Why feminism is wrong

[Hanchu]

Ok , well given how she admitted to sexually coercing her younger sister , and is still viewed as feminist , this should tell you something about how far the movement has sunk

She ain't viewed as a feminist by literally any feminist I know, so... there y' go.
I mean, child sexual abuse is not generally looked upon kindly by those that have experienced it (or any other form of sexual abuse) so maybe the subset of feminists I know are out of the norm, but even those without such experiences harbour a distinct distaste for Lena Dunham and her bullshit excuses and attempts to backpedal.

Not true , she is seen as an icon of feminism , as said by feminists Who support her , or white feminism as said by feminists Who dont support her .

[Desperate Measures]

Also super easy. Yeah.

I'm gonna just throw Tahars post up.
He gets the credit for the research on these, though I prompted him with:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/06 ... rch-finds/




So for all the feminists whine about Patriarchy, it's bollocks.
Utter bollocks.
They and others like them are causing there to be more men in government, by convincing women it's not worth trying.
They then use their demoralization of women to justify gynocentric focuses which discriminate against men.
I consider this the coup de grace on feminism. They aren't only talking shit, they're actively causing the problem they purport to care so much about, and then using that to attack men.
When you add their institutional power and media control, it becomes quite apparent to me that this is precisely what I talked about earlier.

Imperialist Matriarchy.
It's feminists who cause men to be in government more than women, and this results in a smoke and mirrors situation whereby policies which benefit women can be pushed for over and over again.
Similar to installing a native so you can get away with imperial policies that would be too blatantly toxic to get away with if it weren't a native doing it.
Is it a clusterfuck instead of a conspiracy? Almost certainly. But it doesn't make it any less obnoxious or dangerous.
For these reasons and others, feminism has to be culled from our culture. If you hate patriarchy, you should hate feminism.

You're right.
That was easy.

You seem to be saying two different things here. Things have been better for female candidates than ever before while also saying that it's the fault of feminists that so many men are in power?

[Ostroeuropa]

You're right.
That was easy.

You seem to be saying two different things here. Things have been better for female candidates than ever before while also saying that it's the fault of feminists that so many men are in power?

The insistence that a patriarchy exists causes women to not run for office, as there appears to be no sexism significant level of sexism against women in vote counts. There may however be minor sexism against men.
You'll note that this has been the case since the 80's according to those studies.
3 decades of demoralizing women and perpetuating a male dominated profession through bullshit.
3 decades of using it to justify a focus on womens issues to the detriment of gender equality.
The narrative being gynocentric caused this. We're it not received as divine revelation that women are oppressed, but instead sexism were instead evaluated evidentially, this would not have happened.
So yes. It's feminists fault.

[Desperate Measures]

You seem to be saying two different things here. Things have been better for female candidates than ever before while also saying that it's the fault of feminists that so many men are in power?

The insistence that a patriarchy exists causes women to not run for office, as there appears to be no sexism significant level of sexism against women in vote counts. There may however be minor sexism against men.

Well, that dialog has to change then. I don't see how that discounts the existence of a patriarchy and I don't know how that is a call for the dismantling of feminism. It's not an uncomplicated issue.

[Ostroeuropa]

The insistence that a patriarchy exists causes women to not run for office, as there appears to be no sexism significant level of sexism against women in vote counts. There may however be minor sexism against men.

Well, that dialog has to change then. I don't see how that discounts the existence of a patriarchy and I don't know how that is a call for the dismantling of feminism. It's not an uncomplicated issue.

Missed the edit.

You'll note that this has been the case since the 80's according to those studies.
3 decades of demoralizing women and perpetuating a male dominated profession through bullshit.
3 decades of using it to justify a focus on womens issues to the detriment of gender equality.
The narrative being gynocentric caused this. We're it not received as divine revelation that women are oppressed, but instead sexism were instead evaluated evidentially, this would not have happened.
So yes. It's feminists fault.

