a true statement (ie nothing can be equal in all ways to something other than itself.)

Equality or equal then more properly means that one or more properties of an object or individual are the same in type, value or rank with the specifics of what is equal left to implication.

Equality:

= is an equivalence relation iff:

1. a = a for all a

2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b

3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Those three properties define equality.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

I'm not Christian. I know that sex is natural, but so is one creature killing another for food. Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good.

What did you have for breakfast? Did you photosynthesize?

[Dakini]

At the very least you're sex-negative.

I dunno about the rest. I've been celebratory drinking so analysis isn't my strong point at the moment. Maybe I'll have more for you tomorrow. I do know I'm a very sex positive feminist and we very much disagree on these sorts of points.

[Four-sided Triangles]

What did you have for breakfast? Did you photosynthesize?

I'm not a vegetarian. However, I think that I should be. I'm too lazy to do it, and that's a moral failing on my part. In an ideal world, people would be vegetarian.

[Vurhurlanders]

What's with the anti-sex thing?

You do know that without sex, nobody here would actually exist, right?

On what basis do you say that sex is wrong? What evidence do you have that sex in and of itself inflicts harm on society or individuals?

[Dakini]

But I'm not conservative at all. I still want people to be able to choose to have sex. I just think it's the wrong choice.

Sex is natural, im christian, and i can say you that iin the bible there's nothing against sex, sex is love... The liberal perversions are the problem, not sex buddy.

Oh, pshaw.

The Christian version of sex involves stoning a woman to death if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night. It's just as awful as this "women are degraded by sex" crap, if not moreso because it also often involves ownership of women by men.

[Four-sided Triangles]

At the very least you're sex-negative.

I dunno about the rest. I've been celebratory drinking so analysis isn't my strong point at the moment. Maybe I'll have more for you tomorrow. I do know I'm a very sex positive feminist and we very much disagree on these sorts of points.

Did you just complete your dissertation? If so, congratulations. I'm just starting graduate school next fall. I took a year off after graduating.

[Natapoc]

Do you feel that most females are inferior to most males?

Not in any broad way, no. Most females are worse in spatial reasoning, but then again, most males are worse at verbal communication. However, in terms of an overall statistical average of abilities, moral character, and importance (importance in a hypothetical society free from sexism), I really can't say. It's easy to say that I'm better than Limbaugh. It's much harder, and completely irrelevant, whether it's men or women who are "better" on average. Regardless of which it is, it doesn't affect the fact that we should judge people as individuals.

No it's not irrelevant.

If you believe that men are inferior then you are a misandrist (not a feminist)
If you believe that women are inferior then you are a misogynist(not a feminist)

The question was to determine if you maintained cultural sexism while allowing for exceptions for "spectacular individuals" (in other words a misandrist/misogynist who believes that certain individuals are excluded from their stereotypes while still maintaining sexist views on others)

You asked if you were a feminist so I was questioning you to find out.

[Four-sided Triangles]

What's with the anti-sex thing?

You do know that without sex, nobody here would actually exist, right?

On what basis do you say that sex is wrong? What evidence do you have that sex in and of itself inflicts harm on society or individuals?

My anti-sex view is very complicated, and it's hard to explain in a few sentences.

We also wouldn't be here without the genocide of the Native Americans. That doesn't mean that manifest destiny was therefore justified.

[Great Nepal]

What did you have for breakfast? Did you photosynthesize?

I'm not a vegetarian. However, I think that I should be. I'm too lazy to do it, and that's a moral failing on my part. In an ideal world, people would be vegetarian.

Even if everyone was vegetarian, we would still be relying on dead plant/animal to survive.

[Dakini]

At the very least you're sex-negative.

I dunno about the rest. I've been celebratory drinking so analysis isn't my strong point at the moment. Maybe I'll have more for you tomorrow. I do know I'm a very sex positive feminist and we very much disagree on these sorts of points.

Did you just complete your dissertation? If so, congratulations. I'm just starting graduate school next fall. I took a year off after graduating.

No, my supervisor is done teaching classes, so we were celebrating.

And then when I got back to my office I found out that the paper I'd submitted that was accepted is online. Weeee!

I still have a while before submitting my thesis.

