RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

IronBear -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 2:47:38 PM)

Not looking at this whole thread alone, but at a wider application, It appears to me that the issues are not caused my the many but by the few (Nothing new about that is there?). I've had many what I refer to as liberal feminist lady friends and I have and do whole heartedly supported them regarding equality especially in the eyes of the law. Just as I have many gay friends of both genders whom I support in their drive for acceptance and equality.Where I do have issues is with the extreme radicals. We all know them, they see no shading or grey areas but all is black and white. If you differ from their thinking or manifesto or even want to debate it, you are the enemy and to be treated as such. Some use a poison tongue telling lies, spreading malicious gossip, others use a poison pen to belittle or destroy those who they believe are in opposition. Others sadly use guns explosives including car bombs. One commonalty could be that they all can rationalize their actions and mostly believe they are right and what ever form or format of god they have will not just support them but agree with them too. We can all rationalize every jolly thing we do. I have seen as many women bitching and getting down right nasty to and about other women as I have seen men do the same thing too. Again both genders are just as likely to let the matters turn violent. Similarly the same can be said about women deriding men ane men deriding women. 



dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 2:53:54 PM)


quote:


Not ALL women behave or feel as you dislike, or will feel or behave as you would like. Neither makes one more right or wrong than the other. You are simply stating YOUR personal preferences.

The error is expecting your personal preferences to be a standard of behaviour.


I'd like for you to tell me where in my post I suggested that all women act one way or another, in a quote preferably. 

quote:


Men and women are not like apples and oranges. One woman may be an orange, another a peach, yet another a fucking Bing cherry. I personally might prefer the peach whereas you prefer the orange. I do not expect all women to behave just like my peach, in fact I do not WANT it that way. I want women to have the right to be peaches, cherries, oranges, whatever their individual fruit type might be. If all men wanted to be apples, how boring and frustrating that would be for you, just another apple. No one would stand out. Hetro women would have even more to choose from........IF they all wanted apples.


You seem fixated on the idea that I've classified all men as the same, and all women as the same, when the point of my post wasn't that all men and women are the same, but that men and women are different from eachother, and that neither are superior to the other, just different.   A point that I believe was very clear about.

I will not get drawn in to an argument about semantics with you.  The words of my analogy are not as important as the point it illustrates.   If you want to perpetuate an argument rather than get at the truth of the matter it's not going to be with me.





dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 2:57:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I am quite curious. How would a 165# man fend off a 500# bear, that would like to eat him, any more skillfully than the 110# woman?



If you want to question the very nature of men and their gender role as providing survival value be my guest.  There's a reason women are attracted to confident men.  They want to align with men who exhibit skills that will enhance their own chances for survival.   It's all an illusion now.  Women don't need men to enhance their chances of survival, but their brains are still wired that way.





LaTigresse -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 2:58:06 PM)

Well okay then, I will just say "you are wrong" and leave it at that!

Much easier than clarifying your misunderstandings......whether they be purposely obtuse or not.



dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 2:59:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Well okay then, I will just say "you are wrong" and leave it at that!

Much easier than clarifying your misunderstandings......whether they be purposely obtuse or not.



That personal attack on me tells me everything I need to know about you.




PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 3:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer

We have to look to nature for our models on how the world works, because nature has been around a lot longer than us and it has it's shit together.



I'm sorry, dbloomer, but this argument doesn't stand up to the first bit of reasoning.  Firstly, humans are part of nature.  If we're not part of nature, then what are we?  Secondly, though we're part of nature, we're our own variation of it - our own species.  Humans are as different to gorillas as gorillas are to orang-utans.  We have many things in common, but we differ in huge ways.  Thirdly, we see in non-human nature only what we're able to see.  We project all sorts of things onto it, then try to 'learn' from what we've projected onto it.  This is why the 'lesson from nature' idea is such crap.  The romantics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw a 'Nature' that was lush, beautiful, bountiful and loving.  Hitler saw savage brutality and a world in which dog ate dog.  Fourthly, how does 'nature have its shit together?'  - when species are dying out so quickly?  Fifthly, if you followed your principle to its logical conclusion, we'd have a world in which nothing is protected by civilisation.  Those who fail would die.  Forget the rugged, capitalist free market - because that plays by civilised rules, no matter how much its supporters like to make out that they're 'just living as nature intended'.  I'm talking of a world in which the psychopathically aggressive get to live and the rest get exploited, or they die.

