Criticisms of Feminism

[Korouse]

That doesn't matter in the case of who you'd rather be saved or cared by.

Your odds would be better if the one saving you would be stronger.

But that's redundant since both sexes are held up to the same standard. It wouldn't matter, they'd be the same strength regardless.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It is compulsory, not voluntary. You might as well argue why men are drafted into the selective service but women aren't. If something is compulsory it is stupid to argue "BUT ZEH WYMMINS" Because we don't know what women think, if they want to keep working or being a mother.

No, I am just not someone who stereotypes genders. I've worked alongside women, and sometimes they are just better than men at physical labor. Sorry that your narrative doesn't hold water in reality.

You're probably the only one that has seen that then because:

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

The VAST majority of women pursue different careers:

Education also matters. Even within groups with the same educational attainment, women often choose fields of study, such as sociology, liberal arts or psychology, that pay less in the labor market. Men are more likely to major in finance, accounting or engineering. And as the American Association of University Women reports, men are four times more likely to bargain over salaries once they enter the job market.

Which corresponds with my own observations: just about every woman I have met so far is: either in a service job, nursing, IT, psychology or accounting etc.

Did I say all the time or just some of the time? What do you think the word "sometimes" means?

[Natapoc]

Simple: women always think it is a man's job. We coddle women into thinking they don't need to get their hands dirty, that they are better than the dig trencher, and men to think nursing is not for them, that our place is in the financial world or doing hard labor.

Women who are raised to not be afraid of a shovel or manual labor are typically more capable of getting jobs that require hard labor. How many women do you know their parents take them and go "you're going to rake leaves for an allowance" or "you're going with me to a client's house for some lawn sprinkler job I have"?

Then you still haven't explained simple biology: why men develop more muscle than women ?

They don't. You don't seem to understand this simple biology you keep talking about.

None of the following statements contradict eachother and they are all true:

Some women are significantly stronger than most men.
Some men are significantly stronger than most women.
The average man has more muscle mass than the average woman.
Some men are significantly weaker than most women.
Some women are significantly weaker than most men.

[Free Tristania]

Your odds would be better if the one saving you would be stronger.

But that's redundant since both sexes are held up to the same standard. It wouldn't matter, they'd be the same strength regardless.

If they were... but they usually aren't. Thus.. it's an hypothetical situation.

[Korouse]

But that's redundant since both sexes are held up to the same standard. It wouldn't matter, they'd be the same strength regardless.

If they were... but they usually aren't. Thus.. it's an hypothetical situation.

Yes they are. You're just desperate trying to stall the argument.

[Free Tristania]

Then you still haven't explained simple biology: why men develop more muscle than women ?

They don't. You don't seem to understand this simple biology you keep talking about.

None of the following statements contradict eachother and they are all true:

Some women are significantly stronger than most men.
Some men are significantly stronger than most women.
The average man has more muscle mass than the average woman.
Some men are significantly weaker than most women.
Some women are significantly weaker than most men.

Men are (give and take some exceptions) stronger than women. It's nature. Nature isn't fair but what it is. Deal with it.
It's because our ancestors had to hunt for their daily meat: men did the hunting, women did the gathering. The hunter needed strength, the gatherer less so.

[Free Tristania]

If they were... but they usually aren't. Thus.. it's an hypothetical situation.

Yes they are. You're just desperate trying to stall the argument.

No I am not. Because the statistics make it very clear that women stay clear of such occupations. Why ? Because they need to have physical strenght and endurance for that they (because of their built) do not possess. It is what it is.

[Korouse]

Yes they are. You're just desperate trying to stall the argument.

No I am not. Because the statistics make it very clear that women stay clear of such occupations. Why ? Because they need to have physical strenght and endurance for that they (because of their built) do not possess. It is what it is.

Source then.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Men are (give and take some exceptions) stronger than women. It's nature. Nature isn't fair but what it is. Deal with it.
It's because our ancestors had to hunt for their daily meat: men did the hunting, women did the gathering. The hunter needed strength, the gatherer less so.

