Criticisms of Feminism

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

why do I even bother
go get yourself a degree in biology and then tell me race is a social construct, alright?

There is no such thing as race in any scientific sense. I'm getting tired of having to shout down Nazi knuckle heads.

I'm pretty sick of putting down misogynists but here we are.

[The Lotophagi]

I'm pretty sure it is weird. Maybe you should see a doctor about it? Can't be healthy.

No, to the first part, there's plenty of places where men where skirts and if I can recall, most of them still have testicles.

Well then, I guess gender roles really aren't all that important to sexual reproduction then, huh?

[Constantinopolis]

I just find it funny that you believe that I'd get paid the same when over half my income comes from stock options, not my salary.

Oh. Well, that changes things. I did not know that.

If over half your income comes from property ownership, then you're not really part of the working class, anyway. I wouldn't expect people who hold tons of stock options to ever support socialism, for obvious reasons.

In fact, you're probably one of those people at the top (or near it) who actually benefit from gender discrimination. So you're not exactly my intended audience.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes. Are there rich elites in all other mammals? Probably not.

The very thing which allowed humanity to become the dominant life form on this planet, is its ability to adapt, on both an individual level, as well as on the level of the entire community. The fact is, we've outgrown these social conventions a long time ago. There is no reason why a woman can't perform as well as a man, in any job. There is no reason why a man couldn't be as good at raising children, as a woman.

Someone said in an earlier post, that a major issue with feminism, is that women win most custody cases and men are more easily convicted of rape. The fact is, these issues are not caused by feminism, but by discrimination against women. Women win custody cases more easily, because the general convention is that women are better at raising children. Men are more easily convicted of rape, because women are considered weak and it is considered highly improbable that a woman could overpower and sexually abuse a man.

[Imyoji]

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes. Are there rich elites in all other mammals? Probably not.

The very thing which allowed humanity to become the dominant life form on this planet, is its ability to adapt, on both an individual level, as well as on the level of the entire community. The fact is, we've outgrown these social conventions a long time ago. There is no reason why a woman can't perform as well as a man, in any job. There is no reason why a man couldn't be as good at raising children, as a woman.

Someone said in an earlier post, that a major issue with feminism, is that women win most custody cases and men are more easily convicted of rape. The fact is, these issues are not caused by feminism, but by discrimination against women. Women win custody cases more easily, because the general convention is that women are better at raising children. Men are more easily convicted of rape, because women are considered weak and it is considered highly improbable that a woman could overpower and sexually abuse a man.

Except, you know, feminism IS against that.

[Albul]

I'm not blaming women, I'm blaming the people who invented social conventions on gender roles, which is the rich elite.

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes. Are there rich elites in all other mammals? Probably not.

Here is the thing... Other mammals also live in social groups. Whether it was an evolutionary phenomenon or not, it does not matter. We have reached a point in society in which human gender roles serve as societal ills. Why, other than sexual discrimination, do the Chinese murder female infants? Why do some African tribes mutilate female genitals? Why must Muslim women cover their face upon reaching puberty? Why are women paid less? Why other than social (not evolutionary) reasons must women face these troubles?

No other species of animal has to deal with sexually discriminate infanticide, genital mutilation, wages, and repressive clothing.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well, again, if gender roles are sociopolitical, tell me why they are observed in most (if not all) species of mammals

sauce on that.

http://www.unomaha.edu/news/2013/10/UNO ... -Roles.php
http://www.uni.edu/walsh/sexdiff.pdf
http://academic.reed.edu/biology/course ... n_2000.pdf
http://people.virginia.edu/~ser6f/udry.pdf

and some purely physical stuff:
http://www.intercult.su.se/publications ... _2007c.pdf

EDIT: forgot this bit too, might want to take a read
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10975/

Obviously, the evidence suggest that gender roles are not always the same when comparing different species, but they undoubtedly exist.

basically just look up sexual dimorphism and behavioral dimorphism between sexes.

[Constantinopolis]

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes.

Really? Male cats wear pants and catch mice to earn an income while female cats wear skirts and stay at home with the kittens?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes. Are there rich elites in all other mammals? Probably not.

Here is the thing... Other mammals also live in social groups. Whether it was an evolutionary phenomenon or not, it does not matter. We have reached a point in society in which human gender roles serve as societal ills. Why, other than sexual discrimination, do the Chinese murder female infants? Why do some African tribes mutilate female genitals? Why must Muslim women cover their face upon reaching puberty? Why are women paid less? Why other than social (not evolutionary) reasons must women face these troubles?

