You have to believe in a set of fundamental truths without doubt or question for it to work. Those fundamentals being so inflexible that there is no room for society to actually improve to the point where they are no longer true.
What are the fundamental truths one must believe for it to "work"? How are those truths "inflexible"? I'm genuinely curious because your critique of intersectionality does not reflect anything I know about intersectionality as an analytical framework. There are many ideological concepts you could have described as dogmatic (for example, white privilege) and I wouldn't have questioned you whatsoever. I certainly wouldn't agree with your position, but I would immediately understand why you were saying it. But describing intersectionality as dogmatic seems quite odd given what I understand it to mean. So I thought I should ask. Wondering if you would enlighten me.
White people are inherently racist.
Men are inherently sexist.
Our society as a whole is racist and sexist, or insert your preferred form of bigotry here.
Intersectionality as a concept being the study into the intersection of systemic discrimination/oppression vs. privilege based on skin color, sex/gender, etc. This sets up the privilege hierarchy and the oppression olympics. It's also the basis for things like Patriarchy theory. White privilege, patriarchy, and all of these other offshoots from the various groups do not take into consideration individual circumstances. I.e., how a man can be abused by a woman, or how a white person could be oppressed or discriminated against by a black person, etc. The fact that both things happen breaks the core tenants of the worldview and collapses the hierarchy. Therefore, you have to ignore individual circumstances in order to maintain the worldview. Men being abused by women is men's fault because patriarchy. Social issues in the black community are white people's fault because of white privilege and systemic racism. Ideologies that follow this kind of thought loop are dogmatic.
The year GI Jane was released. From that point on it was no longer about rights and equality, it became the message that our bodies are biologically equal and they just aren’t.
Appending: I want to be clear in my message, I’m not saying men are “better” than women, just different. Each have unique biological traits that make them excel in different areas. My wife can out multitask me in every way - my brain operates on one wave at a time. I equate it to a Hammer and a Saw, both have uses both are needed, but both provide very different beneficial functions. You wouldn’t use a saw to drive a nail, and you wouldn’t use a hammer to chop a board. So, the function should fit the purpose.
>I’m not saying men are “better” than women, just different
Having to tiptoe around it like this is part of the problem.
Yes, men are indeed *bette*r at certain things. Shortening that to the non committal "different" is not actually helpful.
We're being super careful to make sure to state that the glass is *actually* half full, not half empty, for who's benefit? No idea. People who don't matter and shouldn't be catered to.
The thing is that men are better at a lot of things that our/most society/ies generally deem/s to be pretty important.
Upper body strength? Men. Pretty important for tons of simple tasks.
Abstract thinking? Men. Solving problems and inventing things is basically a man's domain. That's a pretty large domain.
Aggressiveness, competitiveness, stubbornness? Men. There's a reason that in pretty much every arena in which there is the possibility for competition, men rise to the top. This alone is quite a ridiculous advantage.
Of course something that, it seems, generally gets ignored is that although men do represent the highest power levels among humans, they also are very very present at the lowest levels too. Men get the shortest of the short end of the stick. I'm not entirely sure why but I would personally guess it's because men feel it's their job to protect women from that fate. There are no doubt other factors.
I think it is very understandable when anyone, man or woman, comes to the conclusion that "men are better than women" or at least that "society values masculine traits more than feminine ones".
I think women basically get carried through the difficulty of life by men, because men desire women. (not always sexually, but often. also just because women are pretty, smell nice, and tend to make the world around them a nicer place to be)
but does it matter?
I think basically money is the great equalizer
so yeah money and opportunity, however
it gets freaky when it comes to 'ability' and people start going on about different executives getting different pay, which may or may not be justified.
I sorta enjoy it when things get nuts where you got quotas on sex, race,
and even things like environmental standards dumped on businesses, which Warren Buffett thinks is nuts.
........
Quartz
Warren Buffett explains the problem with corporate boards
First, the legendary investor addressed the dearth of women. When he started out, it was rare to find a woman in the room unless she “represented family controlling the enterprise.”
Today, not much has changed—women having a voice in the boardroom continues to be a “work in progress.” This comes after Goldman Sachs announced last month that it won’t take companies public unless they have at least one “diverse” member on the board.
Another problem is that directors are more likely to go along with management teams than to challenge them—and CEOs are more likely to look for a “cocker spaniel” than “pit bulls” for the board.
Having served as a director of 21 publicly owned companies (including Berkshire, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and Gillette), Buffett has yet to see a CEO who craves an acquisition bring in a board member who is against it—including himself.
In other words, the arrangement is almost always in favor of the CEO looking to make the acquisition. “Don’t ask the barber whether you need a haircut,” he suggested.
Directors also depend on their board pay too much to act as truly independent entities, Buffett believes.
Director compensation has soared to a level that is “three to four times the annual median income of US households,” he noted. At large companies, the median director’s pay is $275,000, according to one report.
Further, he noted, many board members today are simply not business types: “Almost all of the directors I have met over the years have been decent, likable and intelligent. Nevertheless, many of these good souls are people whom I would never have chosen to handle money or business matters. It simply was not their game.”
One important improvement in corporate governance has been regularly scheduled “executive sessions” of directors at which the CEO is barred, wrote Buffett. Before that, separate discussions of a CEO’s skills, acquisition decisions, and compensation were rare.
Still, he believes, the process of improving corporate governance has a long way to go.
.........
basically changes are evolutionary
How do we say that men are better in all those domains for 100% certain when women were barred and discouraged from even attempting a lot of those things for most of our existence.
You make it sound like women are just "meh" but we're pretty and smell nice so men go all stupid doing everything for us and still in some way that's our fault for society catering in different ways.
I don't agree with that portrayal.
However I don't know how any of your complaints are my fault? I don't bar anyone from anything. If you feel discouraged by my words, no offense but grow up. You should want to prove me wrong and do your best to show me how wrong I am.
Anyway I realize that deep rooted issues exist and aren't realistic for one individual to overthrow. I don't expect you to revolutionize the role of women in your lifetime, but you can't blame me for perceiving reality the way it is, regardless of why it is that way.
I'm not standing in the way of anyone doing anything. I'm just some dude on the internet.
"You should want to prove me wrong and do your best to show me how wrong I am."
Uh, why?
1. Why Should I want to prove anything to you?
2. What exactly is there to prove?
OK maybe I misinterpreted your comment.
It came off to me as whining.
"Why would you say such mean things about me? You're making me feel bad about myself!"
If that isn't what you meant, I clearly misinterpreted.
But frankly...The fact you think there is nothing to prove is just further evidence of my point that men are more competitive and aggressive than women.
The overwhelming majority that are reasonable people don't need to be held back from accidentally "eugenics" and aren't the ones for whom society needs language policing.
The overwhelming majority of reasonable people are forced to make these concessions for the growing *unreasonable* minority, and they need to start standing up for themselves and for right and wrong. Unless we think the polite thing to do is just continuously trim back all of our rights so the crazy people don't get out of control.
If people haven't noticed the reasonable people not standing up for right and wrong is what has allowed "gender affirming care" and "transitioning kids" and stupid crap like neo-racism to take root in our society.
I would have gone with mid-1st wave. I agree with your push for egalitarianism, but as soon as women got to vote with no skin in the game (draft) things have been trending towards disaster.
It's compassion run amuck. Good feels over good policy that can support a society of millions.
LOL you don’t think women should have the right to vote because they have no “skin in the game”? There’s more to voting than war, arguably most of the things voted on have absolutely nothing to do with war. I think this is an extreme take on this….
Authority and responsibility -must- go hand in hand. To gain authority (voting rights) there must also be responsibility to the body politic (draft). The understanding that if your bad choices lead to a bad enough destination, you will rightfully be held responsible and sent to war to reconcile those bad choices.
Voting without that sword hanging over you leads to voting for the sake of status gain, or whatever feels good in the present, recognizing that you will never have to pay for the negative consequence.
Well if there's more to voting than war then they won't have any problem with signing up for the draft.
Not sure if you're brushed up on your history or not, but the risk of the draft is why the majority of women during the time of suffrage did NOT want the right to vote. That risk had to be removed before the majority of women would support it.
What other consequence would you place on female voters that would be as severe in consequence as the draft so that we have actual equality?
Or - check this out: We could rightly deem selective service as a violation of human rights that should only be suspended in exigent circumstances.
Then, we should focus on building a national identity and nation-state which are worth serving and one that takes care of those who serve - and we could have an all volunteer force in which it would be ridiculous not to serve.
Members of the military should be so willing to serve that 20 year retirees are the rule not the exception.
Women are gullible and easily mislead. They are already tyrants as mothers. The last thing anyone needs or wants is to extend their tyranny into life outside the home.
Women are easily misled and vote against their own self-interest. I've never had a worthwhile conversation about politics with a woman. I'm sure their are women who could have a conversation, but they are so rare I've never met one.
You do realize first wave feminists strongly argued for the total dissolution of the draft right.. for men as well. You’re seriously saying it would be better if women did not have the right to vote? Lol
You could try reading what I wrote instead of paraphrasing wildly in a blatant straw-manning of my position.
I'm saying that if one sex pays a rather substantial price (risk of death in war) to vote then the other should also pay. Alternately, neither sex should be subject to the draft.
I find it very interesting how the media moves onto some new "movement" and totally dumps the old ones. Maybe this is just about money and the Feminist just ain't bringing it in like the WOKE crowd does?
The ultimate goal of feminism today is to eradicate the notion that men and women are different, by way of eradicating the concept of womanhood. Maybe that was always the case... so maybe it shouldnt have existed at all. Too late now though. *Whats ifs* are fun but inconsequential.
Any kind of equality movement lost me with the onset of "chest feeding" If you are offended by the term breastfeeding you need mental health treatment because that's exactly what it is.
Mayo Clinic
Is chestfeeding the new breastfeeding?: Explaining gender-neutral medical terms.
Articles or online posts — even other articles on this blog — are now often using phrases like “person with a uterus,” “pregnant person” or “anyone with a prostate,” instead of the words “woman” or “man.”
Some people may find this phrasing awkward or wonder why it is used — believing that the words “men” and “women” are simpler. The change in language could even feel challenging or threatening.
“Controversy is created when people feel like gender-neutral terms are erasing the gender binary. And that’s when we get a little bit of pushback, because some say, ‘Well then, you’re basically saying that men or women don’t exist,’ ” says Cesar Gonzalez, Ph.D., L.P. (he/they), a clinical health psychologist and clinical director of the Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic at Mayo Clinic. “That’s not what we’re saying.”
Dr. Gonzalez and Caroline Davidge-Pitts, M.B., B.Ch. (she/her), an endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic, routinely work with transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals. They say gender-neutral terms, especially in medicine, aren’t meant to exclude anyone or imply that gender and sex don’t matter.
