The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Fahran]

if ostroeuropa anyone feels the need to peer review cek's academic study, p l e a s e spoiler it, i'm begging you. the word count in these posts far exceeds the daily recomended value of discourse, and i don't want to end up with here's why you're wrong poisoning, it'd mess up my plan to actually read this thread within a reasonable time frame.

Here's why you're wrong. Because I say so. And the studies say so. Yes, the big, beautiful studies say you're wrong. I have the best studies. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. That's why I'm winning arguments yuuugely. It's fantastic, believe me. Men's rights are a Democrat hoax. They couldn't beat me with rape statistics. That wouldn't work. They couldn't beat me on gendered socialization. They tried that. :^)

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

[snipped]

Shame I wasn't included in the analysis—I would be flattered if so as someone who engages in a lot of introspection and self-criticism. The level of effort and detail you've put into this is pretty impressive. The last pastebin you provided makes it pretty obvious it's a very elaborate trolling attempt (you literally posted text art of the trollface). I suppose however we all cope with hobbies in different ways, I'm not judging. I think the punishment you received was a bit too harsh however, but then again, I am no moderator, I know they have their reasons, and for all things considered, tend to be pretty moderate (pun not intended—for lack of better word) when it comes to punishments.

1. I am both "anti-feminist" and "anti-MRA" in the sense I oppose both ideologies. I wouldn't consider myself anti-women or anti-men. I can't hold someone's birth sex or gender identity against them. It can't be helped. I would say I already said the gist of my position in the single previous post I made many many pages back. As a communitarian, I am no fan of identity politics. I view it as a divisive force in society. It separates people into unnecessary factions. When it comes to the "gender wars" or "sex wars," I see both sides as ultimately destructive.

The egalitarians demand equality between the sexes, especially in terms of equalizing 2.outcomes and rights. I see such as a bad idea. 3. Men and women are not biologically equal. To afford them equal rights and demand equal outcomes in all things is not only impractical, but it's also undesirable. Instead of viewing it as equality vs. hierarchy, we ought to rather view it in a utilitarian perspective. What policies will lead to the greatest quality of life for men and women? What will lead to the growth and maintenance of healthy family units, of which the social structure is directly built upon? 4. What will—ultimately—contribute to the survival of our species?

5. Maybe women make better teachers of children, maybe they do a better job at raising children, maybe they ought to receive greater maternity leave than that of men. Maybe men as a whole should work more than women in employment. That is not to say men should not have the opportunity to become a teacher, or receive no paid time off to father their children, but it needn't be equal. On physicality, men for a fact are stronger than women on average. Certainly in a war or in the vast majority of sports (those dependent on strength), they would very likely beat the women side if the sexes were pitted against each other. 6. This is big reason why men command most societies, they hold the monopoly on force, the lowest common denominator. Right—wrong, irrelevant.

Again, it should be stressed that the existence of inequality does not necessarily have to exclude dignity. Inequality is natural and no one has been able to get rid of it in its entirety. If we become too obsessed with making us all equals, then we will deny the real differences that exist between us... 7. That we all ultimately have different needs, different abilities, different levels of potential—and that these differences can and are affected by physical traits (hormones and gene expression), particularly biological sex. 8. If we are to afford anyone "rights" 9.(which can only be ensured by the survival of civilization—the state—which is the only reason why even the concept of rights exist in the first place), then those rights must be careful to recognize biological realities, however culturally incorrect, and be able to adapt as we learn more about human nature. 10.The secular religion of "human rights," which holds numerous rights as unchangeable and undeniable, interfere with practicality.

11. Finally I say, men and women are not equal—never will be—nor should be. If they were equal, there were not be men or women, humanity would consist of some bizarre combination or lack thereof of feminine and masculine traits. However, men and women are both needed for human life to flourish. One cannot exist for long without the other. Men and women are unequal, but inseparable. One complements the other. Like two people of equal weight on a teeter-totter. Society must not blindly pursue liberty, equality, or hierarchy, but rather harmony—survival—and through that peace among all mankind, man and woman— 12.and the few in between.