It's a fairly simple call for dismantling it. This kind of bullshit is repeated on a lot of issues.
The pay gap is one.
Men under 35 are paid less than women. (I.E, currently generated careers.)
Women over 35 are paid less than men. (I.E, ones who are too deep into their careers for any meaningful changes to effect them.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -less.html
It just so happens that the old fuck over the young too, and so this is cast as "Sexism against women.", a narrative which will do absolutely nothing for the currently generated pay gap except widen it.

It's not just that bit of the narrative that needs changing.
It's the entire narrative. It's fucked.

[Desperate Measures]

Well, that dialog has to change then. I don't see how that discounts the existence of a patriarchy and I don't know how that is a call for the dismantling of feminism. It's not an uncomplicated issue.

Missed the edit.

You'll note that this has been the case since the 80's according to those studies.
3 decades of demoralizing women and perpetuating a male dominated profession through bullshit.
3 decades of using it to justify a focus on womens issues to the detriment of gender equality.
The narrative being gynocentric caused this. We're it not received as divine revelation that women are oppressed, but instead sexism were instead evaluated evidentially, this would not have happened.
So yes. It's feminists fault.

It's a fairly simple call for dismantling it. This kind of bullshit is repeated on a lot of issues.
The pay gap is one.
Men under 35 are paid less than women. (I.E, currently generated careers.)
Women over 35 are paid less than men. (I.E, ones who are too deep into their careers for any meaningful changes to effect them.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -less.html
It just so happens that the old fuck over the young too, and so this is cast as "Sexism against women.", a narrative which will do absolutely nothing for the currently generated pay gap except widen it.

It's not just that bit of the narrative that needs changing.
It's the entire narrative. It's fucked.

Feminism by definition is about gender equality. If we called it Tapioca Pudding, it might help to solve some of the confusion of having "fem" in the name.

A lot of this stuff are things I agree with. More young women are graduating from college than young men. Wouldn't that have more to do with the pay gap of the under 35s? And would that have been possible 30 years ago?

If feminsits are inadvertently doing things that are demoralizing women, that's a worthy discussion to be having. Fix and move it along.

The problem I have with MRAs are that the worthy things are already ingrained into what feminism strives to be and the unworthy things are all venom and demonizing. I got more help from going to feminist websites in order to secure joint custody of my child than I did from MRA websites that would have seen me stoop to idiotic and damaging measures as well as lengthy court battles.

I won't be able to see the response to this for a bit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Missed the edit.

You'll note that this has been the case since the 80's according to those studies.
3 decades of demoralizing women and perpetuating a male dominated profession through bullshit.
3 decades of using it to justify a focus on womens issues to the detriment of gender equality.
The narrative being gynocentric caused this. We're it not received as divine revelation that women are oppressed, but instead sexism were instead evaluated evidentially, this would not have happened.
So yes. It's feminists fault.

It's a fairly simple call for dismantling it. This kind of bullshit is repeated on a lot of issues.
The pay gap is one.
Men under 35 are paid less than women. (I.E, currently generated careers.)
Women over 35 are paid less than men. (I.E, ones who are too deep into their careers for any meaningful changes to effect them.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -less.html
It just so happens that the old fuck over the young too, and so this is cast as "Sexism against women.", a narrative which will do absolutely nothing for the currently generated pay gap except widen it.

It's not just that bit of the narrative that needs changing.
It's the entire narrative. It's fucked.

Feminism by definition is about gender equality. If we called it Tapioca Pudding, it might help to solve some of the confusion of having "fem" in the name.

A lot of this stuff are things I agree with. More young women are graduating from college than young men. Wouldn't that have more to do with the pay gap of the under 35s? And would that have been possible 30 years ago?

If feminsits are inadvertently doing things that are demoralizing women, that's a worthy discussion to be having. Fix and move it along.

The problem I have with MRAs are that the worthy things are already ingrained into what feminism strives to be and the unworthy things are all venom and demonizing. I got more help from going to feminist websites in order to secure joint custody of my child than I did from MRA websites that would have seen me stoop to idiotic and damaging measures as well as lengthy court battles.

I won't be able to see the response to this for a bit.

As Tahar pointed out, you are wrong about the definition. That's another damaging myth that feminists perpetuate.