Men are not, in an absolute, stronger than women.

That would imply there's not a middle ground where some women are stronger than some men and no man can be weaker than a woman.

A woman of my same height and who does exercise at least 5 times a week or does some sort of physical labor can easily overpower me. Does that mean I am somehow a pussy?

Also, you are horribly wrong about what "hunter-gatherer" means.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes they are. You're just desperate trying to stall the argument.

No I am not. Because the statistics make it very clear that women stay clear of such occupations. Why ? Because they need to have physical strenght and endurance for that they (because of their built) are convinced do not possess. It is what it is.

ftfy.

[Tahar Joblis]

LOL some of those products are pretty funny. I looked and the parent company of lookhuman.com (referenced in your link) was cofounded by a woman so I'll probably buy a few.

Here is the thing with misandry.
Yes, some individuals do hate men.
Entire cultures nations, and mainstream ideologies are founded on the basis of hating women.

I wouldn't recommend purchasing from them; they're art thieves and general arseholes.

You hit the nail on the head with the difference between misogyny and misandry though.
_{(Also, I mean, the joke is largely aimed at the people that keep going "FEMINISM IS MISANDRY". Feminists get fucking tired of the bullshit and decide "Eh, whatever, may as well poke at the fools with a stick". Same idiots that scream about misandry take this as validation. Feminists are even more amused/annoyed. Repeat ad nauseum.)}

First, there are people who believe that feminism is fundamentally misandrist. Using a definition of misandry as broad as the definition of misogyny deployed by many feminists, this is sort of accurate - the feminist movement has the effect of entrenching sexist discrimination against men in a number of areas, and the behaviors that drive this phenomenon seem to be quite structural in nature. The feminist movement is more "misandrist" than any modern First World country is "misogynist."

Second, there are people who believe that feminism provides a haven for misandry, by protecting misandrists and providing them with ready-made justifications. This is thoroughly true; very few feminists call out misandry, and a certain number of prominent feminists have been quite demonstrably misandrist.

Third, there are people who are delusional, and think that misandry isn't a thing (or at least, has no relationship to feminism). These are the people the Slate article describes; they either hold to the delusion that misandry cannot exist, or hold to the delusion that feminism does not play a role in protecting misandry and harboring misandrists. (Odd as it may seem, many of these feminists have much less difficulty admitting that the feminist movement has a racism problem when black women start calling out the influential white women of the movement.)

Valerie Solanas demonstrated that there is no level of vitriolic hate of men that is too over-the-top for some significant fraction of radfems to defend it. No less prominent of a modern feminist than Robin Morgan (one of the grand dames of the movement, now) spent time in the trenches protesting Solanas's trial.

If you want to support feminism against accusations of misandry, you should at least be disowning the actual misandrists operating under the label and trying to deny them the protection of your movement.

If members of the Daughters of the Confederacy wanted to respond effectively to accusations of racism, mugs saying "NIGGER LYNCHER" would be counterproductive, and also not particularly appropriate given the history of the group.

[Free Tristania]

No I am not. Because the statistics make it very clear that women stay clear of such occupations. Why ? Because they need to have physical strenght and endurance for that they (because of their built) do not possess. It is what it is.

Source then.

Here is one: here in the Netherlands.





Personally I am yet to meet the first female fire fighter - maybe they count the staff as well.


And in work-related fatalities it is clear that it's men who take the brunt because they have more dangerous jobs:



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 2008/?_r=0

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2909957472

[Free Tristania]

Men are (give and take some exceptions) stronger than women. It's nature. Nature isn't fair but what it is. Deal with it.
It's because our ancestors had to hunt for their daily meat: men did the hunting, women did the gathering. The hunter needed strength, the gatherer less so.

Men are not, in an absolute, stronger than women.

That would imply there's not a middle ground where some women are stronger than some men and no man can be weaker than a woman.

A woman of my same height and who does exercise at least 5 times a week or does some sort of physical labor can easily overpower me. Does that mean I am somehow a pussy?

Not too many of those around.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Men are not, in an absolute, stronger than women.