1. understandable, have a good day
2. did you mean incomes? if so, do you belive that it is reasonable to pay a man and a woman doing the same job different amounts, just because they are different genders?
3. people's rights aren't supposed to be based on their biology eugenics is not poggers
4. you say this like humans are an endangered species. but whatever.
5. obviously, no statistic of anything is going to be perfectly balanced between women and men. i don't think anyone actually advocates that businesses should be required to hire 50% women and 50% men. that being said, why shouldn't maternity and paternity leave be equal? both parents should be equally invested in their child's upbringing and wellbeing.
6. thought you said it shouldn't be viewed as a hierarchy.
7. people's needs, abilities, and potential are not determined by their biological sex. sure, men and women have differences, some of which are biological, but someone's chromosomes don't spell out their entire personality and ideal life.
8. please stop putting human rights in quotation marks, or i'll revoke your right to use them.
9. no one (here) is advocating getting rid of government
10. please explain how human rights are impractical. this is kind of surreal
11. gender equality doesn't mean that gender would cease to exist. it means that people would be treated fairly, not disenfrancised or otherwise mistreated due to their gender. smh
12. well at least there's a place for me in this society you're proposing. i don't really want one though. mom can you come pick me up, i'm scared.

also, not to pull a ostro or anything, but imagine this post if sex was replaced with race.

"We all ultimately have different needs, different abilities, different levels of potential—and that these differences can and are affected by physical traits (hormones and gene expression), particularly race."

"Finally I say, whites and blacks are not equal—never will be—nor should be. If they were equal, there were not be whites or blacks, humanity would consist of some bizarre combination or lack thereof of white and black traits."

um. i don't likey. ;(

tl;dr: you should have stopped after the first paragraph.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

if ostroeuropa anyone feels the need to peer review cek's academic study, p l e a s e spoiler it, i'm begging you. the word count in these posts far exceeds the daily recomended value of discourse, and i don't want to end up with here's why you're wrong poisoning, it'd mess up my plan to actually read this thread within a reasonable time frame.

Here's why you're wrong. Because I say so. And the studies say so. Yes, the big, beautiful studies say you're wrong. I have the best studies. You know it. I know it. Everybody knows it. That's why I'm winning arguments yuuugely. It's fantastic, believe me. Men's rights are a Democrat hoax. They couldn't beat me with rape statistics. That wouldn't work. They couldn't beat me on gendered socialization. They tried that. :^)

thank you kanye, very cool.

[Dolgo]

[spoiler]Shame I wasn't included in the analysis—I would be flattered if so as someone who engages in a lot of introspection and self-criticism. The level of effort and detail you've put into this is pretty impressive. The last pastebin you provided makes it pretty obvious it's a very elaborate trolling attempt (you literally posted text art of the trollface). I suppose however we all cope with hobbies in different ways, I'm not judging. I think the punishment you received was a bit too harsh however, but then again, I am no moderator, I know they have their reasons, and for all things considered, tend to be pretty moderate (pun not intended—for lack of better word) when it comes to punishments.

1. I am both "anti-feminist" and "anti-MRA" in the sense I oppose both ideologies. I wouldn't consider myself anti-women or anti-men. I can't hold someone's birth sex or gender identity against them. It can't be helped. I would say I already said the gist of my position in the single previous post I made many many pages back. As a communitarian, I am no fan of identity politics. I view it as a divisive force in society. It separates people into unnecessary factions. When it comes to the "gender wars" or "sex wars," I see both sides as ultimately destructive.

The egalitarians demand equality between the sexes, especially in terms of equalizing 2.outcomes and rights. I see such as a bad idea. 3. Men and women are not biologically equal. To afford them equal rights and demand equal outcomes in all things is not only impractical, but it's also undesirable. Instead of viewing it as equality vs. hierarchy, we ought to rather view it in a utilitarian perspective. What policies will lead to the greatest quality of life for men and women? What will lead to the growth and maintenance of healthy family units, of which the social structure is directly built upon? 4. What will—ultimately—contribute to the survival of our species?

5. Maybe women make better teachers of children, maybe they do a better job at raising children, maybe they ought to receive greater maternity leave than that of men. Maybe men as a whole should work more than women in employment. That is not to say men should not have the opportunity to become a teacher, or receive no paid time off to father their children, but it needn't be equal. On physicality, men for a fact are stronger than women on average. Certainly in a war or in the vast majority of sports (those dependent on strength), they would very likely beat the women side if the sexes were pitted against each other. 6. This is big reason why men command most societies, they hold the monopoly on force, the lowest common denominator. Right—wrong, irrelevant.