Unless you're naïve enough to actually validate them by calling them feminists, that's not the case at all. Why do you think the term crypto-fascist exists? Because some political movements aren't actually about freedom, and shouldn't be classified as such, even if they claim otherwise. Female supremacists aren't feminists, because they want women to be above men and not just equal. They are not part of the feminist movement, even if they think they are, because they aren't feminists, and you shouldn't call them feminists because a real feminist is someone who wants men and women to be equal. No more, no less.

(Emphasis added.)

The "dictionary" definition has varied - sometimes subtly and sometimes quite significantly, we have unfolded some of those dictionary definitions very carefully here on NSG - and its present form is as much a consequence of political pressure as good lexicography.

feminism

[From Latin femina: woman.]

(politics) A movement of 20-century politics holding that the rights of women are equal to those of men. Feminism is sometimes extended to assert that women are superior to men in ethics (e.g., more sensitive or altruistic) or even in epistemology (e.g., more wise or insightful).

Here we have an explicit acknowledgement that feminists - yes, actual feminists - sometimes assert the superiority of women, as well as acknowledging that the claim of equal rights is central.

feminism
Commitment to the abolition of male domination in human society. Feminists differ widely in their accounts of the origins of patriarchy, their analyses of its most common consequences, and their concrete proposals for overcoming it, but all share in the recognition that the subordination of women to men in our culture is indefensible and eliminable. Many feminist philosophers oppose Cartesian dualism, scientific objectivity, and traditional theories of moral obligation as instances of masculine over-reliance on reason. Serious attention to the experiences of women would offer a more adequate account of human life.

Recommended Reading: The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy, ed. by Miranda Fricker and Jennifer Hornsby (Cambridge, 2000); The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory, ed. by Linda Nicholson (Routledge, 1997); A Companion to Feminist Philosphy, ed. by Alison M. Jaggar and Iris Marion Young (Blackwell, 1999); Seyla Benhabib, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, Nancy Fraser, and Linda J. Nicholson, Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange (Routledge, 1995); Feminist Theory and the Body, ed. by Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (Routledge, 1999); Sandra Harding, Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives (Cornell, 1991); and Eva Feder Kittay, Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (Routledge, 1998).

Also see EB, SEP on feminist topics, epistemology and philosophy of science, social epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, history of philosophy, perspectives on the self, and approaches to the intersection of pragmatism and continental philosophy, Kristin Switala, Judit Hell, IEP, Krishna Mallick, and Olga Voronina.

Gender equality didn't make it into this one at all.

fem·i·nism (fĕmə-nĭz′əm)
Share:
n.
1. Belief in or advocacy of women's social, political, and economic rights, especially with regard to equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.

Note "equality" is shoe-horned in under the clause "especially with regard to." It's not actually necessary, in meeting this definition, to believe in equality of the sexes, it simply happens to be a common justification for advocacy on behalf of women's social, political, and economic rights.

feminism
Syllabification: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: /ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Definition of feminism in English:
noun

The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
The issue of rights for women first became prominent during the French and American revolutions in the late 18th century. In Britain it was not until the emergence of the suffragette movement in the late 19th century that there was significant political change. A ‘second wave’ of feminism arose in the 1960s, with an emphasis on unity and sisterhood.

I have emphasized an important group of four words. You do not need to believe in gender equality to be a feminist per this definition, either; this definition says that feminists invoke equality as the justification for advocacy of women's rights. You can do this independent of actually believing in gender equality, or advocating for men's rights in the cases where they are inferior to women's rights. (E.g., parental rights.)

feminism (ˈfɛmɪˌnɪzəm Pronunciation for feminism )

Definitions
noun

a doctrine or movement that advocates equal rights for women

Closest match so far for you - but feminism refers to doctrine or movement. Which is to say that simply being a movement explicitly advocating equal rights for women suffices, even if (as with the "Ism Book" definition above at the start) some of its members assert, implicitly or explicitly, female superiority.

feminism

NOUN [UNCOUNTABLE] feminism pronunciation in American English /ˈfemɪˌnɪzəm/
the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men