Lastly, humans in being their own species, have an advantage that nature has provided to a much greater degree than it has to any other species.  This is humanity's brain-power.  We don't fight with our muscles.  We're not much good at it.  I couldn't take out a charging bear without a weapon and I doubt anyone could - female or male.  However, nature's provided us with the tool - our brains - that makes it possible for us to make weapons to use against such animals.

In that last respect - by far and away the most important respect - there's precious little difference between men and women - if, indeed, any difference worth bothering about at all. 



dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 3:36:08 PM)

quote:


Hitler saw savage brutality and a world in which dog ate dog.  Fourthly, how does 'nature have its shit together?'


Yes, there are lessons in nature that have function for us, and lessons in nature that have dysfunction for us.   Certain species of black widow sometimes consume their mate after copulation.  This is obviously a lesson that would not be useful if we applied it ourselves, so we do what a smart person would do, and DON'T apply this lesson.

Nature has it's shit together in that it establishes homeostasis.  Balance.   We do not.

quote:


- when species are dying out so quickly?


See above.

quote:


Fifthly, if you followed your principle to its logical conclusion, we'd have a world in which nothing is protected by civilisation.  Those who fail would die.  Forget the rugged, capitalist free market - because that plays by civilised rules, no matter how much its supporters like to make out that they're 'just living as nature intended'.  I'm talking of a world in which the psychopathically aggressive get to live and the rest get exploited, or they die.


I never advocated a survival-of-the-fittest society.  I suggested we need to look at nature's gender-roles for men and women in an attempt to understand ourselves.  People tend to let their emotions lead them to unfounded conclusions when the facts can provide them with an unbaised (more accurate) view of the truth.

quote:


Lastly, humans in being their own species, have an advantage that nature has provided to a much greater degree than it has to any other species.  This is humanity's brain-power.  We don't fight with our muscles.  We're not much good at it.  I couldn't take out a charging bear without a weapon and I doubt anyone could - female or male.  However, nature's provided us with the tool - our brains - that makes it possible for us to make weapons to use against such animals.


I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  I don't think I ever said that men and women don't use their brains, or that they don't use weapons.

quote:


In that last respect - by far and away the most important respect - there's precious little difference between men and women - if, indeed, any difference worth bothering about at all. 


The very fact that feminism exists at all disproves the above statement categorically.
When you make a statement like the above, you actually have to support it with evidence, thus giving foundation to your claim and making it believable.

There are very dramatic differences between the behavior and ability of men and women.   This doesn't make one better than the other.  Just different.   YES, some women can perform tasks men can perform.  There are women out there who could benchpress me without breaking a sweat.   But there are plenty more men who could do the same.





WhipStich81 -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 3:45:12 PM)

this thread prove that feminism is bs. stop fussin like chickens and jus accept it.



CreativeDominant -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 3:59:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: MMercurial

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aynne88
Wow...you are kind of fucked up about women right? 


Hmm... Let's see....  "fucked up".... such lady-like language -- when talking about women.....  If the feminists' goal was to improve women, they either failed, or they succeeded.  They think this kind of language by a female is an improvement.  I disagree.

So little class, so little time.....


If being a 'lady' means submitting to some fucked up snotty twats' idea of what a woman should be, including the words I use to express myself......... I will more than happily disassociate myself from any goal of being ladylike.

I'd rather be a colourful Broad![:D] I will be in MUCH better company.

I don't know, LaT...I've always thought of you as a smart, colorful, classy lady...AND a broad.  [:D]



PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 5:14:51 PM)

dbbloomer,

It reads as though you've not read my post. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer

quote:


Hitler saw savage brutality and a world in which dog ate dog.  Fourthly, how does 'nature have its shit together?'


Yes, there are lessons in nature that have function for us, and lessons in nature that have dysfunction for us.   Certain species of black widow sometimes consume their mate after copulation.  This is obviously a lesson that would not be useful if we applied it ourselves, so we do what a smart person would do, and DON'T apply this lesson.