Again, it should be stressed that the existence of inequality does not necessarily have to exclude dignity. Inequality is natural and no one has been able to get rid of it in its entirety. If we become too obsessed with making us all equals, then we will deny the real differences that exist between us... 7. That we all ultimately have different needs, different abilities, different levels of potential—and that these differences can and are affected by physical traits (hormones and gene expression), particularly biological sex. 8. If we are to afford anyone "rights" 9.(which can only be ensured by the survival of civilization—the state—which is the only reason why even the concept of rights exist in the first place), then those rights must be careful to recognize biological realities, however culturally incorrect, and be able to adapt as we learn more about human nature. 10.The secular religion of "human rights," which holds numerous rights as unchangeable and undeniable, interfere with practicality.

11. Finally I say, men and women are not equal—never will be—nor should be. If they were equal, there were not be men or women, humanity would consist of some bizarre combination or lack thereof of feminine and masculine traits. However, men and women are both needed for human life to flourish. One cannot exist for long without the other. Men and women are unequal, but inseparable. One complements the other. Like two people of equal weight on a teeter-totter. Society must not blindly pursue liberty, equality, or hierarchy, but rather harmony—survival—and through that peace among all mankind, man and woman— 12.and the few in between.

1. understandable, have a good day
2. did you mean incomes? if so, do you belive that it is reasonable to pay a man and a woman doing the same job different amounts, just because they are different genders?
3. people's rights aren't supposed to be based on their biology eugenics is not poggers
4. you say this like humans are an endangered species. but whatever.
5. obviously, no statistic of anything is going to be perfectly balanced between women and men. i don't think anyone actually advocates that businesses should be required to hire 50% women and 50% men. that being said, why shouldn't maternity and paternity leave be equal? both parents should be equally invested in their child's upbringing and wellbeing.
6. thought you said it shouldn't be viewed as a hierarchy.
7. people's needs, abilities, and potential are not determined by their biological sex. sure, men and women have differences, some of which are biological, but someone's chromosomes don't spell out their entire personality and ideal life.
8. please stop putting human rights in quotation marks, or i'll revoke your right to use them.
9. no one (here) is advocating getting rid of government
10. please explain how human rights are impractical. this is kind of surreal
11. gender equality doesn't mean that gender would cease to exist. it means that people would be treated fairly, not disenfrancised or otherwise mistreated due to their gender. smh
12. well at least there's a place for me in this society you're proposing. i don't really want one though. mom can you come pick me up, i'm scared.

also, not to pull a ostro or anything, but imagine this post, but sex is replaced with race.

"We all ultimately have different needs, different abilities, different levels of potential—and that these differences can and are affected by physical traits (hormones and gene expression), particularly race."

"Finally I say, whites and blacks are not equal—never will be—nor should be. If they were equal, there were not be whites or blacks, humanity would consist of some bizarre combination or lack thereof of white and black traits."

um. i don't likey. ;(

tl;dr: you should have stopped after the first paragraph.

I put human rights in quotes, but they are not intended to be scare quotes. I use quotes to emphasize the subject I am referring to. In this case, I am referring to the international concept of human rights, rather than any number of arbitrary defined human right(s) by individuals.

Your potential is indeed partly shaped by your biological sex and the expression of your genes also plays a major role. If you are born without a womb, you are not going to bear a child. If you are born a male, you will likely develop to be stronger than most women, and taller too. Those two traits alone can limit your likely success in a number of occupations because you'll be competing with others of greater genetic fitness than you. Furthermore, if you are born with a severe intellectual defect, you are not going to be bright or likely successful in education. Certainly environment also plays a role too, if you are malnourished at a younger age, or severely abused, then odds are you will not develop very well.

Your ancestry does play a role as well, as it is all interconnected. However, the racial categories that are generally used across societies tend to be far too simplistic as a means of classification. Two individual blacks for example can have greater differences between each other than a white and a black.

Yes, men and women, physically, are not equal, nor are they mentally equal—there are hormonal differences. These hormones have both a physical and mental effect. There is no accident why men tend to be more aggressive and bold than women, especially in career choice: testosterone.

It also a scientific fact that men on average have larger brains than women. Men have more volume and a larger amount (percentage) of white matter. Women have less volume in their brains on average, but have more (percentage of) grey matter. (Source if you really need it)

It is clear we disagree on these things and that's okay with me. I'm not here to change your mind—I don't have that ability, I am not God. Merely sharing my perspective, maybe others will disagree with aspects of it, or otherwise. I don't think you have the authority here to determine how I refer to human rights, but whatever floats your boat. I need not stop my writing to where you start to disagree it.

[Giovenith]

i'm writing a forum post, not a journal article, so sorry for not handholding you through the entire process and writing 10 pages of methodology notes. if you're having trouble understanding how the math (which is basic entry-level college statistics at most, so you, as a supposed masters student, should be able to connect the dots) works, i suggest reading the r script, which i have handily linked at the bottom. it's even commented just for people like you!

why's the post built exactly like a journal article then?

