The NationStates Feminist Thread II

[Balkenreich]

And less capable. Great leaders, scientists, explorers, basically any group of people that was particularly good at doing something is almost completely male. If you're going to take such an idiotic approach to history at least be consistent.

I didn't realize you found it appropriate to respond to sexism with sexism.

Is it really sexist when all you can do is open up a history book?

[Philjia]

They are, but if history has shown anything it shows women as less violent.

And less capable. Great leaders, scientists, explorers, basically any group of people that was particularly good at doing something is almost completely male. If you're going to take such an idiotic approach to history at least be consistent.

When they have been given the opportunity, women have made great contributions to the fields of human learning, and also debauched, violent, excess.

[New Edom]

So what is your ideal world and how do we get there?

I said the basics of my ideal world. Do you want more? Not to sure how to get there yet

More peace when a woman is in power? Can you give a few examples?

[Des-Bal]

I didn't realize you found it appropriate to respond to sexism with sexism.

So when I said "this is an idiotic approach to history" you took that to mean "I agree with your approach to history."

[New Edom]

Women are just as capable of violence, depravity, and malice as men. Wu Zetian of China. Mary I of England. Ranavalona I of Madagascar. Margaret Thatcher. The corruption of power is not confined to men.

Dont you think i dont know that. But do those women present the majority?

As I wrote before--I can't find my post so maybe it was lost? Anyway can you give examples of how female rule over nations or major leadership positions has led to peace and prosperity for people? Can you name any great civilizations that have ended up being shining examples that were led by women, what achievements they had?

If women are such excellent natural leaders, what examples do you have of women saying 'enough@" and rising to positions of authority through revolution that later led to peace/

If women are such excellent natural leaders, why did women pretty much have to be given a place in government by fair minded men throughout Western Civilization? Beause if you're honest they sure as hell didn't manage to demand it at gunpoint.

[Proctopeo]

I didn't realize you found it appropriate to respond to sexism with sexism.

So when I said "this is an idiotic approach to history" you took that to mean "I agree with your approach to history."

To be fair, I missed that the first time I read that post. I chalk this up to skimming, and why it's always a good idea to review a post before you respond to it.

[Ostroeuropa]

I said the basics of my ideal world. Do you want more? Not to sure how to get there yet

More peace when a woman is in power? Can you give a few examples?

It doesn't actually line up with the reality either.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/eu ... kings.html

European Queens waged more wars than Kings.

It's basically a historical version of the denial we see over domestic violence.

It's also interesting in that it shows how more gender equality can make things worse.

Kings governed alone.
Queens put the kings in charge of domestic policy, allowing them to focus their entire energy at waging war.

But what really flies in the face of peoples beliefs about this kind of stuff, is that presented with the opportunity to pick domestic or war to run themselves, queens chose war far more often.

Also:

But the authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen’s watch is not likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you’d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens’ careers, and that wasn’t the case according to the data analyzed here.

And:

Queens didn’t tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

So it all paints a rather bloodthirsty picture of female rulers. It would be like if Clinton took office and then said;
"We don't need generals or the chief of staff, I shall conduct this personally. I am also delegating all other responsibilities to Bill."

It would raise eyebrows.

The dynamics back then are different from today, it's worth pointing out. There's no guarantee of this data reflecting modern mindsets. But that's kind of the point.

Then again, you've got stats about women initiating most domestic violence incidents.
It's possible that the pervasive belief and myth about women being peaceful causes them to behave more violently, because they aren't given the tools needed to learn self-control over that violence like men are, just assumed to be already fine.

Inter-male conflict is a different matter imo, stemming from dehumanization.

[Wallenburg]

I didn't realize you found it appropriate to respond to sexism with sexism.

So when I said "this is an idiotic approach to history" you took that to mean "I agree with your approach to history."

The structure of your post--or at least the first half of it--implied that you agreed with GabrieIa's assessment, and truly believed that women are less competent at everything. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[New Edom]

More peace when a woman is in power? Can you give a few examples?

It doesn't actually line up with the reality either.