Right.  So how do we choose between those lessons we'd like to learn, and those which we wouldn't?   How do we work out the basis on which species to copy, and in what ways?  There is no 'obvious' about this.  Like I said, we could  run it on Hitler's version of 'what nature shows us' at one extreme, or the romantic poets', at the other.  In reality, humans have 'learned from nature' the lessons that have suited them in any given time and place.  Hitler liked the idea of a brutal, savage nature, so that's the 'reality' in nature that he saw.  Modern greens - just like the romantic poets of the 18th century, like the idea of harmony in nature, so that's what they 'see' and consider that 'we should all learn from'.   All of it is bunkum.  Humans are stuck with the fact that we have no example, nothing that can teach us, but ourselves. 

quote:


I never advocated a survival-of-the-fittest society.  I suggested we need to look at nature's gender-roles for men and women in an attempt to understand ourselves.  People tend to let their emotions lead them to unfounded conclusions when the facts can provide them with an unbaised (more accurate) view of the truth.


You're not listening to me, dbbloomer.  Humans are nature.  If we're not nature, then what are we?  If nature didn't make us, then what did?  Humans have their own gender roles.  We do not have the same make-up as hyenas, horses, chimps or even gorillas.  We are not the same species as those animals.  Chimps don't go around copying monkeys - why should humans go around copying chimps?  The gender-roles of gorillas aren't the same as those of chimps, much less those of other animals, even other primates.  How could we possibly learn from the way they 'run their societies'?

quote:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  I don't think I ever said that men and women don't use their brains, or that they don't use weapons.


What I'm trying to convey is the point that, regarding brains versus muscles and ability to defend oneself, the difference between men and women is tiny, to the point of non-existence, compared to the difference between humans and other species. 

quote:


In that last respect - by far and away the most important respect - there's precious little difference between men and women - if, indeed, any difference worth bothering about at all. 


quote:


The very fact that feminism exists at all disproves the above statement categorically.
When you make a statement like the above, you actually have to support it with evidence, thus giving foundation to your claim and making it believable.


The evidence is right in front of your eyes, Db, but only you can make yourself see it.  Compared to other species, the difference between women and men is tiny. The strongest and most aggressive man on the planet wouldn't be a match for the oldest, most knackered, female gorilla.  Who do you think would win in an arm-wrestle - yourself, or that old female gorilla? 

quote:

There are very dramatic differences between the behavior and ability of men and women.   This doesn't make one better than the other.  Just different.   YES, some women can perform tasks men can perform.  There are women out there who could benchpress me without breaking a sweat.   But there are plenty more men who could do the same.


When you talk about 'dramatic' differences between men and women, you need to get it into proportion.  'Dramatic' doesn't mean anything unless you're comparing the difference with another difference.  For instance:  I can lift probably more than twice as much as the average woman.  But a female chimp of half my weight could almost certainly lift more than me.  If you were a chimp, looking at humans, there'd be no dramatic difference.  There'd be almost nothing to distinguish us.  A chimp might see that one is a bit bigger than the other.  If it had any brains that could accommodate the idea, it'd realise that the seriously important difference is not whether one is smallish and has boobs while the other is a bit bigger and has a hairy chest - but whether one human is holding a gun, while the other isn't. 

Do you see?  It's utterly useless to compare humans with other species - even those that are considered to be closely related to us. Humans do their own thing.  We have to work out what's natural and right for us.  It's useless to try to learn from other species, because they do their own thing - the thing that's right for them - not us. 



thishereboi -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 5:23:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

And I think it is far to late to consider your cherries.



Love

Ward


Correctamundo. My cherries long ago, dried up and turned to dust.

Is there such a thing as cherraisins?

I have however, had a lot of fun with a few peaches over the years. The apples, not so much so.




I lost my cherry, but I still have the box it came in[:)]



Elisabella -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 5:35:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

I lost my cherry, but I still have the box it came in[:)]


Hahaha



dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 5:49:24 PM)

quote:



Right.  So how do we choose between those lessons we'd like to learn, and those which we wouldn't?  


The lessons that nature teaches us that provides the greatest amount of function and good for the greatest number of people are the ones we use.  I never said we should all become tree-hugging naturalists.  In fact, our intellect allows us to perform actions that are VERY contrary to "nature" but still "good".  That doesn't mean we should ignore the GOOD and obvious lessons nature provides for us.


quote:


You're not listening to me, dbbloomer.  Humans are nature.