To pompously pretend that her subjective ratings list of how much she does and doesn't like various people here is something other than that.

Cek has a history of this: Eyeballing people's behavior and passing personal "good/bad" judgment on it, slapping arbitrary numerical values on those personal judgments, forcing some math, calling it a "study," then when people inevitably don't take it seriously because that's not how studies work, decry it as them "ignoring evidence."

But surprise, one person with an obvious agenda to prove throwing together some charts and numbers into a neat row off the top of their head in a matter of hours (AHA!) does not a reliable "study" make, only laughable pseudo-intellectualism that ignores basic principles of science like elimination of bias (and no, despite what I'm sure she thought, giving herself a negative number is neither convincing nor academically acceptable as proof of lack of bias), peer review, or external corresponding evidence/justification for her claims about what should be considered what and why (Notice that she expects us to simply take her word for it when it comes to who exactly has posted "propaganda"/"misinformation"/etc., how often, and why their posts should be considered "propaganda"/"misinformation"/etc. to begin with.)

This line alone...

For the creation of psychological profiles, I simply observed trends across posts made by each user as well as posts responding to them in order to glean information about their psychological condition and took notes.

... is really all you need to know about how trustworthy Cek's "research" is, given that it is enough to make anyone with a passing knowledge of psychology laugh themselves into an early grave. First of all, Cek is not a psychologist or psychiatrist, and is in no more of a position to be making any kind of judgment about others' "psychological profile" than a McDonald's worker with a high school diploma is to be deciding how best to tune up a commercial jetplane engine based on a Google image. Second of all, one of the first things that anyone with real psychological expertise will tell you is that you cannot build profiles, diagnoses, or make any reliable calls on what a person is like or what is going on their head, period, without having sat them down and worked with them as a patient over an extended period of time and doing extensive research into their personal lives and family/relationship/work/school history. Skimming over a fraction of an anonymous stranger's posts in an online political forum is far from that. Psychologists are not goddamn psychics, they can't just eyeball you for a hot second and suddenly become intimately aware of your entire personality and behavior patterns — that is such a dim and uninformed understanding of how psychology works that movies literally use it as a joke.

I am no more interested in this "data" than I am the moral lecturing of some random pedestrian who threw on a white lab coat and over sized glasses while waving around a test tube. This is not a study, or data, or methodology, this is breathtaking arrogance the likes of which is rarely put on full shameless display. This is Cek citing herself for not only the factual accuracy of everything ever said in these threads but of each poster's mental state (and how the rest of the site apparently views them as well!), and smugly expecting us to be blown away by it because she knows how to use the phpBB charting code. This is embarrassing. And I'm sure now that I've said as much, we will find that in her next so-called study, she will have magically discovered additional data about my Obvious Wrongness™ that will reduce my Certified Truthiness™ number a significant peg, for what we can all safely trust will be only objective, impersonal reasoning. Right.

by the way that whole post probably took me like 5 solid hours of work so you'd better appreciate the hell out of it

I don't.

[Albrenia]

That feel when someone does a massive, ban-worthy post insulting a large portion of the people on the thread, and doesn't even mention me.

I feel so ignored.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I put human rights in quotes, but they are not intended to be scare quotes. I use quotes to emphasize the subject I am referring to. In this case, I am referring to the international concept of human rights, rather than any number of arbitrary defined human right(s) by individuals.

1. Your potential is indeed partly shaped by your biological sex and the expression of your genes also plays a major role. If you are born without a womb, you are not going to bear a child. If you are born a male, you will likely develop to be stronger than most women, and taller too. Those two traits alone can limit your likely success in a number of occupations because you'll be competing with others of greater genetic fitness than you. Furthermore, if you are born with a severe intellectual defect, you are not going to be bright or likely successful in education. Certainly environment also plays a role too, if you are malnourished at a younger age, or severely abused, then odds are you will not develop very well.

Your ancestry does play a role as well, as it is all interconnected. However, the racial categories that are generally used across societies tend to be far too simplistic as a means of classification. 2. Two individual blacks for example can have greater differences between each other than a white and a black.

Yes, men and women, physically, are not equal, nor are they mentally equal—there are hormonal differences. These hormones have both a physical and mental effect. 3. There is no accident why men tend to be more aggressive and bold than women, especially in career choice: testosterone.