No other species of animal has to deal with sexually discriminate infanticide, genital mutilation, wages, and repressive clothing.

We don't have to cover our faces based on anything Islamic, ps, and there are very few places where we have to cover our faces by law. Just clarifying that.

[Alyakia]

The fact is (and I recommend you take this very seriously), gender discrimination goes both ways. Yes, women are generally paid less. Yes, women are generally seen as being weaker. Yes, women are being treated with less respect. What you do not realize is that the discrimination of women is equally damaging to the male gender. How so? Because of the rigid social conventions on "gender roles" which we are all forced to abide by. While women are expected to "stay in the kitchen", men are required to be insensitive and unfaithful. In modern society, a man who displays affection, respect and loyalty to a woman, is considered a "pussy" and rejected as weak (and usually end up on the losing end). These gender conventions demand that men assert their dominance in a relationship and act the way we often do. In other words, we're just as conditioned and restricted by these conventions, as you are.

i don't know why you look forward to responses to this. i'm probably beating the dead horse but this is nothing new and something we've already been saying for ages. this is less "why feminism is wrong" and more "why listening to people that rant on about SJWs and feminists is a bad idea".

[-Shie-]

There is no such thing as race in any scientific sense. I'm getting tired of having to shout down Nazi knuckle heads.

I'm pretty sick of putting down misogynists but here we are.

I don't hate women. What I do is tell the truth about both sexes.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

The very thing which allowed humanity to become the dominant life form on this planet, is its ability to adapt, on both an individual level, as well as on the level of the entire community. The fact is, we've outgrown these social conventions a long time ago. There is no reason why a woman can't perform as well as a man, in any job. There is no reason why a man couldn't be as good at raising children, as a woman.

Someone said in an earlier post, that a major issue with feminism, is that women win most custody cases and men are more easily convicted of rape. The fact is, these issues are not caused by feminism, but by discrimination against women. Women win custody cases more easily, because the general convention is that women are better at raising children. Men are more easily convicted of rape, because women are considered weak and it is considered highly improbable that a woman could overpower and sexually abuse a man.

Except, you know, feminism IS against that.

I know and I never meant to say otherwise. But we should also try to go after what causes the issue and that cause is having a stratified, caste-based society. If we get rid of generalization, we will also get rid of discrimination, because people will be judged on an individual level, based on their skills and strengths, rather than by stereotypical expectations.

[Constantinopolis]

The very thing which allowed humanity to become the dominant life form on this planet, is its ability to adapt, on both an individual level, as well as on the level of the entire community. The fact is, we've outgrown these social conventions a long time ago. There is no reason why a woman can't perform as well as a man, in any job. There is no reason why a man couldn't be as good at raising children, as a woman.

Someone said in an earlier post, that a major issue with feminism, is that women win most custody cases and men are more easily convicted of rape. The fact is, these issues are not caused by feminism, but by discrimination against women. Women win custody cases more easily, because the general convention is that women are better at raising children. Men are more easily convicted of rape, because women are considered weak and it is considered highly improbable that a woman could overpower and sexually abuse a man.

Man, I keep telling you, you're actually agreeing with the arguments made by serious feminists. This is exactly what they say.

[Albul]

Do you see gender roles in all other mammals? Yes. Are there rich elites in all other mammals? Probably not.

The very thing which allowed humanity to become the dominant life form on this planet, is its ability to adapt, on both an individual level, as well as on the level of the entire community. The fact is, we've outgrown these social conventions a long time ago. There is no reason why a woman can't perform as well as a man, in any job. There is no reason why a man couldn't be as good at raising children, as a woman.

Someone said in an earlier post, that a major issue with feminism, is that women win most custody cases and men are more easily convicted of rape. The fact is, these issues are not caused by feminism, but by discrimination against women. Women win custody cases more easily, because the general convention is that women are better at raising children. Men are more easily convicted of rape, because women are considered weak and it is considered highly improbable that a woman could overpower and sexually abuse a man.

Well, er...

It is some stuff spouted out by MRA's, of which very few things, if any, are legitimate issues with applied feminism. It's still a joke of a movement, IMO.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

*sauce dropping intensifies*

[Warpspace]

Race is a social construction but sex is not.

why do I even bother
go get yourself a degree in biology and then tell me race is a social construct, alright?

The fuck?

There is no "race", and race certainly isn't the result of biology. The various "races" have stupidly minimal amount of difference to even be labeled a sub-species. They're simply minimal differences resulting from-

1) Slight changes for better adaption to their native environments, typically sunlight levels or diet.