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/eu ... kings.html

European Queens waged more wars than Kings.

It's basically a historical version of the denial we see over domestic violence.

It's also interesting in that it shows how more gender equality can make things worse.

Kings governed alone.
Queens put the kings in charge of domestic policy, allowing them to focus their entire energy at waging war.

But what really flies in the face of peoples beliefs about this kind of stuff, is that presented with the opportunity to pick domestic or war to run themselves, queens chose war far more often.

Also:

But the authors emphasize that the increase in wars on a queen’s watch is not likely explained by an attempt by the female leaders to signal their strength. Were that true, you’d expect a spike in war participation earlier in the queens’ careers, and that wasn’t the case according to the data analyzed here.

And:

Queens didn’t tend to use war ministers as much as kings, they relegated other tasks to their husbands, and they often threw themselves into the policy-making machine wholeheartedly.

So it all paints a rather bloodthirsty picture of female rulers. It would be like if Clinton took office and then said;
"We don't need generals or the chief of staff, I shall conduct this personally. I am also delegating all other responsibilities to Bill."

It would raise eyebrows.

The dynamics back then are different from today, it's worth pointing out. There's no guarantee of this data reflecting modern mindsets. But that's kind of the point.

Then again, you've got stats about women initiating most domestic violence incidents.
It's possible that the pervasive belief and myth about women being peaceful causes them to behave more violently, because they aren't given the tools needed to learn self-control over that violence like men are, just assumed to be already fine.

Inter-male conflict is a different matter imo, stemming from dehumanization.

I've studied similar stuff. It's very interesting. There are a lot of possibilities I believe scholars are still studying like:
- Does power mostly draw in certain kinds of personality types?
- If that's true, is it likely that female leaders are simply going to be very competitive by nature?
- Does leadership require certain traits be present for there to be effectiveness?

Many have speculated and have good points here and there. But certainly the evidence of history doesn't suggest that women are inherently more peaceful than men are. Biology combined with history suggests that men simply tend to have more confidence that inclines them to action due to testosterone to greater percentages.

[Costa Fierro]

I have seen throughout history there is more peace when a woman is in power.

Should we ask the Pakistanis or the Argentinians about how peaceful things were when they were at war with countries led by women?

[The Grene Knyght]

My contribution to the discussion with GabrieIa: Gender essentialism wrapped in feminist rhetoric is the single most hypocritical form of sexism.

---

Contrary to popular belief, there are actually feminists who acknowledge that modern feminism in the west to too focused on the west, and in particular on the white middle-class.
Also, on your first point, I guess you don't know about intersectional feminism which, if a majority of feminists don't already identify as this, its certainly a significant amount and growing rapidly.

I speak of the movement as a whole, not on an individual level. Thank God there are people working to reform. We need them. I'm mainly ranting against the "elitist" feminists that fall under this description. Until their influence is extinguished the integrity of feminism will be compromised.

*reads a recent couple posts from this thread*

Oh frick they're already here aren't they

There is no such thing as the whole movement. As with any ideology, there are movements withing movements within movements, and movements unrelated to those movements, who have their own movements within them, and so on...

[New Edom]

My contribution to the discussion with GabrieIa: Gender essentialism wrapped in feminist rhetoric is the single most hypocritical form of sexism.

---

I speak of the movement as a whole, not on an individual level. Thank God there are people working to reform. We need them. I'm mainly ranting against the "elitist" feminists that fall under this description. Until their influence is extinguished the integrity of feminism will be compromised.

*reads a recent couple posts from this thread*

Oh frick they're already here aren't they

There is no such thing as the whole movement. As with any ideology, there are movements withing movements within movements, and movements unrelated to those movements, who have their own movements within them, and so on...

For practical purposes, this may be ideologically true but not really true in practice.

When UN Women gathers spokespersons to raise awareness for feminist causes, they're talking about the movement as a whole, and a certain type of point of view is presented. For example only patriarchy theory advocates are invited for the most part, not liberal feminists or conservative feminists. The same is true for when people like Gloria Steinem lead public events or famous people like Eve Ensler, Michael Kimmel, Emma Watson, Jessica Valenti, Gail Dines and others who speak on important subjects talk in the name of feminism. They hardly qualify this by saying 'I only speak for some feminists here" they act like theirs is the only feminism and that others dn't get it or are not really feminist.