I don't remember ever suggesting humans aren't a product of nature.

quote:

  If we're not nature, then what are we?  If nature didn't make us, then what did?  Humans have their own gender roles.  We do not have the same make-up as hyenas, horses, chimps or even gorillas.  We are not the same species as those animals.


I don't remember ever suggesting we should act like horses or chimps.

quote:


What I'm trying to convey is the point that, regarding brains versus muscles and ability to defend oneself, the difference between men and women is tiny, to the point of non-existence, compared to the difference between humans and other species. 


My point wasn't about self-defense, it was about men's ability to perform physical tasks more efficiently and to be able to cope with intense physical stress better.   And yes, today the difference between men and women in terms of physical capability is deminished because of technology, but it is BY NO MEANS eliminated.  Ask your girlfriend if she wants to be a fireman, join the army as a foot soldier, become a construction worker, join a swat team, work in a shipping/distribution warehouse, ect ect, or simply observe the ratio of men to women in these roles and do the math.

quote:


When you talk about 'dramatic' differences between men and women, you need to get it into proportion.  'Dramatic' doesn't mean anything unless you're comparing the difference with another difference.  For instance:  I can lift probably more than twice as much as the average woman.  But a female chimp of half my weight could almost certainly lift more than me.  If you were a chimp, looking at humans, there'd be no dramatic difference.  There'd be almost nothing to distinguish us.  A chimp might see that one is a bit bigger than the other.  If it had any brains that could accommodate the idea, it'd realise that the seriously important difference is not whether one is smallish and has boobs while the other is a bit bigger and has a hairy chest - but whether one human is holding a gun, while the other isn't. 


You seem quite ready to use nature to debunk my point of view, I find it strange that you disagree with me using nature to pose a point of view.   You also seem quite invested in the idea that men and women are virtually  "equal" despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, historically, and empirically.  I'll say again, I don't consider either men or women to be superior or inferior to one another, just different.  Superiority typically falls in to the realm of individuality anyways, but there are things men are predisposed to do better than women, and things that women are predisposed to do better than men.








PeonForHer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 7:08:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer
You seem quite ready to use nature to debunk my point of view, I find it strange that you disagree with me using nature to pose a point of view.  


What I'm trying to convey, dbloomer, is that there is no 'nature' to appeal to in the way that you try to use it.  There's nothing outside of human nature that can give us any lessons on how we should run society.  Humans - however they live now, for good or for bad as far as you see it - are already 'natural'. Humans have already learned the lessons that nature can provide for humans, and we're already living by them.  It's impossible for us to do otherwise; just as it's impossible for gorillas or chimps to do otherwise.  You want to know what human nature is - look around.   What humans do, now, is what human nature is.  What humans will do in a thousand years' time will also be what human nature is.

If you want to talk in terms, though, of humans being 'separate' from nature and needing to 'rejoin' nature - 'follow her rules' . . . then it becomes insane.  It wouldn't be just feminism that's unnatural.  Eating cooked food, sitting on chairs, driving cars, reading . . . writing points of view on Internet forums - all of that would be 'unnatural', too. 

You cannot premise anything useful onthe idea that there's humans on the one hand, and 'nature' on the other.  That doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  It doesn't make any sense. 

quote:

Ask your girlfriend if she wants to be a fireman, join the army as a foot soldier, become a construction worker, join a swat team, work in a shipping/distribution warehouse, ect ect, or simply observe the ratio of men to women in these roles and do the math.


The maths wouldn't be relevant.  If she wanted to be a fireman or a foot soldier, then that would be natural and right.  What men and women have traditionally done and been good at isn't relevant, either.  It only ever gets in the way to think in those terms.  You say that men and women are different from one another.  There are differences - I agree.  But I'd say: don't ever try to 'fix' any of them - rationalise them, by saying they're 'natural' - because, one day, a woman will nearly always come along and do what a man usually does - and vice versa.  At that point, you'd be stuck in the self-evidently unsupportable position of saying 'that's unnatural'.