4. It's also a scientific fact that men on average have larger brains than women. Men have more volume and a larger amount (percentage) of white matter. Women have less volume in their brains on average, but have more (percentage of) grey matter. (Source if you really need it)

It is clear we disagree on these things and that's okay with me. I'm not here to change your mind—I don't have that ability, I am not God. Merely sharing my perspective, maybe others will disagree with aspects of it, or otherwise. 5. I don't think you have the authority here to determine how I refer to human rights, but whatever floats your boat. I need not stop my writing to where you start to disagree it.

1. biological sex and phenotype are not good indicators of a person's potential in things other than reproduction or physical makeup.
2. something about the way this is phrased seems ... archaic and somewhat offensive, but that's besides the point.
3. i bet this has nothing to do with the fact that it's more socially acceptable for men to be bold and aggressive
4. brain size isn't really important? people with bigger heads have larger brains, doesn't make them any smarter.
5. that part was obviously a joke.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

That feel when someone does a massive, ban-worthy post insulting a large portion of the people on the thread, and doesn't even mention me.

I feel so ignored.

that feel when someone "psychoanalyzes" you, but they can't bother to remember your name ;-;

[New haven america]

That feel when someone does a massive, ban-worthy post insulting a large portion of the people on the thread, and doesn't even mention me.

I feel so ignored.

I don't feel like I got enough coverage.

I was expecting 2 paragraphs at least and was left cold and disappointed.

[Giovenith]

That feel when someone does a massive, ban-worthy post insulting a large portion of the people on the thread, and doesn't even mention me.

I feel so ignored.

I don't feel like I got enough coverage.

I was expecting 2 paragraphs at least and was left cold and disappointed.

Oh, but wasn't it oh so kind of her to provide us with her objective psychological analysis of herself? Truly, I can't think of a more accurate source of such a thing.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

That feel when someone does a massive, ban-worthy post insulting a large portion of the people on the thread, and doesn't even mention me.

I feel so ignored.

I don't feel like I got enough coverage.

I was expecting 2 paragraphs at least and was left cold and disappointed.

i was expecting something more than "they like meme, people like meme, so people like them". it was also the only one to not have any negative description. i feel left out.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

I don't feel like I got enough coverage.

I was expecting 2 paragraphs at least and was left cold and disappointed.

Oh, but wasn't it oh so kind of her to provide us with her objective psychological analysis of herself? Truly, I can't think of a more accurate source of such a thing.

cek really is a paragon of credibility. cekibility. hehe

[Kowani]

snippity

This is the most glorious thing I’ve read in this thread.

[The Blaatschapen]

Wait, this website is made by an Austrian?

[New haven america]

Wait, this website is made by an Austrian?

Max is an Austrian criminal who was on the run for years until getting captured in a small town in Wales with an unpronounceable name and then sent off to Australia to live out his life sentence.

[The Blaatschapen]

Wait, this website is made by an Austrian?

Max is an Austrian criminal who was on the run for years until getting captured in a small town in Wales and then sent off to Australia to live out his sentence.

Maximilian Bärritz.

[New haven america]

Max is an Austrian criminal who was on the run for years until getting captured in a small town in Wales and then sent off to Australia to live out his sentence.

Maximilian Bärritz.

The 2nd.

[Celritannia]

1. Equating 2 completely different topics.
Education affects everyone.
All boys, working class boys? Rich boys? Fatherless boys? Orphans boys?

2. I think Faharn has covered this elegantly.

3 (a) Provide evidence women get more pay than men FOR THE SAME JOB before pregnancy.
(b) This is because of society, not because of feminism.
(c) Provide evidence men on part time work receive less pay than women for part time work FOR THE SAME JOB.
(d) Women who have children should not be paid less.

1. Police violence effects all demographics, whats your point?
All boys, but especially working class ones.

2. No, she didn't. She tried, but failed. See above. Your eagerness to buy into that explanation speaks volumes.

3. A) It's not about the same job and never has been. Provide evidence women are paid less than men for the same jobs if that's your argument.
B) Feminisms consistent misframing of the topic alongside crushing opposing movements makes it their responsibility.
C) See A.
D) You don't think someone who works part-time should earn less than someone who works full-time?

1. They are unrelated.
And what's the fault with that? Feminism, or the archaic educational system?

2. The evidence is pretty compelling.

3. So you have no evidence to provide? Very well then.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/ ... gap-report

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlab ... theuk/2019

[Celritannia]

This post does seem like an "all X are Y".
Perhaps be a tad more tactile?