So it could be argued that the following ideas are commonly presented as central to modern feminism.
- patriarchy theory
- wage gap
- objectification
- glass ceiling
- intersectionality
- anti-pornography
- anti trade
- anti-harassment
- toxic masculinity
- victim blaming
- Yes means Yes

So I've noticed in public conversations that while they may disagree about how to carry out policies reagarding those ideas that the ideas themselves are firmly in place for what is overall accepted as feminism. Dissenting views have been thoroughly dismisssed as being anti-feminist. And this is curiously Western in aspect.

I'm reminded of Eve Ensler's "One Billion Rising" ads, which show the following types of scenes:
- a woman carrying a huge bundle of wood in some tribal village
- a woman being forced to endure some kind of genital mutilation (actual scene implied not shown graphically)
- a woman being beaten in some poor Black home
- a blonde white woman having her hair touched briefly by a guy in the office, clearly uncomfortable


The last is kind of hilarious by comparison to the others, since
a) there's clearly nothing stopping her from telling the guy to leave her alone just according to the context presented
b) there are human resources for this sort of thing
c) the clip doesn't demonstrate why she cannot do either of the above. Whiel it is possible it's not clear
So in other words, the ad is basically suggesting that what might be inappropriate flirtation and something that a simple "stop that" might deal with in a society that recognizes individual rights and freedoms....is the same as the other scenes--being a drudge all your life (though again, no context) genital mutilation while you are a child, domestic violence and other such scenes.

[The Grene Knyght]

My contribution to the discussion with GabrieIa: Gender essentialism wrapped in feminist rhetoric is the single most hypocritical form of sexism.

---

There is no such thing as the whole movement. As with any ideology, there are movements withing movements within movements, and movements unrelated to those movements, who have their own movements within them, and so on...

For practical purposes, this may be ideologically true but not really true in practice.

When UN Women gathers spokespersons to raise awareness for feminist causes, they're talking about the movement as a whole, and a certain type of point of view is presented. For example only patriarchy theory advocates are invited for the most part, not liberal feminists or conservative feminists. The same is true for when people like Gloria Steinem lead public events or famous people like Eve Ensler, Michael Kimmel, Emma Watson, Jessica Valenti, Gail Dines and others who speak on important subjects talk in the name of feminism. They hardly qualify this by saying 'I only speak for some feminists here" they act like theirs is the only feminism and that others dn't get it or are not really feminist.

So it could be argued that the following ideas are commonly presented as central to modern feminism.
- patriarchy theory
- wage gap
- objectification
- glass ceiling
- intersectionality
- anti-pornography
- anti trade
- anti-harassment
- toxic masculinity
- victim blaming
- Yes means Yes

So I've noticed in public conversations that while they may disagree about how to carry out policies reagarding those ideas that the ideas themselves are firmly in place for what is overall accepted as feminism. Dissenting views have been thoroughly dismisssed as being anti-feminist. And this is curiously Western in aspect.

I'm reminded of Eve Ensler's "One Billion Rising" ads, which show the following types of scenes:
- a woman carrying a huge bundle of wood in some tribal village
- a woman being forced to endure some kind of genital mutilation (actual scene implied not shown graphically)
- a woman being beaten in some poor Black home
- a blonde white woman having her hair touched briefly by a guy in the office, clearly uncomfortable


The last is kind of hilarious by comparison to the others, since
a) there's clearly nothing stopping her from telling the guy to leave her alone just according to the context presented
b) there are human resources for this sort of thing
c) the clip doesn't demonstrate why she cannot do either of the above. Whiel it is possible it's not clear
So in other words, the ad is basically suggesting that what might be inappropriate flirtation and something that a simple "stop that" might deal with in a society that recognizes individual rights and freedoms....is the same as the other scenes--being a drudge all your life (though again, no context) genital mutilation while you are a child, domestic violence and other such scenes.