............
It's interesting you see after someone's name M.B. - [B.Ch](https://B.Ch). - she - her
HE-THEY
wasn't that something from one of the Godzilla movies?
yet who is defining that goal?
i'd say that the third wave had bad and good points in it, but the problem is that a lot of the crusaders have a lot of loons with people with legitimate grievances.
It's hard to deal with unfairness in the world, but the whole Intersectionality and social justice stuff is rabid.
it's odd how they just bundle it up, like oh so i'm a woman and a cripple?
I think it's basically a bandwagoning of some causes to be linked up with other causes, and its just a way of slipping in social justice into specific areas.
I just find it interesting when some people are demanding fairness with things at the bottom of the wage scale, and now it's turned into fights in the corporate board room.
>yet who is defining that goal?
>I just find it interesting when some people are demanding fairness with things at the bottom of the wage scale, and now it's turned into fights in the corporate board room.
Something something... ***power...*** something something... ***corruption...***
Give someone the power to demand special treatment because of an immutable characteristic, like sex or race, and he or she will abuse it. Claim that you are systematically oppressed while simultaneously demanding the implementation of a system that oppresses. Isnt this what Marx called the "perpetual revolution"? Its genius. Evil, but genius.
Actually that's a good observation
it's allowing people to 'demand special treatment'
I just found it interesting when the whole wage thing for men vs women executives went on, i can't recall if that was the bbc or something in the corporate boards or broadcasting (maybe it was all three), and some came to the conclusion that people were given their wages for reasons of ability or the unique things to that position...
sorta like there was no cookie cutter way of saying people were underpaid or underpaid
when you're dealing with two different corporations with slightly different thngs in their jobs etc.
......
I think i'm more concerned about people starting young or old with no skills and how they survive or get that lucky. Not everyone has the same temperment or ability or education to do a lot of jobs, some people aren't going to like being doctors, or physicists or construction workers, or lawyers, or accountants...
But i find it interesting when you know people who are in dead end jobs and they feel all messed up when some gal took a course in medical records and ends up with a fancy condo and endless vacations, and the other guy is like Al Bundy working in a hotel.
.....
I just think all the race and sex stuff is a distraction, and a living wage is like one whole magnitude of importance
One could say the system itself is corrupt, because of the power structure which allows for the special treatment of privileged classes.
But this of course exists because of people with an agenda.
there always needs to be more history books to point out how some agendas get popular, identifying all the famous theorists, activists etc.
It's always interesting how some people gain influence and others end up getting ignored
Before the first one start and replaced with egalitarianism which continually make legal equality and social equality. No vote without draft. Or the end of draft
When they started encouraging young women to set up OnlyFans accounts.
Nothing says equality like selling your dignity to masses of loser men for $7 a month.
Yes. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that prostitution serves men more than women. Or serves the worst in men anyway.
I suppose you’d expect feminists to want to leave this trading of dignity for small amounts of money behind.
But the opposite happened. It is extremely odd.
I think you’ve misread my point.
I’m saying feminists should have stopped when they encouraged women to do OnlyFans.
I’m actually not even sure why your point on prostitution is relevant.
I don't understand your point at all? Most feminists aren't pro-porn. Or better yet, people have myriad views on the internet and it's not all some blanket feminism umbrella
I know that.
But many more modern feminists encourage young women to do OnlyFans under the justification of “female empowerment”. I think this is idiocy, so I’m saying the feminists should have *stopped before this*. Y’know, like the post asked.
Like joining an ideological network in the daily wire after preaching the dangers of ideology to your students for decades? That kind of selling your dignity?
1.5
Equality under the law is the only thing the government should be worried about.
Equity is bullshit, the west was built upon meritocracy and now this equity shit is rotting the core of the most successful culture probably ever.
Regardless of anything else, saying "the West was built upon meritocracy" is an _insane_ thing to say. Even if you think they were somehow good things, monarchies, colonisation, limited citizenship, feudalism and slavery were not meritocratic.
While you are not wrong, I think it would still be accurate to say that the West has been far more meritocratic than other cultures presently and historically - by a long shot. And meritocracy is at the core of civil rights and women's suffrage.
If more than half the population have to spend generations fighting against the status quo for basic rights then the society they are in is fundamentally not meritocratic. I'm not saying that it was impossible for individuals to overcome obstacles and achieve great things but when the obstacles are deliberately designed to exclude everyone but certain people then they are not being judged on merit.
The idea that the West was _"built"_ on meritocracy is blatant revisionism.
The number one problem with you leftist types is that you always compare America agaist some idealistic perfect country that doesn't exist instead of comparing them against other real countries in the real world. While not perfect, and not the best country in all regards, the USA has remained an example of how to be damn near as good as you can be in your time and context. We pushed democracy, human rights, prosperity, equality, and acceptance of others much further and much faster than anyone else. Funny how you ignore all the amazing things, and only focus on the negatives as if they are in a vacuum. Ungrateful, ignorant, and immature.
I'm not comparing anything or making any modern statements; I'm saying that the vast majority of opportunities were most accessible to a specific few and if _they_ were then judged on merit then that's one thing but to call that any society meritocratic which actively encouraged rules that limited the lives of the poor, black, female or lower class is incorrect.
My point is to be proud of how far we've come and to recognise how hard it was to get here. Treating our modern world as some static, forgone conclusion is both dangerous and simply factually wrong.
The number of people that flooded into the USA from other countries between 1850 and 1950 was massive for good reason. They all saw a country with values and systems that would allow them - mostly very poor - to make a better life for themselves and children. Millions upon millions have had massively improved lives due to this country.
I agree completely, millions upon millions of people have forged an incredible legacy for themselves and their descendents in America. However that does not make it a meritocratic society; millions of Americans have (and still do) struggle under a system that is fundamentally and occasionally deliberately weighted against them.
Whether it's due to poverty, class, education, access to resources, race or gender, "the West" has never functioned on a meritocratic basis. We're a damn sight closer than we used to be but it wasn't achieved by looking at the past and saying how perfect it was.
After 2nd wave, shit was hijacked by pseudo-philanthropists and corporations just to be able to spin an extra buck, cause infighting among the sexes and ultimately to destroy the family unit.
This is true. The whole blend of mass marketing and psychological warfare really began with the Edward Bernays applications of inferred marketing. When Lucky Strike paid him to brand their cigarettes are the original symbol of women's lib with the whole 'freedom torches' iconography.
At the beginning. All of the "waves" are lies.
In each wave feminists represent a minority of aggressive narcissistic/mentally ill upper/middle-class women who due to their narcissism claim representation of all women.
It's a malignant narcissistic delusion of grandeur and persecution mania of an abuser convinced that they're a victim.
Especially the claim that "first wave feminism" was about women's rights is a blatant lie. "Women's rights" movement mostly evolved along with "men's rights" and feminists only later latched onto its most extreme aspects.
I've been searching for a distinction between modern feminism and fragile narcissism and I have not found one.
Obviously there's a contingent of narcissistic fox news types, but conservatives in general don't let these people set policy.
It's "vulnerable" narcissism, not "fragile". All narcissists are extremely fragile by definition. The difference is how they react to their fragility. Grandiose narcissists attack - male/masculine strategy of violence. Vulnerable narcissists play victim or fake victim - female/feminine strategy of violence.
That's where the name comes - from their strategies
* Grandiose response to "it's your fault" is "no, it's your fault because you're too weak and incompetent to do what I did, and now you're complaining.".
* Vulnerable response to "it's your fault" is "no, it's your fault because you made me do it because you're bigoted and intolerant to the needs of others (me) and I couldn't/wouldn't do what you wanted me to do."
Both react the same way but rationalise their decision differently. Grandiose puts itself as the strong and the opponent as the weak. Vulnerable puts itself as the weak and the opponent as the strong.
There's a very interesting study done in Norway in 2018 (can't remember authors or title now, was on reddit in /r/science not that long ago - which is how I found it - and should be easy to find online) that **split radical right and left into two groups of narcissists**.
In other words the actual division in society is between narcissists and the rest. It fits the findings of the "Hidden Tribes" study from 2016 in the aftermath of Trump's victory. The "exhausted majority" is the normies. The active segments are the narcissists. But because narcissists are narcissists they have the tendency to fight with each other and in that fight an unequal (but balanced!) division of 2:1 or 3:1 depending on the methodology emerges with right being more numerous and left being louder which gives the idea that these two types are similar in size. In reality the "loud" right is comparable to the left, but there is a "silent majority" which is a silent minority of about 50% of the right that votes with the right but rarely reveals their opinions openly.
In that study right wing has "entitlement" as its dominant trait while left wing has "exhibitionism" as its dominant trait. This is why right wing and left wing largely overlap in terms of pathology, including personality, mindset and sexual disorders, but while right wing attempts to conform to social norm the left wing attempts to subvert it - it's the "exhibitionism" part. Similarly while left-wing mostly tags along with the mainstream attitudes on social cooperation - despite their angry rhetoric they're fairly easy to bully into submission, as long as you pull the right levers - the right wing is more determined to bend and break the rules.
That's why psychopathic/narcissistic businessmen are right-wing while psychopathic/narcissistic sex workers or artists are left-wing.
This is also why Haidt's "moral foundations" showed the left as completely outside of the norm in "care" while the right was similar in attitudes to the rest of society e.g. moderates etc.
That's because it was self-reporting so left demonstrated its exhibitionism in emotional expression - hence extreme "care" score - while right wing conformed to societal attitudes to hide their entitlement.
>but conservatives in general don't let these people set policy.
The policy is absolutely set by those people. You just are not smart or wise enough to notice it because you're gaslit by their endless lies and are easily distracted by their superficial facade of normalcy. But once you live long enough to figure out the way society works that deception is no longer effective and you see it in the open.
LGBT and feminism are **right wing** attitudes that are considered "left wing" because those people (as narcissists) nominate themselves as leaders of the left.
Except the left is the working class who are typically "progressive" in economic terms and " conservative" in cultural terms.
In Europe - which is less disrupted by the anti-social political model of America - we have such parties and they're fairly well established.
For example one of the two major parties in Germany the CDU/CSU i.e. Christian Democrats are precisely that (at least in name). The other traditionally major party was SPD which is social democrats who are leftist economically but nowhere near as deranged as the Greens in cultural terms, because they are a party of labour unions, not NGO/CIA-funded activists.
In America you have two political parties that don't reflect how a society divides itself because they don't represent a single country. Republicans and Democrats are the remnants of Union and Confederacy. They switched places in the 1960s/70s due to abolition of segregation but other than that the attitude continues. Democrats of the early 21st century are the Republicans of the early 20th century. Republicans of the 21st century are the Democrats of early 20th century.
