Feminism, Sexism, and Entitlement

[Memory**]

I'm up to the challenge.

Cue the violin "and what a challenge."

 

[BownArrow]

I'm up to the challenge.

Alright then- what do you think of Ronda Rousey?

 

[SowingSeason]

BTW, I linked that article a couple of pages back.

Just saw it. Will read momentarily. Thank you!

 

[BEER]

Again, to be fair...comparatively women are weak.

If we can admit that there are inherent physiological differences then your average male is correct to believe that women in general are weak...because they are (as a group). You would fault men for believing the truth?

Nothing against the exceptions because there are plenty of strong women capable of defending themselves from men but they are the numerical minority. I'm not seeing how we can hold the 2 positions as both true.

Physiologically weaker but men should believe them to be weaker?

Hence my concern about the insistence that "expectations" should be eradicated. There's too many inconsistencies.

I've already admitted the physiological differences. Physically weaker, as a generalization? Sure. Defenseless? Not so much, especially in our hyper-aware society that advocates arming women.

Now is the most dangerous time ever to assault women, just as an example.

 

[Memory**]

Well those women are probably pretty awesome and special- there were probably a few above average strength women that could go toe to toe with the guys, but if you're going to argue that women were as good or useful in battle as men, then why not throw them into the men's division of the UFC.

As for the draft, I'm pretty sure no one would fight to be a part of something they don't agree with. Especially when there are other things to fight for, like getting into the infantry at all. But I think the only reason the draft is allowed to continue is because people know no one will ever reinstate it. If it were a condition of women being allowed in infantry I could see women being drafted....

They didn't do it because they were as good. Women fought because they had to "because if my ass is dying so is yours " and that will never happen man.

 

[BEER]

That's a distinct possibility, however it's also a possibility that over the years men have been viewed as the primary cause of violent crimes as well as power abuse which is why they are more easily and harshly sentenced to prison. As far as men being more valued by the military, again it's a distinct possibility, however the possibility also exists that men are viewed as more disposable than women. I've also heard that a reason that women tend to be more restricted in military roles is not so much that they're not capable of doing the jobs, they're fully capable of doing it, but men are actually more psychologically effected by seeing women in pain or dead than seeing men dead or in pain.

Having a man fight in a combat situation doesn't make him disposable. It makes him a valuable asset.

Just the same as women. Women are in the military, in case some people didn't get the memo. Are those women disposable, while the rest are valued higher?

I don't know. Your logic doesn't sit right with me.

 

[tkotom]

Not true feminists. We already touched on this.

Your comment is difficult to understand. Perhaps a comma would help.

 

[Deadred2]

I'm a student of emergency and disaster management, and a lot of the data in that field comes from the USA. In terms of vulnerability, women and minorities suffer far more than men in times of disaster and hardship. And in my current profession, from both experience and textbook study, women and girls still suffer as the victim in the staggering majority of domestic abuse incidents. Those are only a couple of examples, as I'm only speaking to what I have knowledge of. But that's North America, and that's contemporary.

I see no issues with your argument, I fully support what you've stated and am glad you're raising issues that are relevant in improving the lives of women and the general population. I agree that we should deal with these issues in order of priority, but also be willing to accept the other issues that are relevant too. Am I really that polarizing of a figure?

 

[Memory**]

I've already admitted the physiological differences. Physically weaker, as a generalization? Sure. Defenseless? Not so much, especially in our hyper-aware society that advocates arming women.

Now is the most dangerous time ever to assault women, just as an example.

 

[SowingSeason]

Your comment is difficult to understand. Perhaps a comma would help.

No comma necessary. You just don't understand what I am saying.


True feminists are not sexist. We already discussed this.
There you go.

 

[Memory**]

Having a man fight in a combat situation doesn't make him disposable. It makes him a valuable asset.

Just the same as women. Women are in the military, in case some people didn't get the memo. Are those women disposable, while the rest are valued higher?

I don't know. Your logic doesn't sit right with me.