Are you fucking serious? We’ve had a self declared misandrist bullying people in the thread for multiple pages, and this is what bothers you?

I'm not debating with Cek though.
I did see it, but I am uninvolved with it.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. Police violence effects all demographics, whats your point?
All boys, but especially working class ones.

2. No, she didn't. She tried, but failed. See above. Your eagerness to buy into that explanation speaks volumes.

3. A) It's not about the same job and never has been. Provide evidence women are paid less than men for the same jobs if that's your argument.
B) Feminisms consistent misframing of the topic alongside crushing opposing movements makes it their responsibility.
C) See A.
D) You don't think someone who works part-time should earn less than someone who works full-time?

1. They are unrelated.
And what's the fault with that? Feminism, or the archaic educational system?

2. The evidence is pretty compelling.

3. So you have no evidence to provide? Very well then.

1. I'm pointing out how your framing isn't valid by using a comparative example.

Yes, feminism. Here is one example of professors discussing it with parliament right now:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... t-mps-told

Also, you should read "Boys crisis" by Farrell, and probably the one by Leonard Sax as well.

The fatherlessness epidemic is another issue related to this and caused by feminism, as is the widespread psychological abuse of boys by mothers that feminism has warped discussion of by taking the results and blaming patriarchy for it rather than their threat narrative against men, and failing to examine womens prejudices and hatred for men sufficiently without linking it back to patriarchy theory despite them being based in a very different framework (Feminist paranoia and resentment). See the "Boys must be beaten" study from India to understand why mothers punish boys for expressing emotions; in their own words it is to prevent them from being "volatile" and growing up to be controlling and abusive. This also happens in the west, but psychologically rather than with physical beatings. Women perceive a girl throwing a tantrum as "strong" and "empowered", but a boy doing so as "dangerous" and so on.

All of that feeds into how mothers are crippling their children, not much different than if it was widespread for fathers to beat girls when they tried to read and then we all blamed "Toxic femininity and womens stupid ideas about what it means to be a woman" for them falling behind in schools. Emotional literacy is one of the major skills necessary for schooling, and mothers actively curtail it in their sons. Feminism prevents acknowledgement of that and confronting it through its framing of these issues, as well as its endless and trite glorification of single motherhood, women, and so on, and the threat narrative they continue to peddle about male violence that causes these mothers to abuse their children in the first place.

Those are just *some* examples of how feminism has caused this crisis. There are many more.

2. That you are compelled by it is neither here nor there. As i've pointed out to her, lifetime stats are not relevant for discussing current policy.

3. Do you have evidence women are paid less for the same job and thus "Need feminism" as you claimed?

[The Huskar Social Union]

rant

Wow i should have posted in this thread more, maybe i could have been part of.... whatever the fuck this was.

[Celritannia]

1. They are unrelated.
And what's the fault with that? Feminism, or the archaic educational system?

2. The evidence is pretty compelling.

3. So you have no evidence to provide? Very well then.

1. I'm pointing out how your framing isn't valid by using a comparative example.

Yes, feminism. Here is one example of professors discussing it with parliament right now:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... t-mps-told

Also, you should read "Boys crisis" by Farrell, and probably the one by Leonard Sax as well.

The fatherlessness epidemic is another issue related to this and caused by feminism, as is the widespread psychological abuse of boys by mothers that feminism has warped discussion of by taking the results and blaming patriarchy for it rather than their threat narrative against men, and failing to examine womens prejudices and hatred for men sufficiently without linking it back to patriarchy theory despite them being based in a very different framework (Feminist paranoia and resentment).

2. That you are compelled by it is neither here nor there. As i've pointed out to her, lifetime stats are not relevant for discussing current policy.

3. Do you have evidence women are paid less for the same job and thus "Need feminism"?

1. And it is not accurate to compare. Race and gender are not the same.

Huh, the article does not mention feminism.

As someone who was brought up in a fatherless household, this is not wholly true.
Every boy who has had a fatherless upbringing will not be abused by their mother.
Women are not fully prejudiced against men.

2. Life time stats are pretty relevant.

3. I have just provided evidence.
But you have a responsibility to support your claims, since you stated your argument first.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. I'm pointing out how your framing isn't valid by using a comparative example.

Yes, feminism. Here is one example of professors discussing it with parliament right now:
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... t-mps-told

Also, you should read "Boys crisis" by Farrell, and probably the one by Leonard Sax as well.