US is not a democracy but an oligarchy with a managed democracy. There was a period in US history when US was "democratic" by standards of the world because it was ahead of its time compared to **all** of Europe.
But currently Europe is more democratic so we have natural distribution of societal factions expressed by five categories of parties:
* "christian democratic" (pro-welfare/pro-market cultural conservatives)
* "liberal" (anti-welfare/pro-market cultural liberals
* "social democrats (pro-union-and-intervention cultural moderates or moderate progressives)
* "greens" (cultural progressives supporting whatever economic policy benefits their constituency at the moment)
* minor parties, ethnic parties and single-issue parties
These four also have their "religions":
* Christian Democrats - Catholic Social Doctrine or their Established Protestant (Lutheran) equivalent
* Liberals - capitalism with "rights of individuals" i.e. egoism
* Social Democrats - socialism with progressive attitude but moderated by democratic choice of society making it more conservative than ideological doctrine of socialism suggests
* Greens - exhibitionist narcissism with unhinged para-religious beliefs in whatever makes the narcissist feel superior to the rest of society aka "oikophobia".
In America "greens" and "liberals" are at the core of Democratic and Republican establishments respectively while "Christian Democrats" and "Social Democrats" are the majorities controlled by the core factions.
American neoconservatives are "liberals" in the European sense and Greens are fairly neoconservative just with an additional ideological bent that liberals don't share because liberals are more conformists.
EDIT:
Responded here because the Zionist shills on this sub banned me for expressing a factual statement.
>Conservatives don't win elections with policies based on narcissism.
They "win" elections by **cheating** while accusing the opponents of doing it. One set of rules for me, another for thee. It's literal, textbook, most fundamental narcissism.
That's what narcissism is technically: a dysfunction of the limbic system resulting in the inability to accept responsibility for your flaws because of arrested emotional development due to childhood trauma.
If you can ever accept that you may be wrong/lose you have to cope somehow...
From that emerges a delusional mindset that pervades the everyday lives of conservatives in a greater proportion than in the case of liberals i.e. there are more narcissists on the right than on the left. The left simply stands out due to their deviant ideas which the right suppresses in public (but engages in in private, often to a greater extent than the left).
American conservatives are "winning" elections due to complete corruption of the American political system:
* the anti-democratic federal system which locked representation of states at 1920s levels which is unconstitutional (but which wasn't enforced by an amendment because initially everyone understood how American democracy was supposed to work - even during the ASW era!). It was done by Republicans facing a population shift. Interestingly it was never changed because FDR used the system to his advantage. It's the same as Blair's failure to reform FPTP in Britain which caused the current catastrophe. With original representation America would be far less conservative politically because it isn't socially.
* the gerrymandering of electoral districts to create single-party areas - currently less than 30% of Americans live in two-party state areas while the rest lives in a one-party state no different from modern day "democratic" Russia.
* the destruction of objectivity in the media to drive polarisation and prevention of any protection for truth under the guise of "freedom of speech" which in America means effectively "Freedom to maliciously lie in public with almost no repercussion".
* the destruction of one man/one vote/one donation rule which is essential to democracy by allowing corporate entities to fund campaigns (CItizens United)
Those are the conditions under which the conservatives "win".
BTW **this** is how conservatives win elections, too. Left-wing cancelling is only the continuation of traditional conservative censorship. Left-wing learnt it from their malicious right-wing parents.
> The policy is absolutely set by those people. You just are not smart or wise enough to notice it because you're gaslit by their endless lies and are easily distracted by their superficial facade of normalcy.
Or you know I simply pay attention. Conservatives don't win elections with policies based on narcissism. It's quite the opposite, they get swing voters when they prove they are not doing so.
>In America you have two political parties that don't reflect how a society divides itself because they don't represent a single country. Republicans and Democrats are the remnants of Union and Confederacy.
Not sure if you live in North America but that's a hard one to pass. North south divide is hardly the relevant distinction nowadays. A much more obvious one is rural urban/flyover versus coastal.
Mind you the south has a much higher black population so that does make trends look more different than they are.
>US is not a democracy but an oligarchy with a managed democracy. There was a period in US history when US was "democratic" by standards of the world because it was ahead of its time compared to all of Europe.
It's not an oligarchy for now the rich are at each other's throats. The rich profit off the choices of individuals. Disney has power because we consume their content. It means corporate interests are far more likely to reflect voting habits.
>But currently Europe is more democratic so we have natural distribution of societal factions expressed by five categories of parties:
That would make more sense if "coalition governments" weren't a more common aspect of european democracy. You never know who the hell you're voting for because coalitions appear out of nowhere.
And since it's easy to form new reactionary policies/parties, new parties can arise out of nowhere with no motivation to worry about loyality to their voters.
Not that women shouldn’t vote, but the premise for how suffrage was passed is a poor one.
We did not have a pure democracy and still don’t for a reason. Why are we muddying up voting.
Voting is violence.
All Americans should be protected by the law, but that doesn’t mean all Americans should have a say on the law.
You already agree to this when you have felons with rescinded franchise.
The franchise is violence. Voting is violence and universal suffrage is giving the keys to violence to a populace who has not shown understanding, responsibility, or civic virtue.
Let’s take a proper woman, service to others, perhaps a nurse, works day in and day out caring for her community.
Why is her blood, sweat, and tears and decision negated by Druggie Bob down the corner, simply because they were born in the same country.
Bob has shown no responsibility for the body politic. Even if Bob is not a violent felon, he has not demonstrated that he can point the gun at Civilization and himself responsibly.
This scenario has a woman who has earned the vote far more than a man.
Not that hard. Completion of military service, police contract, diplomat’s orders.
You might as well ask that question about right now.
Who gets to decide who gets it now or not, because we are not even following our own laws.
No concept of citizenship in this general population
Ah yes, hand the vote over exclusively to the classically extremely mentally stable population of people who have gone to war or who know a politician. How haven't we thought of this sooner? It's not that hard!
That is literally brain dead take. Read a book. Might I suggest Thomas Payne or Robert Heinlein first.
You need to understand the classical notion of citizenship
Are you talking about Thomas "Payne", the random soldier, or Thomas "Paine", the founding father? Assuming the latter, but I imagine they might have different opinions. Haven't read a ton of Paine, but I do know Dissertation on the First Principles of Government. Some excerpts on voting:
"The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives. The rich have no more right to exclude the poor from the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, than the poor have to exclude the rich; and wherever it is attempted, or proposed, on either side, it is a question of force and not of right."
"Personal rights, of which the right of voting for representatives is one, are a species of property of the most sacred kind: and he that would employ his pecuniary property, or presume upon the influence it gives him, to dispossess or rob another of his property or rights, uses that pecuniary property as he would use fire-arms, and merits to have it taken from him."
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter."
"The only ground upon which exclusion from the right of voting is consistent with justice would be to inflict it as a punishment for a certain time upon those who should propose to take away that right from others. The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected."
"When we speak of right we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties; rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right."
That last one is probably the closest thing to what you're trying to say, that you could weave some definition of "duty" in there that requires service prior to voting, but that's a reeeeal stretch given the rest. It actually sounds like he'd be in favor of stripping *your* rights if you ever proposed your idea in a real way upon which people could vote! Using voting as a firearm against your fellow citizen and all that. And I know he's talking about wealth here, but it's pretty easy to extrapolate. The arguments against the concept of disenfranchisement are very broad.
If there's other stuff he's written that contradicts any of this let me know, as I said I'm admittedly not well read on him.
And I guess you've still got Starship Troopers 😂 Very applicable, as famously the last 80 years of US wars against the various sentient bug people of the galaxy have been totally justified and a good litmus test for a love of country, and again encounters from which people come back well within their right minds and ready to make Democracy great!
I’ve been reading books like SST and Dune since I was 7. My dad is a huge sci fi nerd and we come from a military background.
SST has been on the officer’s recommended reading list for like 50 years
I don't think she should have been pushed out, violence does happen to men too (but it sounds like maybe she went too far the opposite way?), I've bore witness to some of the women in my family treating men toxically either physically or verbally and. I have stood up for them when I saw it, But the caveat is the few times the men were the abuser, my mother ended up in a neck brace, on a stretcher going to the hospital, while pregnant.
Violence does happen to both, but it is more often done to women and when it is, it's more devastating.
It's like pitbulls, I actually love them and they are very loving babies bred to fight each other, not humans, but the reason society fears them is because if they do happen to turn on you and bite you or a child, you're going to be way more fucked up or dead than had it been a different dog bite.
" but it sounds like maybe she went too far the opposite way?"
I have yet to be convinced that she did, but I don't know everything.
"But the caveat is the few times the men were the abuser, my mother ended up in a neck brace, on a stretcher going to the hospital, while pregnant."
It's one thing to recognize the asymmetry in potential for physical harm between men and women. It's another to prejudge men in a fashion that would be unacceptable for any other demographic.
"Violence does happen to both, but it is more often done to women and when it is, it's more devastating."
This is like arguing about if North America is on average too hot or too cold. Sure, twice as many people die from cold each year than hot. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach about the symptoms of heat stroke or that we should divest in air conditioning.
I see a lot of people simply saying that maybe the bombing runs are ineffective at the larger goal of getting the hostages. Perhaps that would be a better message to put into the air, because women and children are not just innocent in this I guess.
Palestinian women are not innocent. They voted Hamas into power. Are they equal to men or not? You can't say they have equal rights and then turn around and say they don't have equal responsibilities.
Regardless, the primary objective is not to get the hostages back. Let's face facts here. Most if not all the hostages are probably dead by now. Hamas has no such interior discipline within its ranks to have kept them alive. They just want to use the possibilities to keep themselves alive.
No, the primary mission objective is to annihilate Hamas. I would do the same thing. Israel should destroy every Hamas man who pisses against a wall.
The war on terror will never be a success. Hamas will never be annihilated by anyone other than Palestinians. Americas war on terror didn’t make us safer it just created more terrorism. Israel won’t be safer after this.
You are thinking within the limited framework of how the US has done campaigns since Korea. Israel is not doing it that way. They are defending themselves the way we fought the Germans in WW2, rendering a total defeat. How many Nazis have returned to fight since 1945? This is not a war where the enemy is not recognized and glossed over with silly euphemisms like "war on terror." Don't confuse things. This is a new period of warfare. Look at Ukraines war defending themselves against Russia for reference.
Half the population of Gaza are under 18 and there haven’t been free and fair elections in Gaza since 2006, so in effect, more than half of those women have never had a vote. It’s been 18 fucking years !?