[Indig0]

i agree with your first point. i'm surprised someone else has agreed with me on this point, because when i've stated this belief to others, they often say "you know nothing about feminism" or "feminism has changed a lot since the 1960s." so what? we should change our feminist beliefs just cuz everyone else does? what conformists! people should think for themselves, not just follow the trends!

about the second point - just because "most" men are better at spatial reasoning doesn't mean that ALL men are. that is why it is sexist to automatically assume that men will ALWAYS be better than women at spatial reasoning. and there are men who are good at multi-tasking too. and there are women who suck at multi-tasking. each individual has different strengths and weaknesses. to make assumptions about a person based on their gender is sexist. think of it like racism. are all black people gonna be great at basketball? are all asians gonna be great at math? it's racist to think so. there are some blacks who don't like basketball and are not good at it; there are some asians who don't like math and aren't good at it. the only definite real difference between men and women that is ALWAYS true is that men have penises and women have vaginas.

third point - you're right, we're not all equal. but you don't know someone's abilities right when you meet them. so treat people as equals because it's courteous. then when you learn they're a stupid jerk, you can treat them accordingly. yes, we should judge people as individuals. but before you know anything about them to judge, treat them as equals. in regards to sexism, women want to be treated equally in the sense that they get paid equally to men for doing the EXACT SAME JOB. if the woman works equally hard at this job as the man does and equally as good, then she should get paid the same wage, even if she's shorter in height, has breasts and a vagina. feminist women also don't want to be judged by their beauty when men are not. feminist women want to be judged by their skills/abilities/mind just as men are.

i'd say your first point is feminist, your second point is sexist, and your third point is neutral.

i've heard that when a feminist thinks sex is a bad thing, they're called sex-negative a feminist. so perhaps that is what you can call yourself.

[Vurhurlanders]

Your viewpoint on the word "equality" is incorrect. You seem to believe that equality must mean equal in every respect. The word is almost never used to mean this except when used as the symbol = in mathematics.

Even then one can make the argument that 2=1+1 is incorrect because 1 is a different symbol then two and two contains less information than 1+1 (ie 1+1 allows you to identify the process by which 2 came about whereas 2 alone could have resulted from any number of mathematical operations)

In mathematics "equals" usually means "has the numerical value or set of numerical values, ect"

When discussing equality one rarely means that the entirety of that discussed is in every way equal to another thing.

In fact, we can know that the above is never the case for a true statement (ie nothing can be equal in all ways to something other than itself.)

Equality or equal then more properly means that one or more properties of an object or individual are the same in type, value or rank with the specifics of what is equal left to implication.

Equality:

= is an equivalence relation iff:

1. a = a for all a

2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b

3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Those three properties define equality.

IF this were so then saying that someone is equal to someone else would be synonymous with saying that they are the same person.
Nobody could be equal with anyone except for themselves (and only with themselves at that exact same moment in time!)

[Natapoc]

Your viewpoint on the word "equality" is incorrect. You seem to believe that equality must mean equal in every respect. The word is almost never used to mean this except when used as the symbol = in mathematics.

Even then one can make the argument that 2=1+1 is incorrect because 1 is a different symbol then two and two contains less information than 1+1 (ie 1+1 allows you to identify the process by which 2 came about whereas 2 alone could have resulted from any number of mathematical operations)

In mathematics "equals" usually means "has the numerical value or set of numerical values, ect"

When discussing equality one rarely means that the entirety of that discussed is in every way equal to another thing.

In fact, we can know that the above is never the case for a true statement (ie nothing can be equal in all ways to something other than itself.)

Equality or equal then more properly means that one or more properties of an object or individual are the same in type, value or rank with the specifics of what is equal left to implication.

Equality:

= is an equivalence relation iff:

1. a = a for all a

2. a = b implies b = a for all a and b

3. a = b and b = c implies a = c for all a, b, and c

Those three properties define equality.

No. Those three properties define mathematical equality. There are other forms of equality which are well defined as per my quoted statement.

[Four-sided Triangles]

If you believe that men are inferior then you are a misandrist (not a feminist)
If you believe that women are inferior then you are a misogynist(not a feminist)

Not necessarily. Saying "After weighting the averages of ability, importance, and moral character, I've been able to determine that men are, on average, slightly worse than women." is not the same as "All men are evil." nor is it even "All men are worse than all women."

Hell, it's simultaneously possible for men to be worse than women on average and for most men to be better than most women, due to the fact that median and mean are not always the same.