I won't deny that its advantageous to present ones own particular brand of an ideology as the only brand or the core brand. But this happens everywhere. Not all conservatives support gun rights, but this is still associated with them, and often when speaking prominent conservative commentators might act like its central to conservative thought. Same with any ideology.

[Galloism]

I won't deny that its advantageous to present ones own particular brand of an ideology as the only brand or the core brand. But this happens everywhere. Not all conservatives support gun rights, but this is still associated with them, and often when speaking prominent conservative commentators might act like its central to conservative thought. Same with any ideology.

The dominant getting-shit-done portion of the movement is clearly run by radical feminists in this day and age who are deliberately pushing a sexist agenda. It wasn't always so, but one cannot deny that it is so now without being either totally detatched from reality or living in deliberate denial.

Observe:

I selectively edit posts and respond to portions when I feel I have something to say.

I'm not activist, so I really don't have anything to say on the other front.
I disagree that "feminism" is holding back issues such as men's domestic violence, male victim rape and the like, because feminism wants to eliminate harmful gender roles such as "toxic masculinity" - with that specifically covering, amongst other things "what? Men can't get beat up by women. Grow a pair." and "what do you mean you were raped, you got laid, fuck off fag".

Does a small minority of radical feminists (who aren't well-liked at all in wider feminism), some of which may be motivated by a hatred of men pretty equivalent to that of legit misogynists, actively try and torpedo things like men's violence shelters?
Yes, those people are worthless trash. They are, as vocal hardcore subsets usually are, loud and disruptive and not representative.

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.

Because there is some bizarre pushback over women thinking "in these areas, I think we don't enjoy the same things men do here", I believe there is a significant bias from anti-feminist outlets to play up these groups and project some image that this is all the feminist movement is.

Does it not surprise you that after all these years people still seriously bring up that legitimately one really angry red-haired woman for "look how trash all of feminism is"?

I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

[The Grene Knyght]

I won't deny that its advantageous to present ones own particular brand of an ideology as the only brand or the core brand. But this happens everywhere. Not all conservatives support gun rights, but this is still associated with them, and often when speaking prominent conservative commentators might act like its central to conservative thought. Same with any ideology.

The dominant getting-shit-done portion of the movement is clearly run by radical feminists in this day and age who are deliberately pushing a sexist agenda. It wasn't always so, but one cannot deny that it is so now without being either totally detatched from reality or living in deliberate denial.

Observe:

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.



I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

I'm pretty sure I posted a response to this exact post or one very similar to it somewhere.

[Galloism]

I'm pretty sure I posted a response to this exact post or one very similar to it somewhere.

The point is they're the ones getting shit done.

I look at it like the conservative movement in the United States. Clearly, there are conservatives who are just good decent folk who think the government's too large and the republicans align with their preferences. That's fine.

And yet, when you look at what the conservative movement does, through their boys the Republicans, you can't help but be repulsed. That's how I feel about the feminist movement writ large. Could feminism reform? Sure. I encourage it.

Is it in need of reform? That falls under the category of "hell yes, obviously."

Same deal with our political "right" in the United States.

[The Grene Knyght]

I'm pretty sure I posted a response to this exact post or one very similar to it somewhere.

The point is they're the ones getting shit done.

I look at it like the conservative movement in the United States. Clearly, there are conservatives who are just good decent folk who think the government's too large and the republicans align with their preferences. That's fine.

And yet, when you look at what the conservative movement does, through their boys the Republicans, you can't help but be repulsed. That's how I feel about the feminist movement writ large. Could feminism reform? Sure. I encourage it.

Is it in need of reform? That falls under the category of "hell yes, obviously."

Same deal with our political "right" in the United States.

Fair point. I think our only real disagreement here is how far the movement is corrupted, and what a reformed movement should actually look like.

[Galloism]

Fair point. I think our only real disagreement here is how far the movement is corrupted, and what a reformed movement should actually look like.

I'm open to two options, neither of which are particularly likely, mind you.