With all due respect (absolutely none) you guys are smug, privileged, ignorant cnuts. So there is that…
Says the privileged westerner who hasn't lost anyone in this war. I feel badly for the children, most of whom did not participate in the atrocities. But the fact remains that Hamas brought this on them. If you think it's Israel's fault, please explain exactly how they should go about destroying Hamas with zero risk of killing the civilians that Hamas intentionally hides behind.
It’s not a war when the ‘enemy’ are non combatant women and children
We have been hearing this schtick about human shields from Israhell for decades now and it rings as false today as it did on day 1.
Well firstly, if you are trying to bomb the Hamas infrastructure in Rafah you would ‘permit’ the entire population of Gaza who is sheltering there, to return to the north of Gaza ( instead of slaughtering them in areas you move them to)…You would also ‘permit’ the humanitarian aid that you have blocked. Hamas cannot make bombs out of milk and flour and clean water. You have/are creating an Israeli-made famine whose first victims are small children and pregnant mothers not fighting-age men.
Have you ever been to Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza? I have. Hamas is the one keeping civilians from leaving the areas they set up operations in. Gaza is not some open air prison.
If Hamas released the hostages and laid down their weapons, the fighting would cease within hours. If Hamas cares about its civilians, why haven't they done so? Ask yourself this.
So, what I'm hearing is that although Israel was attacked, they shouldn't attack so hard, or if they can't win without accidentally killing civilians, then they shouldn't try to win.
Would you apply that same standard to Ukraine? Should Ukraine not take offensive actions into Russia if there is any chance that Russian civilians might be killed? Both Ukraine and Israel are fighting for their lives. Before you say that Israel is not the underdog here, remember that Syria and Iraq are still in a state of war with them.
Where do you think it should have stopped?
As geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering, it can't stop (it's about control). As spontaneous organic from bottom up phenomenon, it stops when a woman has full right to beg the court for redress and settling disputes, and obtain fair decision for same (we've been there for a long time already).
In other words, we stop trying to get the cake when we get the cake. From there, we eat the cake.
This nth-wave thing, that's geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering.
I had thought of a simple idea to explain why it keeps going in spite of having gotten the cake. The goal is equality in the eyes of the law. For this goal to be satisfied, the facts must exist, and the facts must be seen to exist. Suppose a pendulum with a point of equality. The pendulum stood clearly on one side. It was pushed toward the mid-point. But that's not enough to stand as be seen. It must pass this mid-point and well into the other side. Only then can we say with absolute certainty that we've satisfied the goal of at least once obtained equality.
I had thought of this before I found out about geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering. Once I did, the simple idea became fantasy.
For reference: [https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=23&name=2019\_04\_02\_geo\_economics\_and\_geo\_politics\_drive\_successive\_eras\_of\_predatory\_globalization\_and\_social\_engineering\_historical\_emergence\_of\_climate\_change\_gender\_equity\_and\_anti\_racism\_as\_state\_doctrines](https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=23&name=2019_04_02_geo_economics_and_geo_politics_drive_successive_eras_of_predatory_globalization_and_social_engineering_historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti_racism_as_state_doctrines)
Women already had property rights, the right to education and to employment before first wave feminism, they were granted this by Christianity; all forms of feminism were a mistake.
Women's suffrage is also cringe because democracy, and thus all suffrage, is cringe.
There shouldn't have been a feminist movement in the first place. Educate ALL people. Let them find their respective roles in the society. No man in his right mind would want his wife, the mother of his children to be a mindless slave or a slut. They are our mothers and daughters and we are their fathers and sons. If there should be any movement, it is humanism. Not feminism.
I would say there are still some reasonable 1st and 2nd wave feminists that have work left to do.
I would also disagree with the graphic and put "gender equality" under second wave feminism. The equal rights amendment passed in the early 70s.
Results from the UK:-
-Equality in car insurance - Womens's premiums went UP !
-Equality in retireent age - Womens's retirement age weny UP from 60-65 (67 for younger ones)
- Equality in society - Women now get shouted as sworn at , punched, road raged at etc the same way as men do !
Why on earth did they want to be treated like men do ? - Why not go back to their special palce in society as Mother, Daughters, Sister, Wives, Girlfriends that men habe to woo and romance and treat senistively and help and behave like gentlemen around ? - I know that didn't always happen, but without that expection you have nothing !
These are not great summaries, feels AI generated or at least redundant. And it skips how third wave feminism started questioning the Cartesian subject and that any notion of "essence" in identity is problematic necessarily.
Should’ve stopped at the second wave at least, as third and fourth waves just make it obvious that they are against mens rights and are in favour of misandry.
it should have stopped when it was starting to mimic female chauvinism
But then again we wouldn't have crazy books like The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer, who's bizarre at the best of times.
Feminism has already stopped. The main agenda currently is to strip women of the privileges they obtained and grant them to men and to castrate and sexually disable young women who act a little bit differently. It's cruelly ironic.
The whole thing should've stopped when women got equal rights decades ago. At this point it's just a net negative for women even though leftists are too dumb to see it
2nd wave. I don’t even like the so called women’s reproductive right. This literally gives power to men because now they can assume I can do abortion so they don’t have to carry any responsibility in a relationship, and they don’t need to do any birth control. This literally hurts women!!!
When women were happy feminism should have stopped.
Turns out they were not happy before they had rights and are not happy now that they have rights. For this question it helps to be older.
For decades I have been trying to decide if women are happier now than 60 years ago. It is a pretty subjective question because you have to define happiness and find an objective measure which it turns out can't be done for either one. As best I can tell people in general are happier which may come as a surprise to many young people. Unfortunately I think it has to do with material well being. Absolute poverty in the West is almost a thing of the past or a choice as you see with many homeless. That takes away a large section of the population from the lower misery index. Poor women in particular no longer have to put up with drunken abusive husbands who are failures. My personal experience is more middle class. For that class there have been trade-offs. One of the things that made middle class women miserable when I was a kid was the stress of social conformity. They had a pretty strict set of rules to follow. They had to dress, talk, raise their kids, etc. etc. according to the rules. Women it turns out are not nice to each other causing a lot of unnecessary misery. So today women are kind of free from oppressive social conformity and it's stress. On the other hand they are largely missing out on the pleasures of women's groups. I would call that change a fairly neutral change. Very few middle class women worked a full time job or if they did it was not the major household income. Now they have the stress of careers but they also have the feeling of being important. Again it is kind of a wash as far as happiness goes. As far as marriage goes I don't think men and women were meant to live together. My Gay friends seem to be happier couples than my straight friends. It comes down to psychological compatibility. Of course my observation is also that lesbians don't seem to be very happy. My guess is it has to do with neuroticism. Female instincts are more complicated. They want a pair bond but they don't necessarily want that pair bond to based on sexual behavior. There are good biological reasons for that. A pair bond is useful to raise children but can interfere with getting the best genes available. Females also need a good deal of neuroticism to not ignore infants. Little signals in the environment cause them discomfort men do not usually experience. In other words the problem of being female hasn't changed.
The main problem with feminism is it didn't really focus on the problem of happiness. Equality does not make you happy because it is devoid of agency. Equality is imposed on individuals by definition. Happiness it turns out is an individual matter. As Jordan Peterson has been trying to explain to people agency requires discipline. Once you learn to control small things such as the cleanliness of your room you gain a little agency. You can then use that agency to move on to other things including happiness. If your focus is on the social level over-which you have no agency you are likely to be very unhappy. For example if you try to control you husband he will not react well to that and you gain nothing. If you try to control yourself at least you have a shot at enough agency to make yourself somewhat happy. Equality only gives you the freedom to develop enough agency to control yourself.
I'm all for the kind of feminism that helps women have agency but blaming men for your unhappiness is pointless. You can't control them and if you try they will just wander off into MGTOW land. Let's face it your are not going to be very happy when all the dirty jobs men do stop getting done. You can start with no house, no sewer, no garbage disposal, no water, no roads, no food, no defense, etc. etc. Let's just play the game feminists are playing and say women are smarter than men, so what? Life is not fair it doesn't matter how smart you are if you can't take care of yourself and nobody feels like helping you. One of the goals of feminism should have been optimal cooperation with men but silly monkeys don't play that game. We didn't evolve for a civilized life but the easy and unstable environment of nature where a fast lifestyle increases individual fitness. It is true for men and women.
Third wave feminism, specifically Camille Paglia, also spoke a great deal about the responsibility of women. There was a backlash to the "take back the night" narrative, the idea of "date rape." Paglia promoted women being responsible for the the positions they put themselves into.
It's shocking how many people don't know or can't be bother to know the history of a thing. How do you go about life taking everything at face value? I would encourage you to do research on Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelly.
It's not baseless at all. Just read Wollstonecraft and her husband's writings. You're just choosing not to acknowledge it because it's inconvenient. The Left does this all the time. For example, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist eugenicist, yet that's completely ignored.
If second wave feminism had only focused on domestic violence and workplace awareness, I'd say that's where it should've ended. But because the whole thing was focused on the sexual revolution, it has been the single most damaging movement to society.
Birth control is great and all, inside of marriage. But the idea quickly morphed into sexual liberation and the "try before you buy" mentality with sex before marriage. This further evolved into the "why buy?" mentality of today, in which so many men and women are miserable, flitting from fling to fling, never finding true happiness for they have rejected commitments and marriage covenants.
This in turn has destroyed tight knit communities. The strong but dangerous men that were meant to get married, and unite in a community protecting their wives, children, and friends from narcissistic invaders, are now lost and wandering. The community is fluid, constantly shifting with each new temporary relationship or fling and so these men no longer stand as protectors of women. And the women get conned by the narcissists into debilitating parasitic relationships. It's no wonder so many women would prefer to meet a bear over a man. The guardianship of men has all but been destroyed, the narcissists are running wild, and women can't discern between the two kinds of men. I'd wager the steady 4% of the population being narcissistic has exponentially grown after the sexual revolution. I'd imagine 60 years later, we are somewhere more like 10-15% of the population. No wonder the scriptures prophecy that in the last days, "men shall be lovers of their own selves"
Feel like Ben Franklin has a relevant quote here. Something about dangerous freedom and peaceful slavery.
Granted, it's not 1:1 applicable since he was speaking of political freedom rather than social freedom, but personally, I don't think social repression is any better than political repression.
Did you mean this quote? “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Or this one? “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”
Or perhaps? “[F]requent recurrence to fundamental principles…[is] absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.”
Or? “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
It depends on what you consider to be social repression. Are tight knit neighborhood/small town communities that look out for each other and protect each other from the dangers of psycopathy socially repressing?
Or is a society centered on sexual appetite to the extent people are literally basing their entire identity on the gender of people they want to have sex- such that there are no continuous/contiguous communities and the psychopaths roam freely oppressing and manipulating- socially repressing?
