(October 20, 2015 at 3:33 pm)VanteBriggs Wrote: "If someone has it worse, your problems cease to exist." That is not what i said at all. I am not denying  that women are not raped or treated badly in first world countries, I am was just making the point that these feminists (or at least the once i have been exposed to) are more interested in a war on language and being polictically correct than talking about ACTUAL opression of women. And for the record, men are actually raped far more than women. Why isn't anyone talking about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender http://www.amren.com/news/2013/10/more-m...ts-reveal/

For one, I don't see anybody, feminist or not, asserting that rape of anybody, or oppression of foreign women, is a good thing, so it's an irrelevant quibble you're making here. It's like... do you see an organization attempting to cure skin cancer, and then get mad at them because they're not trying to cure colon cancer? Or are you able to recognize, in every other part of your life, that groups of people are able to care about more than one thing at a time, and that a focus on one issue does not indicate a lack of care about others, nor must we only focus on the worst problems first?

We're all able to recognize the value of specialization and focus, why the fuck do we always have people scrabbling to dismiss the importance of that when it comes to feminism?

(October 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm all for necromancy but wtf is the point in quoting the OP and not saying anything?

Certain things rising when people see you is NOT necromancy, Losty.

It's a natural bodily reaction in people to your presence...

(January 2, 2015 at 12:21 am)MysticKnight Wrote: If you are for equal rights and equality, you're a feminist. That's all it really takes to be one. There are extremist in all stances.

Yeah... maybe by definition, but it's not what definition I fall under that is what I am, it's what I identify as. If I don't identify as a feminist, I'm not a feminist, regardless of whether or not I'm for gender equality.

I am for gender equality, but I don't identify as a feminist, so I'm not a feminist.

(October 20, 2015 at 3:46 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(October 20, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Losty Wrote: I'm all for necromancy but wtf is the point in quoting the OP and not saying anything?

Certain things rising when people see you is NOT necromancy, Losty.

It's a natural bodily reaction in people to your presence...

D:
I've been calling myself a necromancer all these years. My life is a lie.

Even I can't raise people from the dead, once they're truly dead.

I'd be a lot more supportive of feminist movements if they stopped misrepresenting facts to push their agenda.

(October 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's like... do you see an organization attempting to cure skin cancer, and then get mad at them because they're not trying to cure colon cancer?

I think your analogy is misplaced. People by and large aren't mad that feminist movements don't focus on non-female gender equality issues, but rather than they often refuse to acknowledge their existence. Placed in the context of your analogy, it would be like an organization attempting to cure skin cancer coming out and saying "breast cancer doesn't exist". People would get rightfully mad / upset if they did that.

(October 20, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'd be a lot more supportive of feminist movements if they stopped misrepresenting facts to push their agenda.

(October 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's like... do you see an organization attempting to cure skin cancer, and then get mad at them because they're not trying to cure colon cancer?

I think your analogy is misplaced. People by and large aren't mad that feminist movements don't focus on non-female gender equality issues, but rather than they often refuse to acknowledge their existence. Placed in the context of your analogy, it would be like an organization attempting to cure skin cancer coming out and saying "breast cancer doesn't exist". People would get rightfully mad / upset if they did that.

If there's a group that would actually come out and say that those things don't exist, then I'm not a part of that group. At the same time, I've also never been exposed to such rhetoric, and I can see why a movement facing such an eagerness to sidetrack from its opposition would want to downplay irrelevancies; I'd imagine a skin cancer organization wouldn't want to talk about breast cancer either, if they had to deal with so many people desperate to dismiss their primary concern simply because other concerns exist.

(January 2, 2015 at 1:03 am)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 1:01 am)Minimalist Wrote: I find myself distrustful of fanatics, in general.

Are feminists fanatics? What would you do with all inequality of woman in the world...just have no one stand up for the rights of women?

Hold on... Deciding that it isn't fair that I make 77 cents to ever dollar a man makes, that if I get pregnant a man can haul ass and run but other men have control of my vagina so I have to raise a child I may not be able to afford OR that pharmaceutical companies spend millions making medicines so men can have sex until they are in their 70's and maybe 20 cents on the dollar of that for ovarian cancer research which is deadly, doesn't make anyone a fanatic.

I don't like the fanatics. I will, however, fight to be considered equal and the original poster is right. If we ever want to have any political power we have to join together on issues that may not personally involve us but that will make our world better. We don't have to be extreme but we have to be loyal

(Damn y'all need to remove this soap box or at least hide it from my view) :)

---

(October 20, 2015 at 4:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I'd be a lot more supportive of feminist movements if they stopped misrepresenting facts to push their agenda.

(October 20, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Esquilax Wrote: It's like... do you see an organization attempting to cure skin cancer, and then get mad at them because they're not trying to cure colon cancer?

I think your analogy is misplaced. People by and large aren't mad that feminist movements don't focus on non-female gender equality issues, but rather than they often refuse to acknowledge their existence. Placed in the context of your analogy, it would be like an organization attempting to cure skin cancer coming out and saying "breast cancer doesn't exist". People would get rightfully mad / upset if they did that.

I'll stand with you on this one! If we quit trying to convert the world to the Western way of thinking and take care of our own we could do that!

(April 21, 2015 at 1:40 pm)Dystopia Wrote: Personally, when it comes to representation and all of those issues I'm a proponent of proportionality and fairness. Since there is no scientific evidence that something like gender, race and so on drastically affects your ability, it would be expected that the number of people in positions of power directly (or closely) correlates with the demographics. If you have 10% of black citizens, you should try to achieve a fair number of representatives for them. If you have 50% women you should do the same - At the least because otherwise women are dependent forever on the protection of men for getting jobs, military, politics + laws, justice, etc. I don't think it is possible to achieve, even for brief moments, completely proportionate representation, but it is possible to pursue the goal - When there is a significant unjustified difference that isn't corroborated by science, there is no reason to think that it's a product of chance or choice - There is no such thing as free will.

But what if people don't want to do those jobs? Do you fire people from their jobs because the statistics aren't close enough to where you want them? Do you force people to work jobs they don't want because you need more of that group in that sector? That only works if people equally choose to do the jobs you want them to for the stats to line up. It totally removes the option of choice.