Same rights and opportunities. Note, by the way, we have a lot of significant variation in terms of the scope of "equality." The Collins version didn't refer to opportunities (just rights) while the MacMillian version includes opportunities. (We can, historically, identify people in both camps as feminist ... or not feminist.)

feminism
noun fem·i·nism \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\

1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Mirriam-Webster. First definition refers back to a theory - the ideology described in the philosophical dictionary, really - while the second refers to a movement acting for women's interests (as well as rights). We've gone from "rights" to "rights and opportunities" to "rights and interests." Interesting, no?

feminism
noun [U] /ˈfem·əˌnɪz·əm/ US
› world history an organized effort to give women the same economic, social, and political rights as men

Here feminism refers to the effort - again, to the movement.

So what we see in the meta-analysis of these different definitions is that there are several distinct things that are being lumped under the term "feminism." Descriptively, the word is used to refer to movements that have typically (but not always, historically speaking) used the rhetoric of equality to justify advocacy on behalf of women's interests, but which includes people who appear to think that women are in some ways superior to men. Descriptively, Valerie Solanas was a feminist (at least until she was committed to a mental institution for criminal insanity), even though her beliefs were very far from gender equality. She was an intimate of the movement and her work resided inside of the radical branch of feminism. Descriptively, Warren Farrell is no longer a feminist (having lost most of his ties to the movement and concentrated his attention on men and boys), even though he firmly believes in gender equality.

Feminism also refers to the ideologies associated with this movement. The Oxford definition is in some way the most insightful: Equality is the justification for advocacy on behalf of women. Use of this justification for action on behalf of women's interests more or less requires the belief that that women are disadvantaged. Pursuit of these ideologies may end up with the assertion that women are in some sense superior to men.

As you can see, though, "the" definition of feminism is not universally held by experts to be what you claim it is - and what you are objecting to, the description of feminism in terms of being a movement, which is to say identifiable group, with its members (defined by their presence within the movement in spite of whatever their beliefs might be) being called feminists, is actually not at all unusual.

EDIT: Had the wrong post to reply clicked. References to position I'm responding to should make more sense now.

If you'd bothered to check it for yourself instead of just believing what your feminist pastor told you, maybe we wouldn't constantly have this problem with feminists constantly saying untrue things.
As for the rest of your post, your anecdotes are not evidence.
Are you telling me you visited MRA websites for it? Because otherwise your anecdote is trivially true.
You got more help from feminist ones because those are the ones you frequented, or because you tried both and tried both tactics?
You cannot know this for sure. It's evidence of a bias on your part. Maybe you should think about that.

As for feminism "Striving" to include the MRA's talking points, prove it. Don't just assert it.
Where are the feminist organizations demanding measures to get more men into college?
Oh.
They're demanding more women take subjects they are underrepresented in, (STEM) despite the fact this would increase the college gap.
Gee.
Sounds like gynocentrism to me.

[Desperate Measures]

Feminism by definition is about gender equality. If we called it Tapioca Pudding, it might help to solve some of the confusion of having "fem" in the name.

A lot of this stuff are things I agree with. More young women are graduating from college than young men. Wouldn't that have more to do with the pay gap of the under 35s? And would that have been possible 30 years ago?

If feminsits are inadvertently doing things that are demoralizing women, that's a worthy discussion to be having. Fix and move it along.

The problem I have with MRAs are that the worthy things are already ingrained into what feminism strives to be and the unworthy things are all venom and demonizing. I got more help from going to feminist websites in order to secure joint custody of my child than I did from MRA websites that would have seen me stoop to idiotic and damaging measures as well as lengthy court battles.

I won't be able to see the response to this for a bit.

As Tahar pointed out, you are wrong about the definition. That's another damaging myth that feminists perpetuate.

(Emphasis added.)

The "dictionary" definition has varied - sometimes subtly and sometimes quite significantly, we have unfolded some of those dictionary definitions very carefully here on NSG - and its present form is as much a consequence of political pressure as good lexicography.


Here we have an explicit acknowledgement that feminists - yes, actual feminists - sometimes assert the superiority of women, as well as acknowledging that the claim of equal rights is central.

Gender equality didn't make it into this one at all.