1) Feminism, as a movement, starts actually seeking equality again to line up with its rhetoric of being the equality movement for all. That means seeking equality even when it hurts women and benefits men because men are currently the disadvantaged ones. That does mean they do occasionally hurt their core constituency in the pursuit of equality.

2) Feminism, as a movement, aligns its rhetoric with its actual actions, and becomes a women's interests group (not unlike farmer's interests, union interests, etc). As a result, it stops trying to claim that it's for equality for all - but merely for the benefit of women. Then, allow a parallel movement (IE, a men's interests movement) grow next to it without viciously attempting to suppress it. Then we have two groups seeking to benefit their constituents and based on the arguments we will probably continue towards equality again.


I'm pretty ok with either of those. The status quo, where feminism, as a movement, has rhetoric of being the equality movement for all and no others are valid, to the point of viciously attacking them, while actively working against equality if it would tend to reduce sexist privileges afforded to women, is not ok. It's really not ok.

[Radikala Skold]

The point is they're the ones getting shit done.

I would like to say that it's because Radical Feminism is the only worthy form of Feminism, but I know that such affirmation could sound vain and unfair to some people, and also such explanation wouldn't be very meaningul for many other people.

A different, but still accurate explanation about why it's Radical Feminists who are having the "shit done" is:

I think that liberal feminism don't need to exist anymore: equal rights under the law are a reality and liberal feminists don't strive for substantive equality, so it's not about that, for them, it cannot be. What is left to liberal feminism, then? Almost nothing, liberal feminism nowadays seems to me like a rebranding and pinkwashing of certain products and sectors of the market. Liberal feminism has been reduced to just only little more of a strategy to sell new products and services to women.

Hence why the only form that is different, and it's much more than a simple advertising strategy, is having "its shit done".

What did you expect from liberal feminists? What kind of goals they're striving for? A new kind of cheaper pink razor for the legs? A new "female-friendly" (so-called) porn genre? They are actually achieving all those "important goals" but that doesn't prove that they're having "shit done", that actually proves that their "goals" are irrelevant, so much that you didn't even noticed those "achievements"

Little footnote: I'm delighted that you guys are beginning to socialize with my to-be-NS-wife and new deputy empress GabrieIa.

[Galloism]

The point is they're the ones getting shit done.

I would like to say that it's because Radical Feminism is the only worthy form of Feminism, but I know that such affirmation could sound vain and unfair to some people, and also such explanation wouldn't be very meaningul for many other people.

A different, but still accurate explanation about why it's Radical Feminists who are having the "shit done" is:

I think that liberal feminism don't need to exist anymore: equal rights under the law are a reality and liberal feminists don't strive for substantive equality, so it's not about that, for them, it cannot be. What is left to liberal feminism, then? Almost nothing, liberal feminism nowadays seems to me like a rebranding and pinkwashing of certain products and sectors of the market. Liberal feminism has been reduced to just only little more of a strategy to sell new products and services to women.

Hence why the only form that is different, and it's much more than a simple advertising strategy, is having "its shit done".

What did you expect from liberal feminists? What kind of goals they're striving for? A new kind of cheaper pink razor for the legs? A new "female-friendly" (so-called) porn genre? They are actually achieving all those "important goals" but that doesn't prove that they're having "shit done", that actually proves that their "goals" are irrelevant, so much that you didn't even noticed those "achievements"

Little footnote: I'm delighted that you guys are beginning to socialize with my to-be-NS-wife and new deputy empress GabrieIa.

A nice slice of equality, instead of protecting rapists and abusers, entrenching sexism in the law, infantilizing women, and stuff like that - all things which radical feminists have done, continue to do, and you push for in this forum and presumably elsewhere.

Edit: As a reminder, we have liberal feminists to thank for gender neutral statutory rape laws. Radical feminists opposed making it illegal for women to fuck little boys. They wanted to protect rapists of the proper genitalia. You know - for equality.

We have liberal feminists to thank for defeating that heinous sexist bullshit the radicals defended. So, there is that.