The fatherlessness epidemic is another issue related to this and caused by feminism, as is the widespread psychological abuse of boys by mothers that feminism has warped discussion of by taking the results and blaming patriarchy for it rather than their threat narrative against men, and failing to examine womens prejudices and hatred for men sufficiently without linking it back to patriarchy theory despite them being based in a very different framework (Feminist paranoia and resentment).

2. That you are compelled by it is neither here nor there. As i've pointed out to her, lifetime stats are not relevant for discussing current policy.

3. Do you have evidence women are paid less for the same job and thus "Need feminism"?

1. And it is not accurate to compare. Race and gender are not the same.

Huh, the article does not mention feminism.

As someone who was brought up in a fatherless household, this is not wholly true.
Every boy who has had a fatherless upbringing will not be abused by their mother.
Women are not fully prejudiced against men.

2. Life time stats are pretty relevant.

3. I have just provided evidence.
But you have a responsibility to support your claims, since you stated your argument first.

1. You've not understood the point.

You're being deliberately obtuse, and also ignoring the explicit mention of how terms like toxic masculinity also contribute to the crisis.

It's not a matter of single mothers doing it. Mothers in general do, but the fatherlessness epidemic worsens the impacts of it. See the "Boys don't cry" study and how it is mothers, not fathers, who drive that effect and cripple boys emotional literacy.

Here is the expanded point:

The fatherlessness epidemic is another issue related to this and caused by feminism, as is the widespread psychological abuse of boys by mothers that feminism has warped discussion of by taking the results and blaming patriarchy for it rather than their threat narrative against men, and failing to examine womens prejudices and hatred for men sufficiently without linking it back to patriarchy theory despite them being based in a very different framework (Feminist paranoia and resentment). See the "Boys must be beaten" study from India to understand why mothers punish boys for expressing emotions; in their own words it is to prevent them from being "volatile" and growing up to be controlling and abusive. This also happens in the west, but psychologically rather than with physical beatings. Women perceive a girl throwing a tantrum as "strong" and "empowered", but a boy doing so as "dangerous" and so on.

All of that feeds into how mothers are crippling their children, not much different than if it was widespread for fathers to beat girls when they tried to read and then we all blamed "Toxic femininity and womens stupid ideas about what it means to be a woman" for them falling behind in schools. Emotional literacy is one of the major skills necessary for schooling, and mothers actively curtail it in their sons. Feminism prevents acknowledgement of that and confronting it through its framing of these issues, as well as its endless and trite glorification of single motherhood, women, and so on, and the threat narrative they continue to peddle about male violence that causes these mothers to abuse their children in the first place.

Those are just *some* examples of how feminism has caused this crisis. There are many more.


As for your last point, statistically yes they are, see the women are wonderful effect. These are statistically observable trends causing the disparity. They don't have to be true of literally all women and all mothers.

2. How so when discussing current policy and what needs to change?

3. Where? I didn't see it. Incidentally, this is a good example of how feminism contributes to the crisis above. You are taking an issue that is fundamentally about men having fundamental aspects of their humanity denied by institutions (lack of equal leave and support for fatherhood), prejudice, and womens behavior (Maternal gatekeeping), and making it all about how this means women earn less money. As I said earlier, this is like you saying "Society is racist against white people because black people end up with more muscles than them. (Because we force them to pick cotton.). We need free gym membership for whites to deliver equality."
Talking about "The wage gap" is an example of how feminism appropriates issues and directs energy away from where it should be spent, and works to obscure male disadvantage.

[Celritannia]

1. And it is not accurate to compare. Race and gender are not the same.

Huh, the article does not mention feminism.

As someone who was brought up in a fatherless household, this is not wholly true.
Every boy who has had a fatherless upbringing will not be abused by their mother.
Women are not fully prejudiced against men.

2. Life time stats are pretty relevant.

3. I have just provided evidence.
But you have a responsibility to support your claims, since you stated your argument first.

1. You've not understood the point.

You're being deliberately obtuse, and also ignoring the explicit mention of how terms like toxic masculinity also contribute to the crisis.

It's not a matter of single mothers doing it. Mothers in general do, but the fatherlessness epidemic worsens the impacts of it. See the "Boys don't cry" study and how it is mothers, not fathers, who drive that effect and cripple boys emotional literacy.

As for your last point, statistically yes they are, see the women are wonderful effect. These are statistically observable trends causing the disparity. They don't have to be true of literally all women and all mothers.

2. How so when discussing current policy and what needs to change?

3. Where? I didn't see it.

1. I did, and I don't agree with your comparison.

And is that to do with feminism?
Education as a whole needs a dramatic update, that's how we will improve children and young people.
There is more to do with the a fall of Working Class boys in school than feminism. In fact, the lowest achieves are travellers, as the article mentioned.