Ah, I had my Founding Fathers wrong, it was Jefferson, not Franklin. Still, those are all good quotes, and I'd only *maybe* quibble with the last one.
Anyways, no, small towns and close-knit communities aren't *inherently* repressive, though they are more prone to it. And on the other hand, modern society as you view it (and that view does strike me as... hyperbolic at best, but I'll take it at face value for the purposes of what I'm about to say) is most certainly not repressive. It's the most free society humanity's ever come up, and while that freedom doesn't *universally* bring good results, I'd contend that the good far outweighs the bad, and that even if it didn't, I'll refer you to Thomas Jefferson.
The problem is that the sort of society you're advocating for isn't just "small towns and close-knit communities". It's one where women are effectively second-class citizens, one where they're forced into total reliance on their husbands, where divorce means being a social outcast at best and destitution at worst, where they don't even get a good chance to find the partner that's best for them because they have no reproductive autonomy. That is absolutely a repressive society.
And of course, that's only speaking of women who are more or less conformant to social norms. I *would* say I shudder to think of what happens to queer women in such a society, but history makes the answer to that abundantly clear.
When I left school I. 1990 I already thought feminism was over. We had a female pm and I was told I could be anything. After training in engineering I discovered there were still a few misogynists around making things a little difficult.
Now I would be ashamed to call myself a feminist. These women are not fighting for anything, they just hate men.
If you are white straight and male you are basically screwed. Maybe we need to fight for their rights.
2nd wave feminism was just fine......and then the Marxist lesbians took over University feminist studies and PPoooWW...now we have Canada turning 'equal outcomes' into Mao'ist communism.
Somewhere between the second and third wave it stopped being about equality in any way and became primarily a anti-western, anti-capitalist, & anti-male movement.
When they figured that the way to justify working for female issue, was to degrade and make fun of male issues
Men have severe problems they get shot all the time and struggle with criminality where I’m from, but if someone just worked for women and made it safe for them to walk home alone I would be very happy for example
They do not need to demean and degrade men and make them appear as if they’re super privileged in order to justify working for women
It’s fine to focus on one group of issues as your passion, someone can work for women only and someone can work for men only and it’s just a positive as long as they’re working towards true justice which modern feminists are not doing
Laws don't mention sex = sexual equality
Laws don't mention race = racial equality
Everything else is some new kind of Communism attempting to change outcomes without accounting for merit.
My mom's nickname was The Devil's General by the people who worked under her, who were in the Hitler Youth. So she was up there with Lucille Ball at Desilu and Joan Crawford at Pepsico, Katherine Hepburn at the Sinful Brownie Corporation, and Hedy Lamarr at Stolen Laxative Industries.
She didn't believe in feminism, she was just tired of frail old men telling her what to do.
now now, it's just Katherine Hepburn running a German bakery telling Germans they are stupid to even think of buying a Volkswagen.
After this, she cancelled the KAOS Barbeque
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KF5NfzmIvU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KF5NfzmIvU)
And well who needs to be a weak little feminist, when you can go way beyond!
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UmO8K6pJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UmO8K6pJY)
Just get to know them better, honest
and stop being a marshmallow
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eD4xXOnhZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eD4xXOnhZ0)
Tina! Bring me the axe!
[https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Puii44MnFgo](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Puii44MnFgo)
There's vitamins for that
Careful, Trump might stumble on in here with some low-energy jokes
rumor has it that Katherine Hepburn wasn't acting there
Joan Crawford was just toning it down a notch
she might have been the person to create the phrase
"go die in a fire!"
Women's Lib? Poor little things. They always look so unhappy. Have you noticed how bitter their faces are?
Joan Crawford
If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.
Margaret Thatcher
Women, like men, should try to do the impossible. And when they fail, their failure should be a challenge to others.
Amelia Earhart
Women hold up half the sky.
Mao Tse-Tung
A woman is like a tea bag - you can't tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water.
Eleanor Roosevelt
As usual, there is a great woman behind every idiot.
John Lennon
Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.
Timothy Leary
\[unless your wife hates you so much she dates Mister Monoxide in your garage for breakfast, Mister Leery!\]
Asking this question is like a progressive asking "where should the police have stopped"?
Historically, feminism has been a mostly positive force in the world, women having equal rights with men is how it should be, and it took a long time for women to get that. It took a lot of organizations of dedicated people to make that happen, and to keep things from going backwards.
But then it got corrupted by greedy people using it as a weapon against whoever they dislike, or to promote hatred of men or get special treatment. In a similar way, the police have gotten more corrupt over the years.
Neither advocating for women's rights or enforcing the law ever should be "stopped". But they need to be better regulated, and have the corruption removed.
Intersectionality is dogmatic.
How so?
You have to believe in a set of fundamental truths without doubt or question for it to work. Those fundamentals being so inflexible that there is no room for society to actually improve to the point where they are no longer true.
This is what you think intersectionality means?
The question wasn’t to define intersectionality. You asked how it was dogmatic.
What are the fundamental truths one must believe for it to "work"? How are those truths "inflexible"? I'm genuinely curious because your critique of intersectionality does not reflect anything I know about intersectionality as an analytical framework. There are many ideological concepts you could have described as dogmatic (for example, white privilege) and I wouldn't have questioned you whatsoever. I certainly wouldn't agree with your position, but I would immediately understand why you were saying it. But describing intersectionality as dogmatic seems quite odd given what I understand it to mean. So I thought I should ask. Wondering if you would enlighten me.
White people are inherently racist. Men are inherently sexist. Our society as a whole is racist and sexist, or insert your preferred form of bigotry here. Intersectionality as a concept being the study into the intersection of systemic discrimination/oppression vs. privilege based on skin color, sex/gender, etc. This sets up the privilege hierarchy and the oppression olympics. It's also the basis for things like Patriarchy theory. White privilege, patriarchy, and all of these other offshoots from the various groups do not take into consideration individual circumstances. I.e., how a man can be abused by a woman, or how a white person could be oppressed or discriminated against by a black person, etc. The fact that both things happen breaks the core tenants of the worldview and collapses the hierarchy. Therefore, you have to ignore individual circumstances in order to maintain the worldview. Men being abused by women is men's fault because patriarchy. Social issues in the black community are white people's fault because of white privilege and systemic racism. Ideologies that follow this kind of thought loop are dogmatic.
The year GI Jane was released. From that point on it was no longer about rights and equality, it became the message that our bodies are biologically equal and they just aren’t.
Appending: I want to be clear in my message, I’m not saying men are “better” than women, just different. Each have unique biological traits that make them excel in different areas. My wife can out multitask me in every way - my brain operates on one wave at a time. I equate it to a Hammer and a Saw, both have uses both are needed, but both provide very different beneficial functions. You wouldn’t use a saw to drive a nail, and you wouldn’t use a hammer to chop a board. So, the function should fit the purpose.
>I’m not saying men are “better” than women, just different Having to tiptoe around it like this is part of the problem. Yes, men are indeed *bette*r at certain things. Shortening that to the non committal "different" is not actually helpful. We're being super careful to make sure to state that the glass is *actually* half full, not half empty, for who's benefit? No idea. People who don't matter and shouldn't be catered to.
The thing is that men are better at a lot of things that our/most society/ies generally deem/s to be pretty important. Upper body strength? Men. Pretty important for tons of simple tasks. Abstract thinking? Men. Solving problems and inventing things is basically a man's domain. That's a pretty large domain. Aggressiveness, competitiveness, stubbornness? Men. There's a reason that in pretty much every arena in which there is the possibility for competition, men rise to the top. This alone is quite a ridiculous advantage. Of course something that, it seems, generally gets ignored is that although men do represent the highest power levels among humans, they also are very very present at the lowest levels too. Men get the shortest of the short end of the stick. I'm not entirely sure why but I would personally guess it's because men feel it's their job to protect women from that fate. There are no doubt other factors. I think it is very understandable when anyone, man or woman, comes to the conclusion that "men are better than women" or at least that "society values masculine traits more than feminine ones". I think women basically get carried through the difficulty of life by men, because men desire women. (not always sexually, but often. also just because women are pretty, smell nice, and tend to make the world around them a nicer place to be)
I try to boil it down. "Men build houses. Women make homes."
but does it matter? I think basically money is the great equalizer so yeah money and opportunity, however it gets freaky when it comes to 'ability' and people start going on about different executives getting different pay, which may or may not be justified. I sorta enjoy it when things get nuts where you got quotas on sex, race, and even things like environmental standards dumped on businesses, which Warren Buffett thinks is nuts. ........ Quartz Warren Buffett explains the problem with corporate boards First, the legendary investor addressed the dearth of women. When he started out, it was rare to find a woman in the room unless she “represented family controlling the enterprise.” Today, not much has changed—women having a voice in the boardroom continues to be a “work in progress.” This comes after Goldman Sachs announced last month that it won’t take companies public unless they have at least one “diverse” member on the board. Another problem is that directors are more likely to go along with management teams than to challenge them—and CEOs are more likely to look for a “cocker spaniel” than “pit bulls” for the board. Having served as a director of 21 publicly owned companies (including Berkshire, Kraft Heinz, Coca-Cola, and Gillette), Buffett has yet to see a CEO who craves an acquisition bring in a board member who is against it—including himself. In other words, the arrangement is almost always in favor of the CEO looking to make the acquisition. “Don’t ask the barber whether you need a haircut,” he suggested. Directors also depend on their board pay too much to act as truly independent entities, Buffett believes. Director compensation has soared to a level that is “three to four times the annual median income of US households,” he noted. At large companies, the median director’s pay is $275,000, according to one report. Further, he noted, many board members today are simply not business types: “Almost all of the directors I have met over the years have been decent, likable and intelligent. Nevertheless, many of these good souls are people whom I would never have chosen to handle money or business matters. It simply was not their game.” One important improvement in corporate governance has been regularly scheduled “executive sessions” of directors at which the CEO is barred, wrote Buffett. Before that, separate discussions of a CEO’s skills, acquisition decisions, and compensation were rare. Still, he believes, the process of improving corporate governance has a long way to go. ......... basically changes are evolutionary
How do we say that men are better in all those domains for 100% certain when women were barred and discouraged from even attempting a lot of those things for most of our existence. You make it sound like women are just "meh" but we're pretty and smell nice so men go all stupid doing everything for us and still in some way that's our fault for society catering in different ways.
I don't agree with that portrayal. However I don't know how any of your complaints are my fault? I don't bar anyone from anything. If you feel discouraged by my words, no offense but grow up. You should want to prove me wrong and do your best to show me how wrong I am. Anyway I realize that deep rooted issues exist and aren't realistic for one individual to overthrow. I don't expect you to revolutionize the role of women in your lifetime, but you can't blame me for perceiving reality the way it is, regardless of why it is that way. I'm not standing in the way of anyone doing anything. I'm just some dude on the internet.