[Raoganya]

They are, but if history has shown anything it shows women as less violent.

And less capable. Great leaders, scientists, explorers, basically any group of people that was particularly good at doing something is almost completely male. If you're going to take such an idiotic approach to history at least be consistent.

Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, and Queen Elizebeth are all waiting in line to smack you in the afterlife for that comment.

I won't deny that its advantageous to present ones own particular brand of an ideology as the only brand or the core brand. But this happens everywhere. Not all conservatives support gun rights, but this is still associated with them, and often when speaking prominent conservative commentators might act like its central to conservative thought. Same with any ideology.

The dominant getting-shit-done portion of the movement is clearly run by radical feminists in this day and age who are deliberately pushing a sexist agenda. It wasn't always so, but one cannot deny that it is so now without being either totally detatched from reality or living in deliberate denial.

Observe:

Here's the thing, if they are a small minority, why are they so in control of the policy and the narrative?

They've spent almost 40 years torpedoing the truth about the prevalence of domestic violence, with great success, using tactics ranging from career threats to actual bomb threats.

In addition, when men attempt to contact help lines or DV shelters, which are mainly run by feminist groups, they are routinely accused of being the batterer in disguise, given contact info for a batterer's program, and/or openly mocked by the staff.

Feminists have fought against gender neutral rape laws, in both Israel and India.

Those are mainstream positions now.

However, they weren't always. In the United States, it used to be that only radical feminists opposed making statutory rape laws gender neutral, protecting the right of grown women to fuck little boys.

It was probably largely thanks to Mary Koss's efforts that the CDC used the a sexist definition of rape attempting to downplay male victims. She is, after all, on the CDC think tank, and her view is men can't be raped by women.

Look, if it's a "small minority group" leading this crusade, feminsim has let the lunatics run the asylum. This "small minority" has been blocking progress for FORTY YEARS. It's not me playing it up - it's the actual and real victims they've been oppressing and violent perpetrators they've been protecting.

Look, I know you want to think the best of the feminist movement, and I'm not saying it's irredeemable, but the only way it can BE redeemed is if you push back against these sexist radical feminists and get loud and in charge screaming "THESE PEOPLE DON'T REPRESENT US", and get the movement on track to seek equality again.

The evidence is overwhelming. Your belief that it isn't there doesn't line up. Until you recognize the problem, you will never fix it.



I'm looking at what feminism has done as a movement, not what one loudmouth does.

*slowclaps* kudos to you for this amazing summary of what everyone of us dissenters are trying to say

[New Edom]

And less capable. Great leaders, scientists, explorers, basically any group of people that was particularly good at doing something is almost completely male. If you're going to take such an idiotic approach to history at least be consistent.

Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, and Queen Elizebeth are all waiting in line to smack you in the afterlife for that comment.

Henry V, Edward Longshanks, Edward III, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Murad II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, Peter the Great, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga, Hammurabi, Selim I, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamurlane, Harold Hadrada, William of Normandy, Hernan Cortez, Micheiel de Ruyter, Tecumseh, Roald Amundsen, Crazy Horse, Ahuitzotl of Mexico, Tycho Brahe, Louis Pasteur, Nicholas Copernicus, James Cook, Ferdinand Magellan, Sir Isaac Brock, Samuel de Champlain, John Glenn, Germanicus, Alcibiades, Joshua L. Chamberlain, Gaius Marius, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Shaka Zulu, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato

It is not that there are no female great leaders, general, discoverrrs or inventors, artists or composers. There are a lot more men though.

However the response originally was to a post stating that women would be better leaders because they are more peaceful. So it was somewhat sarcastic, I suspect.

[Raoganya]

Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher, Marie Curie, and Queen Elizebeth are all waiting in line to smack you in the afterlife for that comment.