Lucienne -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 8:29:50 PM)


quote:


 I do not have a PhD. I do have a BA in communications



Oh my... and I'm only on page 5.



dbloomer -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/28/2010 9:20:44 PM)

quote:


Humans - however they live now, for good or for bad as far as you see it - are already 'natural'. Humans have already learned the lessons that nature can provide for humans, and we're already living by them.




To refute your viewpoint on "Everything we do is human nature", Men (and many other animals) held in captivity for extended periods of time are known to engage in homosexual activity in the absence of women. By your logic, men are naturally homosexual, because whenever we do ANYTHING it's human nature. What you fail to consider is that the condition itself is unnatural: It's not natural for heterosexual men to gather and live together in tiny square jail cells for many years at a time without any women present. If we did, nature would correct the obvious inbalance because men living together in the absence of women makes propagating the species impossible.

The point I'm trying to illustrate here, (and no, I'm not homophobic),is that when we build an environment for ourselves that is unnatural, unnatural behavior will occur, naturally.


You seem to identify personally with these views which means you will never admit your viewpoint is or could be wrong because you feel that would indicate a fault in you personally. This will be my last correspondance with you, because you seem to skip past all of the valid points I make and reiterate your world view again and again, which isn't useful or productive to either of us.





crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/29/2010 1:00:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dbloomer

I'm not for forcing women in to roles that are better suited for men, nor am I for pushing men in to roles that are better suited for women.




Out of curiosity - Which roles are "better suited for men" and which are "better suited for women"?

And when you say "better suited" what do you mean exactly - do you mean, for example, that women shouldn't be allowed to perform those roles that are "better suited for men", or that when recruiting for these roles organisations should simply be allowed to disregard applications from women?




crazyml -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/29/2010 1:12:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Violentseternal

in those ways i love women, but women who 'know their place'


What is this "place"?

quote:



men and women were not made to equal one another or better one another, but to compliment each other..to work together..hence being built so different.


Absolutely!

quote:


i find the majority of females to be 2 faced, petty, catty and far too easy to offend, and being friends with men for years and few females, i see how the men get treated by these types. of course there are exceptions, but im talking the majority, not the minority.



I'm sorry that this has been your experience. I can't help wondering if a little introspection may be in order? I only suggest this because my experience of females is very different to yours.

I worked in a hardware store, can I can remember selling a chainsaw to a guy who had waxed lyrical about his years of experience as a tree surgeon. Two days later he came back with the chainsaw and asked for a replacement as this one kept cutting out. As per policy we changed the item and off he went. A couple of weeks later he came in again - complaining about the chainsaw. He'd come to the conclusion that these chainsaws were all shit, unreliable, rubbish.

It turned out that this was the fourth replacement (he'd been in three more times in the meantime and had spoken to different people). I took the "faulty" cs out back, with him and fired it up - No problems - then I saw this funny look on his face.... "Is that how you're meant to hold it?" was his somewhat sheepish question. He'd been holding the saw upside down, and the fuel wasn't getting to the motor.

The lesson for me is that if you have a bad experience with one person, well that's probably them, if you have the same bad experience with four people - it might be time to ask yourself whether you might need to embrace the possibility that it's something you're doing?



Malkinius -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/29/2010 2:22:37 AM)

Greetings crazyml....

quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
Out of curiosity - Which roles are "better suited for men" and which are "better suited for women"?

And when you say "better suited" what do you mean exactly - do you mean, for example, that women shouldn't be allowed to perform those roles that are "better suited for men", or that when recruiting for these roles organisations should simply be allowed to disregard applications from women?


Just remember....you asked the question.

Men: Sperm donors.

Women: Egg donors.

<grins evilly>

Be well....

Malkinius



IronBear -> RE: The Anti-Feminism Bias (7/29/2010 3:00:17 AM)

The segments of anti feminism has been both enlightening, informative and pleasing to read. Frankly the pissing contest to see who is the better poster and who is right reminds me I can wander dawn to the pub and watch continuous pissing contests from half the male population live and in colour which is more fun than watching it on line.....  In generation s past male pride and a good dose of testosterone were essential for survival but sadly those days are past.. Something which appears to gave not been noticed by the few here.. Must have been a cock-up in the notice delivery system.. 



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875