That would imply there's not a middle ground where some women are stronger than some men and no man can be weaker than a woman.

A woman of my same height and who does exercise at least 5 times a week or does some sort of physical labor can easily overpower me. Does that mean I am somehow a pussy?

Not too many of those around.

They still exist. Does that mean that if a woman can overpower me I am not a man or somehow I am emasculated?

[Free Tristania]

Not too many of those around.

They still exist.

But the odds of you running into one are small - unless you are, indeed, not well developed.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Source then.

Here is one: here in the Netherlands.





Personally I am yet to meet the first female fire fighter - maybe they count the staff as well.


And in work-related fatalities it is clear that it's men who take the brunt because they have more dangerous jobs:



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 2008/?_r=0

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2909957472

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Can you prove that as a whole women do not choose these jobs because they are weaker, or not?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They still exist.

But the odds of you running into one are small - unless you are, indeed, not well developed.

Ah, so now men who are weaker than women are less developed.

I've met women who I hold respect for because they can overpower me, does that make me underdeveloped or does that make you ignorant?

[Korouse]

Source then.

Here is one: here in the Netherlands.





Personally I am yet to meet the first female fire fighter - maybe they count the staff as well.


And in work-related fatalities it is clear that it's men who take the brunt because they have more dangerous jobs:



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 2008/?_r=0

Risk is another factor. Nearly all the most dangerous occupations, such as loggers or iron workers, are majority male and 92% of work-related deaths in 2012 were to men. Dangerous jobs tend to pay higher salaries to attract workers. Also: Males are more likely to pursue occupations where compensation is risky from year to year, such as law and finance. Research shows that average pay in such jobs is higher to compensate for that risk.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2909957472

That really doesn't tell me anything than Firefighting is falling out of favor with females and males die a lot more. If anything, you should say Males are weaker, since they die a lot more.

[Free Tristania]

Here is one: here in the Netherlands.





Personally I am yet to meet the first female fire fighter - maybe they count the staff as well.


And in work-related fatalities it is clear that it's men who take the brunt because they have more dangerous jobs:



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 2008/?_r=0



http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2909957472

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Can you prove that as a whole women do not choose these jobs because they are weaker, or not?

The facts are there before you. That they don't match your political beliefs if your problem.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Can you prove that as a whole women do not choose these jobs because they are weaker, or not?

The facts are there before you. That they don't match your political beliefs if your problem.

So you can't.

Thank you for playing "I pretend I know shit when I really don't".

[Eleanor Ritas]

Not too many of those around.

They still exist. Does that mean that if a woman can overpower me I am not a man or somehow I am emasculated?

I think you have to pay extra for that part.

[Free Tristania]

Here is one: here in the Netherlands.





Personally I am yet to meet the first female fire fighter - maybe they count the staff as well.


And in work-related fatalities it is clear that it's men who take the brunt because they have more dangerous jobs:



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... 2008/?_r=0



http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 2909957472

That really doesn't tell me anything than Firefighting is falling out of favor with females and males die a lot more. If anything, you should say Males are weaker, since they die a lot more.

Wrong.

1. Fewer women become fire fighter then men (it's a dangerous occupation which requires psychical strength and endurance and not even many men have that strength).

2. It shows that more men than women are in dangerous workplaces.

[Natapoc]

But the odds of you running into one are small - unless you are, indeed, not well developed.

Ah, so now men who are weaker than women are less developed.

I've met women who I hold respect for because they can overpower me, does that make me underdeveloped?

I know women who could knock probably 99% of the male population off their feet with a single punch (They are martial artists who train daily. So if you're underdeveloped, so are most men.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

They still exist. Does that mean that if a woman can overpower me I am not a man or somehow I am emasculated?

I think you have to pay extra for that part.

We always pay extra for those parts.

[Free Tristania]

The facts are there before you. That they don't match your political beliefs if your problem.

So you can't.

Thank you for playing "I pretend I know shit when I really don't".

No thank you for ignoring statistics that kill off your political beliefs. Which is a typical feature of the Left anyway.