Henry V, Edward Longshanks, Edward III, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Murad II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, Peter the Great, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga, Hammurabi, Selim I, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamurlane, Harold Hadrada, William of Normandy, Hernan Cortez, Micheiel de Ruyter, Tecumseh, Roald Amundsen, Crazy Horse, Ahuitzotl of Mexico, Tycho Brahe, Louis Pasteur, Nicholas Copernicus, James Cook, Ferdinand Magellan, Sir Isaac Brock, Samuel de Champlain, John Glenn, Germanicus, Alcibiades, Joshua L. Chamberlain, Gaius Marius, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Shaka Zulu, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato

It is not that there are no female great leaders, general, discoverrrs or inventors, artists or composers. There are a lot more men though.

However the response originally was to a post stating that women would be better leaders because they are more peaceful. So it was somewhat sarcastic, I suspect.

Now obviously due to traditional gender norms and historical prejudice there will be a large number more men than women who managed to get to the top and do great things. I do agree thought that it is demonstratably wrong to believe women are in fact unanimously more peaceful or thoughtful leaders.

It is counterproductive however to confront sexist notions with sexism. Then it just turns into a pointless mudslinging contest that gets no one anywhere. I think both sides need to figure that out at some point. Nobody feign innocence, I've seen entirely to much gender bickering all over this thread, and in some really troublesome forms.

[Galloism]

Henry V, Edward Longshanks, Edward III, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Murad II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, Peter the Great, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga, Hammurabi, Selim I, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamurlane, Harold Hadrada, William of Normandy, Hernan Cortez, Micheiel de Ruyter, Tecumseh, Roald Amundsen, Crazy Horse, Ahuitzotl of Mexico, Tycho Brahe, Louis Pasteur, Nicholas Copernicus, James Cook, Ferdinand Magellan, Sir Isaac Brock, Samuel de Champlain, John Glenn, Germanicus, Alcibiades, Joshua L. Chamberlain, Gaius Marius, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Shaka Zulu, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato

It is not that there are no female great leaders, general, discoverrrs or inventors, artists or composers. There are a lot more men though.

However the response originally was to a post stating that women would be better leaders because they are more peaceful. So it was somewhat sarcastic, I suspect.

Now obviously due to traditional gender norms and historical prejudice there will be a large number more men than women who managed to get to the top and do great things. I do agree thought that it is demonstratably wrong to believe women are in fact unanimously more peaceful or thoughtful leaders.

It is counterproductive however to confront sexist notions with sexism. Then it just turns into a pointless mudslinging contest that gets no one anywhere. I think both sides need to figure that out at some point. Nobody feign innocence, I've seen entirely to much gender bickering all over this thread, and in some really troublesome forms.

Well I think I'm pretty innocent, other than the occasional clearly sarcastic quip.

[Mattopilos]

Henry V, Edward Longshanks, Edward III, Saladin, Suleiman the Magnificent, Murad II, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar, Constantine, Peter the Great, Jan Sobieski, Oda Nobunaga, Hammurabi, Selim I, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, Tamurlane, Harold Hadrada, William of Normandy, Hernan Cortez, Micheiel de Ruyter, Tecumseh, Roald Amundsen, Crazy Horse, Ahuitzotl of Mexico, Tycho Brahe, Louis Pasteur, Nicholas Copernicus, James Cook, Ferdinand Magellan, Sir Isaac Brock, Samuel de Champlain, John Glenn, Germanicus, Alcibiades, Joshua L. Chamberlain, Gaius Marius, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Shaka Zulu, Leonardo da Vinci, Plato

It is not that there are no female great leaders, general, discoverrrs or inventors, artists or composers. There are a lot more men though.

However the response originally was to a post stating that women would be better leaders because they are more peaceful. So it was somewhat sarcastic, I suspect.

Now obviously due to traditional gender norms and historical prejudice there will be a large number more men than women who managed to get to the top and do great things. I do agree thought that it is demonstratably wrong to believe women are in fact unanimously more peaceful or thoughtful leaders.

It is counterproductive however to confront sexist notions with sexism. Then it just turns into a pointless mudslinging contest that gets no one anywhere. I think both sides need to figure that out at some point. Nobody feign innocence, I've seen entirely to much gender bickering all over this thread, and in some really troublesome forms.

I we could pin messages, I would pin this for this thread.