2) "Killing off" other Hominids such as Neandertals (ACTUAL different species with such little genetic difference between us that we could still breed) with mass interbreeding of populations until H. Sapiens assimilated Neandertals into our own.

3) Cultural preference affecting appearance. This is part of the reason why those humans who split for Asia have a somewhat neonatal appearance compared to other humans.

However, note that the differences between the "races" are stupidly small and almost entirely related to appearance and flesh coloration to adapt to the local sunlight levels. Hell, Neandertals differed from humans genetically by a meager .12%. As for any bullshit claims of stupidity associated with any "race" (which are typically made by racist people to begin with) often fail to realize the socioeconomic position of people.

So of fucking course immigrants from another nation forced to live in slums thanks to a very poor income are going to look "dumb" because they grew up poor, lived in a poor area, and got a poor job, meaning their education was also shockingly poor. But race as well is fairly bullshit, as it's nothing more then a classification of appearance that often fails to even realize the diversity of blanket "races" like "blacks", "asians", or "whites".

/rant

[Tubbsalot]

Dude, if you think there are only 'men' and 'women' then you need to seriously examine what you've been taught about sex (hint: it's more diverse than a simplistic binary; it's a spectrum) and gender (hint: it is also incredibly diverse and varies culturally).
Gender roles are a sociocultural phenomenon; it is absolutely possible and viable to break them down and not force people into boxes without the ensuing collapse of society and sexual relationships.

1. That's horseshit and you know it, sex does come in a simple binary, there's no spectrum, and there's no mayonnaise gender.
2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological

When people talk about "gender roles," they aren't referring to the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Yes, obviously one biological function of the human female - from an evolutionary point of view - is to carry the child to term. But the idea that women should stay at home and do the cleaning is a gender role which has no biological basis. More to the point, the idea that women should be getting pregnant and having babies, or else be excluded from society, has no biological basis - any more than saying "men should have big muscles and lift heavy things, and if they don't, they should be shunned."

Nobody is denying the existence of sexual dimorphism. What they're saying is that these differences cannot justify forcing people to behave in a way which is viewed as "intended" for their sex.

And of course we're now multiple pages away from the post I was replying to, because every thread about feminism has to be immediately vomited over by a dozen people at 30 posts per minute, ad nauseam, until the thread is finally, mercifully locked by a moderator who has grown concerned over the mental state of the participants.

edit: and incidentally there totally are intersex individuals, who have a chromosomal arrangement which is neither XX nor XY (XXY, XO, etc) and/or genitalia which are neither clearly/exclusively male nor female.

[Albul]

Here is the thing... Other mammals also live in social groups. Whether it was an evolutionary phenomenon or not, it does not matter. We have reached a point in society in which human gender roles serve as societal ills. Why, other than sexual discrimination, do the Chinese murder female infants? Why do some African tribes mutilate female genitals? Why must Muslim women cover their face upon reaching puberty? Why are women paid less? Why other than social (not evolutionary) reasons must women face these troubles?

No other species of animal has to deal with sexually discriminate infanticide, genital mutilation, wages, and repressive clothing.

We don't have to cover our faces based on anything Islamic, ps, and there are very few places where we have to cover our faces by law. Just clarifying that.

Aw... I wanted to have a nice, clean jab at something Muslim without being branded a closet Templar Knight.

Well, this is close enough. :|

The nationalist has not answered my question. I will concede that social roles exist in other species. However, where those roles generally help their societies function and serve an evolutionary purpose, how do human gender roles serve human society nowadays? I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

1. That's horseshit and you know it, sex does come in a simple binary, there's no spectrum, and there's no mayonnaise gender.
2. If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological

When people talk about "gender roles," they aren't referring to the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Yes, obviously one biological function of the human female - from an evolutionary point of view - is to carry the child to term. But the idea that women should stay at home and do the cleaning is a gender role which has no biological basis. More to the point, the idea that women should be getting pregnant and having babies, or else be excluded from society, has no biological basis - any more than saying "men should have big muscles and lift heavy things, and if they don't, they should be shunned."

Nobody is denying the existence of sexual dimorphism. What they're saying is that these differences cannot justify forcing people to behave in a way which is viewed as "intended" for their sex.

And of course we're now multiple pages away from the post I was replying to, because every thread about feminism has to be immediately vomited over by a dozen people at 30 posts per minute, ad nauseam, until the thread is finally, mercifully locked by a moderator who has grown concerned over the mental state of the participants.