Note "equality" is shoe-horned in under the clause "especially with regard to." It's not actually necessary, in meeting this definition, to believe in equality of the sexes, it simply happens to be a common justification for advocacy on behalf of women's social, political, and economic rights.

I have emphasized an important group of four words. You do not need to believe in gender equality to be a feminist per this definition, either; this definition says that feminists invoke equality as the justification for advocacy of women's rights. You can do this independent of actually believing in gender equality, or advocating for men's rights in the cases where they are inferior to women's rights. (E.g., parental rights.)

Closest match so far for you - but feminism refers to doctrine or movement. Which is to say that simply being a movement explicitly advocating equal rights for women suffices, even if (as with the "Ism Book" definition above at the start) some of its members assert, implicitly or explicitly, female superiority.

Same rights and opportunities. Note, by the way, we have a lot of significant variation in terms of the scope of "equality." The Collins version didn't refer to opportunities (just rights) while the MacMillian version includes opportunities. (We can, historically, identify people in both camps as feminist ... or not feminist.)


Mirriam-Webster. First definition refers back to a theory - the ideology described in the philosophical dictionary, really - while the second refers to a movement acting for women's interests (as well as rights). We've gone from "rights" to "rights and opportunities" to "rights and interests." Interesting, no?

Here feminism refers to the effort - again, to the movement.

So what we see in the meta-analysis of these different definitions is that there are several distinct things that are being lumped under the term "feminism." Descriptively, the word is used to refer to movements that have typically (but not always, historically speaking) used the rhetoric of equality to justify advocacy on behalf of women's interests, but which includes people who appear to think that women are in some ways superior to men. Descriptively, Valerie Solanas was a feminist (at least until she was committed to a mental institution for criminal insanity), even though her beliefs were very far from gender equality. She was an intimate of the movement and her work resided inside of the radical branch of feminism. Descriptively, Warren Farrell is no longer a feminist (having lost most of his ties to the movement and concentrated his attention on men and boys), even though he firmly believes in gender equality.

Feminism also refers to the ideologies associated with this movement. The Oxford definition is in some way the most insightful: Equality is the justification for advocacy on behalf of women. Use of this justification for action on behalf of women's interests more or less requires the belief that that women are disadvantaged. Pursuit of these ideologies may end up with the assertion that women are in some sense superior to men.

As you can see, though, "the" definition of feminism is not universally held by experts to be what you claim it is - and what you are objecting to, the description of feminism in terms of being a movement, which is to say identifiable group, with its members (defined by their presence within the movement in spite of whatever their beliefs might be) being called feminists, is actually not at all unusual.

EDIT: Had the wrong post to reply clicked. References to position I'm responding to should make more sense now.

As for the rest of your post, your anecdotes are not evidence.
Are you telling me you visited MRA websites for it? Because otherwise your anecdote is trivially true.
You got more help from feminist ones because those are the ones you frequented, or because you tried both and tried both tactics?
You cannot know this for sure. It's evidence of a bias on your part. Maybe you should think about that.

As for feminism "Striving" to include the MRA's talking points, prove it. Don't just assert it.

Quickly - I did. I was pretty upset at the beginning and looked up men's rights without knowledge of what i'd be getting into. I knew it was anecdotal when I wrote it, I didn't mean to use it as evidence but more to color where I am coming from.

And even more quickly a dictionary definition is not a description of an entire philosophy/movement.

[Ostroeuropa]

As Tahar pointed out, you are wrong about the definition. That's another damaging myth that feminists perpetuate.



As for the rest of your post, your anecdotes are not evidence.
Are you telling me you visited MRA websites for it? Because otherwise your anecdote is trivially true.
You got more help from feminist ones because those are the ones you frequented, or because you tried both and tried both tactics?
You cannot know this for sure. It's evidence of a bias on your part. Maybe you should think about that.

As for feminism "Striving" to include the MRA's talking points, prove it. Don't just assert it.

Quickly - I did. I was pretty upset at the beginning and looked up men's rights without knowledge of what i'd be getting into. I knew it was anecdotal when I wrote it, I didn't mean to use it as evidence but more to color where I am coming from.