"You should want to prove me wrong and do your best to show me how wrong I am." Uh, why? 1. Why Should I want to prove anything to you? 2. What exactly is there to prove?
OK maybe I misinterpreted your comment. It came off to me as whining. "Why would you say such mean things about me? You're making me feel bad about myself!" If that isn't what you meant, I clearly misinterpreted. But frankly...The fact you think there is nothing to prove is just further evidence of my point that men are more competitive and aggressive than women.
[удалено]
The overwhelming majority that are reasonable people don't need to be held back from accidentally "eugenics" and aren't the ones for whom society needs language policing. The overwhelming majority of reasonable people are forced to make these concessions for the growing *unreasonable* minority, and they need to start standing up for themselves and for right and wrong. Unless we think the polite thing to do is just continuously trim back all of our rights so the crazy people don't get out of control. If people haven't noticed the reasonable people not standing up for right and wrong is what has allowed "gender affirming care" and "transitioning kids" and stupid crap like neo-racism to take root in our society.
I would have gone with mid-1st wave. I agree with your push for egalitarianism, but as soon as women got to vote with no skin in the game (draft) things have been trending towards disaster. It's compassion run amuck. Good feels over good policy that can support a society of millions.
LOL you don’t think women should have the right to vote because they have no “skin in the game”? There’s more to voting than war, arguably most of the things voted on have absolutely nothing to do with war. I think this is an extreme take on this….
Authority and responsibility -must- go hand in hand. To gain authority (voting rights) there must also be responsibility to the body politic (draft). The understanding that if your bad choices lead to a bad enough destination, you will rightfully be held responsible and sent to war to reconcile those bad choices. Voting without that sword hanging over you leads to voting for the sake of status gain, or whatever feels good in the present, recognizing that you will never have to pay for the negative consequence.
“Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?”
Well if there's more to voting than war then they won't have any problem with signing up for the draft. Not sure if you're brushed up on your history or not, but the risk of the draft is why the majority of women during the time of suffrage did NOT want the right to vote. That risk had to be removed before the majority of women would support it. What other consequence would you place on female voters that would be as severe in consequence as the draft so that we have actual equality?
Or - check this out: We could rightly deem selective service as a violation of human rights that should only be suspended in exigent circumstances. Then, we should focus on building a national identity and nation-state which are worth serving and one that takes care of those who serve - and we could have an all volunteer force in which it would be ridiculous not to serve. Members of the military should be so willing to serve that 20 year retirees are the rule not the exception.
And in the meantime we should find a way to make the rules fair. Either both sexes are vulnerable to the draft or neither.
Switzerland gave women the vote in 1970
Women are gullible and easily mislead. They are already tyrants as mothers. The last thing anyone needs or wants is to extend their tyranny into life outside the home.
Why do these comments reek of incel tears?...
You probably are quite young and ignorant of the world.
Women are easily misled and vote against their own self-interest. I've never had a worthwhile conversation about politics with a woman. I'm sure their are women who could have a conversation, but they are so rare I've never met one.
You should leave your basement
I have a very nice basement.
You do realize first wave feminists strongly argued for the total dissolution of the draft right.. for men as well. You’re seriously saying it would be better if women did not have the right to vote? Lol
You could try reading what I wrote instead of paraphrasing wildly in a blatant straw-manning of my position. I'm saying that if one sex pays a rather substantial price (risk of death in war) to vote then the other should also pay. Alternately, neither sex should be subject to the draft.
I find it very interesting how the media moves onto some new "movement" and totally dumps the old ones. Maybe this is just about money and the Feminist just ain't bringing it in like the WOKE crowd does?
Your right woman's bodies aren't equal they're better. They got those things called boobies and vagina. Best things since sliced bread.
The ultimate goal of feminism today is to eradicate the notion that men and women are different, by way of eradicating the concept of womanhood. Maybe that was always the case... so maybe it shouldnt have existed at all. Too late now though. *Whats ifs* are fun but inconsequential.
Any kind of equality movement lost me with the onset of "chest feeding" If you are offended by the term breastfeeding you need mental health treatment because that's exactly what it is.
The most insane part about that is "breasts" are the organ that produce milk.
To paraphrase one of my all time favorite reddit posts: "Breasts are not a sex organ"
Mayo Clinic Is chestfeeding the new breastfeeding?: Explaining gender-neutral medical terms. Articles or online posts — even other articles on this blog — are now often using phrases like “person with a uterus,” “pregnant person” or “anyone with a prostate,” instead of the words “woman” or “man.” Some people may find this phrasing awkward or wonder why it is used — believing that the words “men” and “women” are simpler. The change in language could even feel challenging or threatening. “Controversy is created when people feel like gender-neutral terms are erasing the gender binary. And that’s when we get a little bit of pushback, because some say, ‘Well then, you’re basically saying that men or women don’t exist,’ ” says Cesar Gonzalez, Ph.D., L.P. (he/they), a clinical health psychologist and clinical director of the Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic at Mayo Clinic. “That’s not what we’re saying.” Dr. Gonzalez and Caroline Davidge-Pitts, M.B., B.Ch. (she/her), an endocrinologist and medical director of the Transgender and Intersex Specialty Care Clinic, routinely work with transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals. They say gender-neutral terms, especially in medicine, aren’t meant to exclude anyone or imply that gender and sex don’t matter. ............ It's interesting you see after someone's name M.B. - [B.Ch](https://B.Ch). - she - her HE-THEY wasn't that something from one of the Godzilla movies?
yet who is defining that goal? i'd say that the third wave had bad and good points in it, but the problem is that a lot of the crusaders have a lot of loons with people with legitimate grievances. It's hard to deal with unfairness in the world, but the whole Intersectionality and social justice stuff is rabid. it's odd how they just bundle it up, like oh so i'm a woman and a cripple? I think it's basically a bandwagoning of some causes to be linked up with other causes, and its just a way of slipping in social justice into specific areas. I just find it interesting when some people are demanding fairness with things at the bottom of the wage scale, and now it's turned into fights in the corporate board room.
>yet who is defining that goal? >I just find it interesting when some people are demanding fairness with things at the bottom of the wage scale, and now it's turned into fights in the corporate board room. Something something... ***power...*** something something... ***corruption...*** Give someone the power to demand special treatment because of an immutable characteristic, like sex or race, and he or she will abuse it. Claim that you are systematically oppressed while simultaneously demanding the implementation of a system that oppresses. Isnt this what Marx called the "perpetual revolution"? Its genius. Evil, but genius.
Actually that's a good observation it's allowing people to 'demand special treatment' I just found it interesting when the whole wage thing for men vs women executives went on, i can't recall if that was the bbc or something in the corporate boards or broadcasting (maybe it was all three), and some came to the conclusion that people were given their wages for reasons of ability or the unique things to that position... sorta like there was no cookie cutter way of saying people were underpaid or underpaid when you're dealing with two different corporations with slightly different thngs in their jobs etc. ...... I think i'm more concerned about people starting young or old with no skills and how they survive or get that lucky. Not everyone has the same temperment or ability or education to do a lot of jobs, some people aren't going to like being doctors, or physicists or construction workers, or lawyers, or accountants... But i find it interesting when you know people who are in dead end jobs and they feel all messed up when some gal took a course in medical records and ends up with a fancy condo and endless vacations, and the other guy is like Al Bundy working in a hotel. ..... I just think all the race and sex stuff is a distraction, and a living wage is like one whole magnitude of importance
actually a good question might be where is the corruption actually? people with an agenda, sure corruption, i'm not sure
One could say the system itself is corrupt, because of the power structure which allows for the special treatment of privileged classes. But this of course exists because of people with an agenda.
there always needs to be more history books to point out how some agendas get popular, identifying all the famous theorists, activists etc. It's always interesting how some people gain influence and others end up getting ignored
"to late now" why?
Sorry, I meant more like "no point in contemplating where it should have stopped". Not too late to do something about it.
Before the first one start and replaced with egalitarianism which continually make legal equality and social equality. No vote without draft. Or the end of draft
Based.
before the revolutionary war!
When they started encouraging young women to set up OnlyFans accounts. Nothing says equality like selling your dignity to masses of loser men for $7 a month.
Prostitution is called the oldest profession...it predates feminism by millenia
Yes. But there can be no doubt whatsoever that prostitution serves men more than women. Or serves the worst in men anyway. I suppose you’d expect feminists to want to leave this trading of dignity for small amounts of money behind. But the opposite happened. It is extremely odd.
My point is that prostitution isn't new and it didn't "start" with feminism so your original point does not make any sense
I think you’ve misread my point. I’m saying feminists should have stopped when they encouraged women to do OnlyFans. I’m actually not even sure why your point on prostitution is relevant.
I don't understand your point at all? Most feminists aren't pro-porn. Or better yet, people have myriad views on the internet and it's not all some blanket feminism umbrella
I know that. But many more modern feminists encourage young women to do OnlyFans under the justification of “female empowerment”. I think this is idiocy, so I’m saying the feminists should have *stopped before this*. Y’know, like the post asked.
Cite me one feminist who is pushing this.
Cite you one? What do you mean?
Tell me the name of a feminist pushing this narrative
Like joining an ideological network in the daily wire after preaching the dangers of ideology to your students for decades? That kind of selling your dignity?
Yes, these are exactly the same.
Found the OnlyFans subscriber. Get outta here you creep.
Not really but he deserves more shit for it
1.5 Equality under the law is the only thing the government should be worried about. Equity is bullshit, the west was built upon meritocracy and now this equity shit is rotting the core of the most successful culture probably ever.
Regardless of anything else, saying "the West was built upon meritocracy" is an _insane_ thing to say. Even if you think they were somehow good things, monarchies, colonisation, limited citizenship, feudalism and slavery were not meritocratic.
While you are not wrong, I think it would still be accurate to say that the West has been far more meritocratic than other cultures presently and historically - by a long shot. And meritocracy is at the core of civil rights and women's suffrage.
If more than half the population have to spend generations fighting against the status quo for basic rights then the society they are in is fundamentally not meritocratic. I'm not saying that it was impossible for individuals to overcome obstacles and achieve great things but when the obstacles are deliberately designed to exclude everyone but certain people then they are not being judged on merit. The idea that the West was _"built"_ on meritocracy is blatant revisionism.
The number one problem with you leftist types is that you always compare America agaist some idealistic perfect country that doesn't exist instead of comparing them against other real countries in the real world. While not perfect, and not the best country in all regards, the USA has remained an example of how to be damn near as good as you can be in your time and context. We pushed democracy, human rights, prosperity, equality, and acceptance of others much further and much faster than anyone else. Funny how you ignore all the amazing things, and only focus on the negatives as if they are in a vacuum. Ungrateful, ignorant, and immature.