More often, men are the ones who tell boys not to cry.

So if it is not true of all women and moths, why are you trying to suggest it is a epidemic?
Each family is different, and the reasons for divorce etc will be different for each.

2. And the majority of rape is still carried out by men against both women and men. Sexual assault against men is a danger, I have not disagreed with that. But you are trying to down play the problem .

3. I edited my post.
And why do men work longer? Is this because of feminism, or the capitalistic society?
None of this says why women should be paid less than men.

[Ostroeuropa]

1. You've not understood the point.

You're being deliberately obtuse, and also ignoring the explicit mention of how terms like toxic masculinity also contribute to the crisis.

It's not a matter of single mothers doing it. Mothers in general do, but the fatherlessness epidemic worsens the impacts of it. See the "Boys don't cry" study and how it is mothers, not fathers, who drive that effect and cripple boys emotional literacy.

As for your last point, statistically yes they are, see the women are wonderful effect. These are statistically observable trends causing the disparity. They don't have to be true of literally all women and all mothers.

2. How so when discussing current policy and what needs to change?

3. Where? I didn't see it.

1. I did, and I don't agree with your comparison.

And is that to do with feminism?
Education as a whole need a dramatic update, thats how we will improve children and young people.'
There is more to do with the a fall of Working Class boys in school than feminism. In fact, the lowest achieves are travellers, as the article mentioned.

More often, men are the ones who tell boys not to cry.

So if it is not true of all women and moths, why are you trying to suggest it is a epidemic?
Each family is different, and the reasons for divorce etc will be different for each.

2. And the majority of rape is still carried out by men against both women and men. Sexual assault against men is a danger, I have not disagreed with that. But you are trying to down play the problem .

3. I edited my post.

I've explained to you what it's to do with feminism.

The fatherlessness epidemic is another issue related to this and caused by feminism, as is the widespread psychological abuse of boys by mothers that feminism has warped discussion of by taking the results and blaming patriarchy for it rather than their threat narrative against men, and failing to examine womens prejudices and hatred for men sufficiently without linking it back to patriarchy theory despite them being based in a very different framework (Feminist paranoia and resentment). See the "Boys must be beaten" study from India to understand why mothers punish boys for expressing emotions; in their own words it is to prevent them from being "volatile" and growing up to be controlling and abusive. This also happens in the west, but psychologically rather than with physical beatings. Women perceive a girl throwing a tantrum as "strong" and "empowered", but a boy doing so as "dangerous" and so on.

All of that feeds into how mothers are crippling their children, not much different than if it was widespread for fathers to beat girls when they tried to read and then we all blamed "Toxic femininity and womens stupid ideas about what it means to be a woman" for them falling behind in schools. Emotional literacy is one of the major skills necessary for schooling, and mothers actively curtail it in their sons. Feminism prevents acknowledgement of that and confronting it through its framing of these issues, as well as its endless and trite glorification of single motherhood, women, and so on, and the threat narrative they continue to peddle about male violence that causes these mothers to abuse their children in the first place.

Those are just *some* examples of how feminism has caused this crisis. There are many more.

Here.

The fatherlessness epidemic is directed related to feminist activism through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, and continues due to their refusal to reverse the cultural and policy changes they brought about.

"Policing as a whole needs an overhaul, so let's we should downplay racism in the policeforce as a discussion that needs to happen.".

More often, men are the ones who tell boys not to cry.

This is feminist misinformation and revealing of their hateful prejudices and assumptions, and how patriarchy theory routinely causes them to assume this kind of thing because it is fundamentally a sexist worldview.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/boys-do ... -1.4693208

It's an example of how feminists cause these problems to persist that you even say something like this.

2. No. The most you can say is a plurality of rape is committed by men against women, and only during some years. Other years demonstrate parity. And again, that's despite the many problems with recording male victimization we have extensively covered. Some years show more male rape victims than female ones.

3. I'll look for it now.

And why do men work longer? Is this because of feminism, or the capitalistic society?
None of this says why women should be paid less than men.

Because of feminist activism through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, their demonization of fatherhood and how this impacted popular culture, opposition to the mens rights and fathers rights movements, and their misframing of the cause of the wage gap. This means men have a fundamental aspect of their humanity denied to them and do not have the same work-life balance options as women do. As a consequence, they work longer hours and more overtime, and end up with more money.

Do you think a part-time worker should be paid the same as a full-time worker?