And even more quickly a dictionary definition is not a description of an entire philosophy/movement.

I see. So what would you consider a description?
It's effects?
Then show me the evidence of feminism doing what you say it does.
(It's fine if you don't respond by the way. I can wait.)

A funny fact by the way, search "Gender equality" on reddit.

The results:
/r/MensRights (977) /r/MRSelfPostCopies (715) /r/Equality (349) /r/AskReddit (294) /r/AskFeminists (266) /r/POLITIC (252) /r/TwoXChromosomes (218) /r/Feminism (200) /r/changemyview (156) /r/FeMRADebates (122) /r/TheRedPill (110) /r/feminisms (89) /r/ShitRedditSays (89) /r/atheism (87) /r/lgbt (85) /r/maledom (82) /r/offmychest (74) /r/KotakuInAction (73) /r/politics (62) /r/againstmensrights (60)

Much striving. Totes for real.
(I accept that this isn't in itself evidence of much. To me, it's just the latest drop of water in an unending torrent of small pieces of evidence though.)

[Wallenburg]

The pay gap still exists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.
http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

[Ostroeuropa]

The pay gap still exists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.
http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

Does it exist (For women) in people younger than 35 years old, or purely in those older than that?

[Wallenburg]

The pay gap still exists. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves.
http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination

Does it exist (For women) in people younger than 35 years old, or purely in those older than that?

It exists for women in general. Read the article.

[Ostroeuropa]

Does it exist (For women) in people younger than 35 years old, or purely in those older than that?

It exists for women in general. Read the article.

That's if you take them as a united class and ignore the fact that under 35 they are paid more than men.
Why should we do that again? Surely if you're against sexist pay practices, you should be advocating equal pay.
Not equal pay (for women.).

Women over 35 are paid less than men over 35. But this strikes me as a problem that will fix itself with the march of time as they die off.
Women under 35 though? That shit won't fix with time, eventually the pay gap will close, then favor women.
We need to campaign for equal pay for under 35's to prevent that.

[Wallenburg]

It exists for women in general. Read the article.

That's if you take them as a united class and ignore the fact that under 35 they are paid more than men.
Why should we do that again? Surely if you're against sexist pay practices, you should be advocating equal pay.
Not equal pay (for women.).

Women over 35 are paid less than men over 35. But this strikes me as a problem that will fix itself with the march of time as they die off.
Women under 35 though? That shit won't fix with time, eventually the pay gap will close, then favor women.
We need to campaign for equal pay for under 35's to prevent that.

I am advocating equal pay. You are saying let it be. And what is equal pay for women if it isn't equal pay in general? Is it that women are all payed the same salary? That's logic for you

[Wallenburg]

Actually, i noticed you do like equal pay, but only when it benefits men and hurts women. But no, you're not sexist at all!

[Ostroeuropa]

That's if you take them as a united class and ignore the fact that under 35 they are paid more than men.
Why should we do that again? Surely if you're against sexist pay practices, you should be advocating equal pay.
Not equal pay (for women.).

Women over 35 are paid less than men over 35. But this strikes me as a problem that will fix itself with the march of time as they die off.
Women under 35 though? That shit won't fix with time, eventually the pay gap will close, then favor women.
We need to campaign for equal pay for under 35's to prevent that.

I am advocating equal pay. You are saying let it be. And what is equal pay for women if it isn't equal pay in general? Is it that women are all payed the same salary? That's logic for you

You are advocating equal pay in a disingenuous manner which advantages currently generated careers by providing more tools to women. It does nothing to address careers that are decades in the making, since such people can't really use those tools.
No.
Equal (For women.) means that you advocate an increase when it's women disadvantaged, but not men. This is a common problem in feminism.

By banging on about the pay gap being sexism against women instead of sexism in general, you are erasing male victims of sexism.
Further, you are entrenching the sexism against them and empowering women who are already advantaged, and doing nothing to empower those who are disadvantaged in either case. (Men under 35, or women over 35.)
I am not saying let it be. I'm saying we should be focusing on the under 35's, as the over 35's distort the findings and endanger the project.
The old fuck over the young in terms of pay. Partially because of experience, sure.
But that means that as these generations grow up, the pay gap will close, then favor women.
And all you are doing is causing that to be even more true.
You are CREATING a pay gap. I am advocating destroying it.
The over 35's, if they can be specifically targetted, should be so. (Again, provided it's termed as sexism and not sexism against women to prevent a gynocentric outcome.) But if not, it will end eventually through the progress of time.