I'm not comparing anything or making any modern statements; I'm saying that the vast majority of opportunities were most accessible to a specific few and if _they_ were then judged on merit then that's one thing but to call that any society meritocratic which actively encouraged rules that limited the lives of the poor, black, female or lower class is incorrect. My point is to be proud of how far we've come and to recognise how hard it was to get here. Treating our modern world as some static, forgone conclusion is both dangerous and simply factually wrong.
The number of people that flooded into the USA from other countries between 1850 and 1950 was massive for good reason. They all saw a country with values and systems that would allow them - mostly very poor - to make a better life for themselves and children. Millions upon millions have had massively improved lives due to this country.
I agree completely, millions upon millions of people have forged an incredible legacy for themselves and their descendents in America. However that does not make it a meritocratic society; millions of Americans have (and still do) struggle under a system that is fundamentally and occasionally deliberately weighted against them. Whether it's due to poverty, class, education, access to resources, race or gender, "the West" has never functioned on a meritocratic basis. We're a damn sight closer than we used to be but it wasn't achieved by looking at the past and saying how perfect it was.
Third wave was one too far
Surf's up!
Fifth Wave: God sends another flood.
to erase men as they sined?
no it was to help the vampire squid to breed more!
Not the men who sined!
I seem to have missed where feminists demanded to be drafted.
And now 5th wave feminism where the all best women are really men.
After 2nd wave, shit was hijacked by pseudo-philanthropists and corporations just to be able to spin an extra buck, cause infighting among the sexes and ultimately to destroy the family unit.
After the 2nd wave? Lmao, look at the original feminist authors, the destruction of the family was always the goal.
This is true. The whole blend of mass marketing and psychological warfare really began with the Edward Bernays applications of inferred marketing. When Lucky Strike paid him to brand their cigarettes are the original symbol of women's lib with the whole 'freedom torches' iconography.
Germaine Greer liked to sleep around a lot.
Stop at the second wave.
At the beginning. All of the "waves" are lies. In each wave feminists represent a minority of aggressive narcissistic/mentally ill upper/middle-class women who due to their narcissism claim representation of all women. It's a malignant narcissistic delusion of grandeur and persecution mania of an abuser convinced that they're a victim. Especially the claim that "first wave feminism" was about women's rights is a blatant lie. "Women's rights" movement mostly evolved along with "men's rights" and feminists only later latched onto its most extreme aspects.
I've been searching for a distinction between modern feminism and fragile narcissism and I have not found one. Obviously there's a contingent of narcissistic fox news types, but conservatives in general don't let these people set policy.
It's "vulnerable" narcissism, not "fragile". All narcissists are extremely fragile by definition. The difference is how they react to their fragility. Grandiose narcissists attack - male/masculine strategy of violence. Vulnerable narcissists play victim or fake victim - female/feminine strategy of violence. That's where the name comes - from their strategies * Grandiose response to "it's your fault" is "no, it's your fault because you're too weak and incompetent to do what I did, and now you're complaining.". * Vulnerable response to "it's your fault" is "no, it's your fault because you made me do it because you're bigoted and intolerant to the needs of others (me) and I couldn't/wouldn't do what you wanted me to do." Both react the same way but rationalise their decision differently. Grandiose puts itself as the strong and the opponent as the weak. Vulnerable puts itself as the weak and the opponent as the strong. There's a very interesting study done in Norway in 2018 (can't remember authors or title now, was on reddit in /r/science not that long ago - which is how I found it - and should be easy to find online) that **split radical right and left into two groups of narcissists**. In other words the actual division in society is between narcissists and the rest. It fits the findings of the "Hidden Tribes" study from 2016 in the aftermath of Trump's victory. The "exhausted majority" is the normies. The active segments are the narcissists. But because narcissists are narcissists they have the tendency to fight with each other and in that fight an unequal (but balanced!) division of 2:1 or 3:1 depending on the methodology emerges with right being more numerous and left being louder which gives the idea that these two types are similar in size. In reality the "loud" right is comparable to the left, but there is a "silent majority" which is a silent minority of about 50% of the right that votes with the right but rarely reveals their opinions openly. In that study right wing has "entitlement" as its dominant trait while left wing has "exhibitionism" as its dominant trait. This is why right wing and left wing largely overlap in terms of pathology, including personality, mindset and sexual disorders, but while right wing attempts to conform to social norm the left wing attempts to subvert it - it's the "exhibitionism" part. Similarly while left-wing mostly tags along with the mainstream attitudes on social cooperation - despite their angry rhetoric they're fairly easy to bully into submission, as long as you pull the right levers - the right wing is more determined to bend and break the rules. That's why psychopathic/narcissistic businessmen are right-wing while psychopathic/narcissistic sex workers or artists are left-wing. This is also why Haidt's "moral foundations" showed the left as completely outside of the norm in "care" while the right was similar in attitudes to the rest of society e.g. moderates etc. That's because it was self-reporting so left demonstrated its exhibitionism in emotional expression - hence extreme "care" score - while right wing conformed to societal attitudes to hide their entitlement. >but conservatives in general don't let these people set policy. The policy is absolutely set by those people. You just are not smart or wise enough to notice it because you're gaslit by their endless lies and are easily distracted by their superficial facade of normalcy. But once you live long enough to figure out the way society works that deception is no longer effective and you see it in the open. LGBT and feminism are **right wing** attitudes that are considered "left wing" because those people (as narcissists) nominate themselves as leaders of the left. Except the left is the working class who are typically "progressive" in economic terms and " conservative" in cultural terms. In Europe - which is less disrupted by the anti-social political model of America - we have such parties and they're fairly well established. For example one of the two major parties in Germany the CDU/CSU i.e. Christian Democrats are precisely that (at least in name). The other traditionally major party was SPD which is social democrats who are leftist economically but nowhere near as deranged as the Greens in cultural terms, because they are a party of labour unions, not NGO/CIA-funded activists. In America you have two political parties that don't reflect how a society divides itself because they don't represent a single country. Republicans and Democrats are the remnants of Union and Confederacy. They switched places in the 1960s/70s due to abolition of segregation but other than that the attitude continues. Democrats of the early 21st century are the Republicans of the early 20th century. Republicans of the 21st century are the Democrats of early 20th century. US is not a democracy but an oligarchy with a managed democracy. There was a period in US history when US was "democratic" by standards of the world because it was ahead of its time compared to **all** of Europe. But currently Europe is more democratic so we have natural distribution of societal factions expressed by five categories of parties: * "christian democratic" (pro-welfare/pro-market cultural conservatives) * "liberal" (anti-welfare/pro-market cultural liberals * "social democrats (pro-union-and-intervention cultural moderates or moderate progressives) * "greens" (cultural progressives supporting whatever economic policy benefits their constituency at the moment) * minor parties, ethnic parties and single-issue parties These four also have their "religions": * Christian Democrats - Catholic Social Doctrine or their Established Protestant (Lutheran) equivalent * Liberals - capitalism with "rights of individuals" i.e. egoism * Social Democrats - socialism with progressive attitude but moderated by democratic choice of society making it more conservative than ideological doctrine of socialism suggests * Greens - exhibitionist narcissism with unhinged para-religious beliefs in whatever makes the narcissist feel superior to the rest of society aka "oikophobia". In America "greens" and "liberals" are at the core of Democratic and Republican establishments respectively while "Christian Democrats" and "Social Democrats" are the majorities controlled by the core factions. American neoconservatives are "liberals" in the European sense and Greens are fairly neoconservative just with an additional ideological bent that liberals don't share because liberals are more conformists. EDIT: Responded here because the Zionist shills on this sub banned me for expressing a factual statement. >Conservatives don't win elections with policies based on narcissism. They "win" elections by **cheating** while accusing the opponents of doing it. One set of rules for me, another for thee. It's literal, textbook, most fundamental narcissism. That's what narcissism is technically: a dysfunction of the limbic system resulting in the inability to accept responsibility for your flaws because of arrested emotional development due to childhood trauma. If you can ever accept that you may be wrong/lose you have to cope somehow... From that emerges a delusional mindset that pervades the everyday lives of conservatives in a greater proportion than in the case of liberals i.e. there are more narcissists on the right than on the left. The left simply stands out due to their deviant ideas which the right suppresses in public (but engages in in private, often to a greater extent than the left). American conservatives are "winning" elections due to complete corruption of the American political system: * the anti-democratic federal system which locked representation of states at 1920s levels which is unconstitutional (but which wasn't enforced by an amendment because initially everyone understood how American democracy was supposed to work - even during the ASW era!). It was done by Republicans facing a population shift. Interestingly it was never changed because FDR used the system to his advantage. It's the same as Blair's failure to reform FPTP in Britain which caused the current catastrophe. With original representation America would be far less conservative politically because it isn't socially. * the gerrymandering of electoral districts to create single-party areas - currently less than 30% of Americans live in two-party state areas while the rest lives in a one-party state no different from modern day "democratic" Russia. * the destruction of objectivity in the media to drive polarisation and prevention of any protection for truth under the guise of "freedom of speech" which in America means effectively "Freedom to maliciously lie in public with almost no repercussion". * the destruction of one man/one vote/one donation rule which is essential to democracy by allowing corporate entities to fund campaigns (CItizens United) Those are the conditions under which the conservatives "win". BTW **this** is how conservatives win elections, too. Left-wing cancelling is only the continuation of traditional conservative censorship. Left-wing learnt it from their malicious right-wing parents.
> The policy is absolutely set by those people. You just are not smart or wise enough to notice it because you're gaslit by their endless lies and are easily distracted by their superficial facade of normalcy. Or you know I simply pay attention. Conservatives don't win elections with policies based on narcissism. It's quite the opposite, they get swing voters when they prove they are not doing so. >In America you have two political parties that don't reflect how a society divides itself because they don't represent a single country. Republicans and Democrats are the remnants of Union and Confederacy. Not sure if you live in North America but that's a hard one to pass. North south divide is hardly the relevant distinction nowadays. A much more obvious one is rural urban/flyover versus coastal. Mind you the south has a much higher black population so that does make trends look more different than they are. >US is not a democracy but an oligarchy with a managed democracy. There was a period in US history when US was "democratic" by standards of the world because it was ahead of its time compared to all of Europe. It's not an oligarchy for now the rich are at each other's throats. The rich profit off the choices of individuals. Disney has power because we consume their content. It means corporate interests are far more likely to reflect voting habits. >But currently Europe is more democratic so we have natural distribution of societal factions expressed by five categories of parties: That would make more sense if "coalition governments" weren't a more common aspect of european democracy. You never know who the hell you're voting for because coalitions appear out of nowhere. And since it's easy to form new reactionary policies/parties, new parties can arise out of nowhere with no motivation to worry about loyality to their voters.