If it was you dying you'd probably get it. All the men waving bye bye while you get dropped into a jungle full of mines, people who want to torture and murder you. Valuable asset is what a woman thinks every time she gets his paycheck

 

[panamaican]

I've already admitted the physiological differences. Physically weaker, as a generalization? Sure. Defenseless? Not so much, especially in our hyper-aware society that advocates arming women.

Now is the most dangerous time ever to assault women, just as an example.

It's also a time when women are in the most danger given how social media has made it easier to identify and stalk random women.

But defenses aside, I'm trying to focus on the "expectation" and how it runs contrary to things we both know are incontrovertibly true from a physiological perspective.

If someone argues that the expectation that women are weak/defenseless should be erased then they are asking society to ignore the physiological differences. Which seems to stretch the bounds of credulity.

If someone was to argue that the traditional outlook shouldn't be the dominant viewpoint then they are making the unilateral statement that the majority of women don't prefer the traditional outlook. Which seems somewhat presumptuous...especially in light of the underlying issue about female choice.

Those are the inconsistencies in modern feminism that I see repeatedly presenting themselves.

 

[Memory**]

No comma necessary. You just don't understand what I am saying.


True feminists are not sexist. We already discussed this.
There you go.

Well why don't you address the dearth of true feminists among females and their lack of influence in feminist culture,

 

[SowingSeason]

If it was you dying you'd probably get it. All the men waving bye bye while you get dropped into a jungle full of mines, people who want to torture and murder you. Valuable asset is what a woman thinks every time she gets his paycheck

You just don't read. Do you?

 

[Memory**]

You just don't read. Do you?

Oh going to die in combat is such a valued position. Lucky me lucky me.

 

[SowingSeason]

Well why don't you address the dearth of true feminists among females and their lack of influence in feminist culture,

No. All you'll do is not read my response and demonize an entire group of people based on a handful of them.

 

[SowingSeason]

Oh going to die in combat is such a valued position. Lucky me lucky me.

Women are in combat now. Women are deployed now.

Dolt.

 

[BEER]

It's also a time when women are in the most danger given how social media has made it easier to identify and stalk random women.

But defenses aside, I'm trying to focus on the "expectation" and how it runs contrary to things we both know are incontrovertibly true from a physiological perspective.

If someone argues that the expectation that women are weak/defenseless should be erased then they are asking society to ignore the physiological differences. Which seems to stretch the bounds of credulity.

If someone was to argue that the traditional outlook shouldn't be the dominant viewpoint then they are making the unilateral statement that the majority of women don't prefer the traditional outlook. Which seems somewhat presumptuous...especially in light of the underlying issue about female choice.

Those are the inconsistencies in modern feminism that I see repeatedly presenting themselves.

Inconsistencies are bound to happen in any group, because personal beliefs and ideals come into play. Not every feminist feels exactly the same as the next.

Would I punch a man who was attacking a woman? Absolutely.

Should every man be expected to do the same? Absolutely not.

 

[tkotom]

Based on the definition of feminism, I would qualify as a feminist, and I can assure you that I'm not sexist.

The whole premise is sexist. Women don't get enough this and that... Ugh.. in Australia we have a female prime minister. The woman is the boss of the household. The woman says where you will eat and what you will eat. The guy is expected to pay. A woman calls a guy sexy in public, it is a turn on. A guy calls a woman sexy in public, sexual assault.

Now I'm fine with most of these barring the random pass in public which I think is dirty, however there is not one thing in Australia that women don't get that men do and we still have these annoying women in the streets protesting for their sex.

It's annoying and insulting to men that respect both sexes equally. It's as insulting as islamic women wearing a burka because they're so sexy that every western man will just want to rape them if they didn't.

Good luck to a guy proving that he didn't rape a girl if she claims he did. There was a case on the news just a few weeks ago where this exact thing happened. The girl ruined the guys life and then in the end it turned out to be a lie. Ugh.

If anything, in my country, women get more rights than men. I spend near or around 100 pesos on first dates, which I'm fine with. I guess I'm sexist for paying. Why doesn't the girl ever insist on paying? Curious.

 

[BEER]

You just don't read. Do you?

At this point, I think he just skims enough to see some words, and then writes a demonizing rebuttal without understanding, or even caring to understand the context.