Actually, i noticed you do like equal pay, but only when it benefits men and hurts women. But no, you're not sexist at all!

How does paying men under 35 the same as their female counterparts hurt women?
Is this another example of you showing "Logic."?

[Wallenburg]

I am not advocating a wage gap (nice ad hominem/plain fucking lie). I am pointing out how you refuse to recognize that women are disadvantaged due to centuries of double standards. And why should we give up on everyone over 35? Do you want retirement, assisted living, pension, etc. when you are getting old? Because i could use your logic to justify letting you die for being a burden on society.

[Ostroeuropa]

I am not advocating a wage gap (nice ad hominem/plain fucking lie). I am pointing out how you refuse to recognize that women are disadvantaged due to centuries of double standards. And why should we give up on everyone over 35? Do you want retirement, assisted living, pension, etc. when you are getting old? Because i could use your logic to justify letting you die for being a burden on society.

I acknowledge women are disadvantaged in certain respects due to centuries of double standards.
I also acknowledge that men are disadvantaged in certain respects due to centuries of double standards, and decades of a gynocentric gender equality movement entrenching those standards.
Because their careers are already fucked?
Sure, it's sad. But it's not something we can fix. By all means, if you can find a policy that will solely effect women over 35 then go ahead.
But i'm betting you can't. And so, all it would do is increase the pay gap that is looming.
It's the corpse of a pay gap, not a pay gap. It will rot away in time.
The living pay gap is against men.

Further, there is a lot to consider other than mere wages when considering the division of resources in society.
Women control most household expenditure.
Men spend more money on women than visa versa, and are socially conditioned to do so, etc.
Without addressing these issues, demands for equal pay are in fact a demand for female supremacy.
They should all be addressed, though.


Post from FEMra:

Because if the men weren't pressured, they'd likely be making as much as women, I think is the assertion. Women make a normal amount. Men make a hyper amount through pressure placed on them. Though both amounts are too low, because predatory capitalism. The lack of pressure on women isn't a gender role causing them to make less money. It's a lack of one. That means they get to make choices that fit their personalities and such, and men don't.
It also ignores that most household spending is controlled by women, so the pay gap thing strikes me as a whine that black people pick more cotton and this hurts the white peoples self esteem by making them seem lazy. So some of them start picking cotton too and demanding the blacks treat them as equals and nobody mention where the cotton ends up. Sounds fair, right? Now we're all equal. That's not extremely patronizing and insulting to the people who are here by force, is it? It also ignores that men are expected to spend money on women more than the reverse. Demanding equal pay without addressing these dynamics IS a demand for female supremacy:
Women get to choose how to live their lives more freely than men.
Women will get more money to spend than men, and will get more money spent on them by men than the reverse.
Women are not expected to work as hard and earn as much money if they don't want to.
But you'd best pay them equally, or else.
More agency, more money, less accountability, and equal pay. Equality!
A white fails at picking cotton and gets told to go back to the house. A black fails and we all know what happens. And then you wonder why people might get the idea that males work harder? That's before you even get into women having power over their co-workers in the workplace due to gender bias about sexual harassment and such, as well as the general social power women hold over men due to things like the women are wonderful effect. And before you take note of how women have more choice on how to spend their excess money, whereas men are pretty much limited to booze, drugs, and video games. And the latter is under attack now too. It's quite obvious to me that the focus on the pay gap is a result of gynocentrism which is furthering the oppression of men. It's not even close to the most pressing issue when it comes to how our money is raised and divided. It's not even an issue imo, what's an issue is forcing men into hyper-earning.

Essentially, one major the cause of the pay gap is sexism against men forcing them into career choices which earn more money, even if this isn't necessarily what they want to do.
Overtime is one example of this. Men do it far more. Women don't do it as much.
Women are more likely to work for an ethical company compared to one that pays well. Men are less likely.
This is all because of social expectations placed on men.