Well, nobody exactly is doing any forcing of anything gender related here in the land of the free, so what exactly is your point?

[Keyboard Warriors]

The funniest thing about anti-feminists screaming for men's rights is that literally every single one of their problems could be fixed by the very reasonable goals which feminism seeks to accomplish.

[Albul]

When people talk about "gender roles," they aren't referring to the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Yes, obviously one biological function of the human female - from an evolutionary point of view - is to carry the child to term. But the idea that women should stay at home and do the cleaning is a gender role which has no biological basis. More to the point, the idea that women should be getting pregnant and having babies, or else be excluded from society, has no biological basis - any more than saying "men should have big muscles and lift heavy things, and if they don't, they should be shunned."

Nobody is denying the existence of sexual dimorphism. What they're saying is that these differences cannot justify forcing people to behave in a way which is viewed as "intended" for their sex.

And of course we're now multiple pages away from the post I was replying to, because every thread about feminism has to be immediately vomited over by a dozen people at 30 posts per minute, ad nauseam, until the thread is finally, mercifully locked by a moderator who has grown concerned over the mental state of the participants.

Well, nobody exactly is doing any forcing of anything gender related here in the land of the free, so what exactly is your point?

Are you replying with puppets?

Anyways, you have not answered me...

[Carpathia and Moldova]

Man, I keep telling you, you're actually agreeing with the arguments made by serious feminists. This is exactly what they say.

Never said I disagreed with them. Just came out wrong because I am very tired right now. I wasn't criticizing feminism as a movement, but feminism as a stereotype, then tried to go into the causes of social stereotypes, but failed epically to do so (which I openly admit), due to really bad wording.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

why do I even bother
go get yourself a degree in biology and then tell me race is a social construct, alright?

The fuck?

There is no "race", and race certainly isn't the result of biology. The various "races" have stupidly minimal amount of difference to even be labeled a sub-species. They're simply minimal differences resulting from-

1) Slight changes for better adaption to their native environments, typically sunlight levels or diet.

2) "Killing off" other Hominids such as Neandertals (ACTUAL different species with such little genetic difference between us that we could still breed) with mass interbreeding of populations until H. Sapiens assimilated Neandertals into our own.

3) Cultural preference affecting appearance. This is part of the reason why those humans who split for Asia have a somewhat neonatal appearance compared to other humans.

However, note that the differences between the "races" are stupidly small and almost entirely related to appearance and flesh coloration to adapt to the local sunlight levels. Hell, Neandertals differed from humans genetically by a meager .12%. As for any bullshit claims of stupidity associated with any "race" (which are typically made by racist people to begin with) often fail to realize the socioeconomic position of people.

So of fucking course immigrants from another nation forced to live in slums thanks to a very poor income are going to look "dumb" because they grew up poor, lived in a poor area, and got a poor job, meaning their education was also shockingly poor. But race as well is fairly bullshit, as it's nothing more then a classification of appearance that often fails to even realize the diversity of blanket "races" like "blacks", "asians", or "whites".

/rant

tiny insignificant differences are still differences, like it or not. Obviously, I'm not claiming race to be the same as sub-species, we're all the same species. Neither do I agree that "blacks, asians, and whites" are accurate descriptors of race. All I claimed was that race exists.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well, nobody exactly is doing any forcing of anything gender related here in the land of the free, so what exactly is your point?

Are you replying with puppets?

Anyways, you have not answered me...

No, I've been using this nation to post since the start, and what did you ask me?

[Tubbsalot]

When people talk about "gender roles," they aren't referring to the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. Yes, obviously one biological function of the human female - from an evolutionary point of view - is to carry the child to term. But the idea that women should stay at home and do the cleaning is a gender role which has no biological basis. More to the point, the idea that women should be getting pregnant and having babies, or else be excluded from society, has no biological basis - any more than saying "men should have big muscles and lift heavy things, and if they don't, they should be shunned."

Nobody is denying the existence of sexual dimorphism. What they're saying is that these differences cannot justify forcing people to behave in a way which is viewed as "intended" for their sex.

Well, nobody exactly is doing any forcing of anything gender related here in the land of the free, so what exactly is your point?

Well, that depends on whether you really care about my use of the word "forcing," specifically, as opposed to a word like "encouraging" or "pressuring" or some similar word which would work equally well.

There are certainly people who believe that women should be home-makers, not workers, that they should value having children above all else, or that they should be meek and polite and act "like a lady."

Which is exactly what is meant by gender roles.