[Wallenburg]

That i can agree on: double standards affect men poorly too. Only one of them being that kindergarten belief you can't hit a girl. If a woman were to attack me, i shouldn't feel obligated to "go easy on her". Howeve that men suffer an iota from gender roles doesn't justify wage inequality.

[Ostroeuropa]

That i can agree on: double standards affect men poorly too. Only one of them being that kindergarten belief you can't hit a girl. If a woman were to attack me, i shouldn't feel obligated to "go easy on her". Howeve that men suffer an iota from gender roles doesn't justify wage inequality.

No, it just explains it.
It isn't sexism against women.
It's the natural conclusion of sexism against men.
Further, it justifies considering people who focus on the pay gap as opposed to focusing on equalizing the control of resources as sexist.

Key:

More agency, more money, less accountability, and equal pay. Equality!

Without attacking the expectations placed on men, the result of equal pay is the further oppression of males.

Ofcourse males were paid more. They are workhorses, there to pick cotton and hand it over to master.
Do you also consider a problem that women control most expenditure?
That males are socially expected to spend money on women more than the reverse? Etc.

An example of this at work:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/chinese-man-f ... 28808.html

In that link, much patriarchy. Totes for realz.

So really, the pay gap is a bunch of people whining that blacks pick more cotton than whites.
How very "egalitarian" of them.

[Wallenburg]

Two questions: how often do you watch FOX News, and how much do you agree with FOX News.

[Ostroeuropa]

Two questions: how often do you watch FOX News, and how much do you agree with FOX News.

Occasionally and almost never. It's worth it for the funny.
I'm pretty left wing.
Nice ad hominem though.
So no response to the actual points, just an attack. And a baseless one at that.

[Wallenburg]

Two questions: how often do you watch FOX News, and how much do you agree with FOX News.

Occasionally and almost never. It's worth it for the funny.
I'm pretty left wing.
Nice ad hominem though.
So no response to the actual points, just an attack. And a baseless one at that.

The thing is you sound reactionary. I am a social democrat so I'm not very radical. I can't see how you can hate feminism so much. I am a feminist and all others I have ever spoken with have stressed their support of gender equality, never of female special privileges. Also I'm a guy, so why would I support a movement conspiring against me?

[Ostroeuropa]

Occasionally and almost never. It's worth it for the funny.
I'm pretty left wing.
Nice ad hominem though.
So no response to the actual points, just an attack. And a baseless one at that.

The thing is you sound reactionary. I am a social democrat so I'm not very radical. I can't see how you can hate feminism so much. I am a feminist and all others I have ever spoken with have stressed their support of gender equality, never of female special privileges. Also I'm a guy, so why would I support a movement conspiring against me?

A reactionary is a person who holds political viewpoints that favor a return to a previous state

How do I sound like that by advocating the end to sexism exactly? It's not my fault if you don't understand the argument.
You can't see because people havn't pointed out to you the consequences of a gynocentric gender narrative.
They stress their support for gender equality through a gynocentric lens, which has the effect of female privilege.
You would support it because you don't understand the consequences of their narrative or actions and instead take their purported goals to be good enough.
I'm asserting it's a fuck up which is the result of entrenched sexism. Not a conspiracy.
Feminists are gynocentric sexists.

Gynocentrism n. (Greek, γυνή, "female" - Latin centrum, "centred" ) refers to a dominant or exclusive focus on women in theory or practice; or to the advocacy of this. Anything can be considered gynocentric (Adj.) when it is concerned exclusively with a female (or specifically a feminist) point of view.

One example of this is the ban on female genital mutilation.

Previously, both FGM and MGM were legal.
Now, only FGM is illegal.
The literal creation of a sexist situation as a result of gynocentric campaigning and focus.
This kind of shit repeats itself all across feminism and it's "Achievements."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CW ... %9D_effect

Pretty much undermines most of feminisms assertions.

[Wallenburg]

Nice ad hominem. I'm not a gynocentric sexist. Did you come here to debate or flame?