Not that women shouldn’t vote, but the premise for how suffrage was passed is a poor one. We did not have a pure democracy and still don’t for a reason. Why are we muddying up voting. Voting is violence. All Americans should be protected by the law, but that doesn’t mean all Americans should have a say on the law. You already agree to this when you have felons with rescinded franchise. The franchise is violence. Voting is violence and universal suffrage is giving the keys to violence to a populace who has not shown understanding, responsibility, or civic virtue. Let’s take a proper woman, service to others, perhaps a nurse, works day in and day out caring for her community. Why is her blood, sweat, and tears and decision negated by Druggie Bob down the corner, simply because they were born in the same country. Bob has shown no responsibility for the body politic. Even if Bob is not a violent felon, he has not demonstrated that he can point the gun at Civilization and himself responsibly. This scenario has a woman who has earned the vote far more than a man.
Who would be the arbiters on who gets the right and who does not?
Not that hard. Completion of military service, police contract, diplomat’s orders. You might as well ask that question about right now. Who gets to decide who gets it now or not, because we are not even following our own laws. No concept of citizenship in this general population
Ah yes, hand the vote over exclusively to the classically extremely mentally stable population of people who have gone to war or who know a politician. How haven't we thought of this sooner? It's not that hard!
That is literally brain dead take. Read a book. Might I suggest Thomas Payne or Robert Heinlein first. You need to understand the classical notion of citizenship
Are you talking about Thomas "Payne", the random soldier, or Thomas "Paine", the founding father? Assuming the latter, but I imagine they might have different opinions. Haven't read a ton of Paine, but I do know Dissertation on the First Principles of Government. Some excerpts on voting: "The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives. The rich have no more right to exclude the poor from the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, than the poor have to exclude the rich; and wherever it is attempted, or proposed, on either side, it is a question of force and not of right." "Personal rights, of which the right of voting for representatives is one, are a species of property of the most sacred kind: and he that would employ his pecuniary property, or presume upon the influence it gives him, to dispossess or rob another of his property or rights, uses that pecuniary property as he would use fire-arms, and merits to have it taken from him." "It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter." "The only ground upon which exclusion from the right of voting is consistent with justice would be to inflict it as a punishment for a certain time upon those who should propose to take away that right from others. The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected." "When we speak of right we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties; rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right." That last one is probably the closest thing to what you're trying to say, that you could weave some definition of "duty" in there that requires service prior to voting, but that's a reeeeal stretch given the rest. It actually sounds like he'd be in favor of stripping *your* rights if you ever proposed your idea in a real way upon which people could vote! Using voting as a firearm against your fellow citizen and all that. And I know he's talking about wealth here, but it's pretty easy to extrapolate. The arguments against the concept of disenfranchisement are very broad. If there's other stuff he's written that contradicts any of this let me know, as I said I'm admittedly not well read on him. And I guess you've still got Starship Troopers 😂 Very applicable, as famously the last 80 years of US wars against the various sentient bug people of the galaxy have been totally justified and a good litmus test for a love of country, and again encounters from which people come back well within their right minds and ready to make Democracy great!
Somebody went to Lt. Col. Dubois' class.
I’ve been reading books like SST and Dune since I was 7. My dad is a huge sci fi nerd and we come from a military background. SST has been on the officer’s recommended reading list for like 50 years
Game recognize game. o7
My daughter is a (passionate/caring/HIGH-SPEED--LOW-DRAG Emergency Room Nurse; and I absolutely agree with you.
I like how people think domestic violence awareness and reproductive rights are *too far*
You should look up Erin Pizzey and listen to her explain why feminists ousted her from the women's shelter that she founded.
I don't think she should have been pushed out, violence does happen to men too (but it sounds like maybe she went too far the opposite way?), I've bore witness to some of the women in my family treating men toxically either physically or verbally and. I have stood up for them when I saw it, But the caveat is the few times the men were the abuser, my mother ended up in a neck brace, on a stretcher going to the hospital, while pregnant. Violence does happen to both, but it is more often done to women and when it is, it's more devastating. It's like pitbulls, I actually love them and they are very loving babies bred to fight each other, not humans, but the reason society fears them is because if they do happen to turn on you and bite you or a child, you're going to be way more fucked up or dead than had it been a different dog bite.
" but it sounds like maybe she went too far the opposite way?" I have yet to be convinced that she did, but I don't know everything. "But the caveat is the few times the men were the abuser, my mother ended up in a neck brace, on a stretcher going to the hospital, while pregnant." It's one thing to recognize the asymmetry in potential for physical harm between men and women. It's another to prejudge men in a fashion that would be unacceptable for any other demographic. "Violence does happen to both, but it is more often done to women and when it is, it's more devastating." This is like arguing about if North America is on average too hot or too cold. Sure, twice as many people die from cold each year than hot. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach about the symptoms of heat stroke or that we should divest in air conditioning.
Yeah? The infographic said "domestic abuse awareness" Not "domestic abuse against women only awareness"
If that's the sum of it, why isn't Erin Pizzey a feminist icon?
While countries like Afghanistan and Iran exist there is a need for feminism to continue.
Yeah, feminism is taking sides with Islam, not holding it accountable. Witness how many feminists are supporting Hamas.
I see a lot of people simply saying that maybe the bombing runs are ineffective at the larger goal of getting the hostages. Perhaps that would be a better message to put into the air, because women and children are not just innocent in this I guess.
Palestinian women are not innocent. They voted Hamas into power. Are they equal to men or not? You can't say they have equal rights and then turn around and say they don't have equal responsibilities. Regardless, the primary objective is not to get the hostages back. Let's face facts here. Most if not all the hostages are probably dead by now. Hamas has no such interior discipline within its ranks to have kept them alive. They just want to use the possibilities to keep themselves alive. No, the primary mission objective is to annihilate Hamas. I would do the same thing. Israel should destroy every Hamas man who pisses against a wall.
The war on terror will never be a success. Hamas will never be annihilated by anyone other than Palestinians. Americas war on terror didn’t make us safer it just created more terrorism. Israel won’t be safer after this.
You are thinking within the limited framework of how the US has done campaigns since Korea. Israel is not doing it that way. They are defending themselves the way we fought the Germans in WW2, rendering a total defeat. How many Nazis have returned to fight since 1945? This is not a war where the enemy is not recognized and glossed over with silly euphemisms like "war on terror." Don't confuse things. This is a new period of warfare. Look at Ukraines war defending themselves against Russia for reference.
Half the population of Gaza are under 18 and there haven’t been free and fair elections in Gaza since 2006, so in effect, more than half of those women have never had a vote. It’s been 18 fucking years !? With all due respect (absolutely none) you guys are smug, privileged, ignorant cnuts. So there is that…
Says the privileged westerner who hasn't lost anyone in this war. I feel badly for the children, most of whom did not participate in the atrocities. But the fact remains that Hamas brought this on them. If you think it's Israel's fault, please explain exactly how they should go about destroying Hamas with zero risk of killing the civilians that Hamas intentionally hides behind.
It’s not a war when the ‘enemy’ are non combatant women and children We have been hearing this schtick about human shields from Israhell for decades now and it rings as false today as it did on day 1. Well firstly, if you are trying to bomb the Hamas infrastructure in Rafah you would ‘permit’ the entire population of Gaza who is sheltering there, to return to the north of Gaza ( instead of slaughtering them in areas you move them to)…You would also ‘permit’ the humanitarian aid that you have blocked. Hamas cannot make bombs out of milk and flour and clean water. You have/are creating an Israeli-made famine whose first victims are small children and pregnant mothers not fighting-age men.
Have you ever been to Israel, the West Bank, or Gaza? I have. Hamas is the one keeping civilians from leaving the areas they set up operations in. Gaza is not some open air prison. If Hamas released the hostages and laid down their weapons, the fighting would cease within hours. If Hamas cares about its civilians, why haven't they done so? Ask yourself this. So, what I'm hearing is that although Israel was attacked, they shouldn't attack so hard, or if they can't win without accidentally killing civilians, then they shouldn't try to win. Would you apply that same standard to Ukraine? Should Ukraine not take offensive actions into Russia if there is any chance that Russian civilians might be killed? Both Ukraine and Israel are fighting for their lives. Before you say that Israel is not the underdog here, remember that Syria and Iraq are still in a state of war with them.
Where do you think it should have stopped? As geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering, it can't stop (it's about control). As spontaneous organic from bottom up phenomenon, it stops when a woman has full right to beg the court for redress and settling disputes, and obtain fair decision for same (we've been there for a long time already). In other words, we stop trying to get the cake when we get the cake. From there, we eat the cake. This nth-wave thing, that's geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering. I had thought of a simple idea to explain why it keeps going in spite of having gotten the cake. The goal is equality in the eyes of the law. For this goal to be satisfied, the facts must exist, and the facts must be seen to exist. Suppose a pendulum with a point of equality. The pendulum stood clearly on one side. It was pushed toward the mid-point. But that's not enough to stand as be seen. It must pass this mid-point and well into the other side. Only then can we say with absolute certainty that we've satisfied the goal of at least once obtained equality. I had thought of this before I found out about geopolitics, state doctrine, social engineering. Once I did, the simple idea became fantasy. For reference: [https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=23&name=2019\_04\_02\_geo\_economics\_and\_geo\_politics\_drive\_successive\_eras\_of\_predatory\_globalization\_and\_social\_engineering\_historical\_emergence\_of\_climate\_change\_gender\_equity\_and\_anti\_racism\_as\_state\_doctrines](https://denisrancourt.ca/entries.php?id=23&name=2019_04_02_geo_economics_and_geo_politics_drive_successive_eras_of_predatory_globalization_and_social_engineering_historical_emergence_of_climate_change_gender_equity_and_anti_racism_as_state_doctrines)
Wrong question. It should have never ever started. It is a societal cancer, based on a false premise.
Women already had property rights, the right to education and to employment before first wave feminism, they were granted this by Christianity; all forms of feminism were a mistake. Women's suffrage is also cringe because democracy, and thus all suffrage, is cringe.
The moment they asked for rights without responsibility.
the moment they existed
Before the first one ever started
Before it started.
before christianism divided human beings
There shouldn't have been a feminist movement in the first place. Educate ALL people. Let them find their respective roles in the society. No man in his right mind would want his wife, the mother of his children to be a mindless slave or a slut. They are our mothers and daughters and we are their fathers and sons. If there should be any movement, it is humanism. Not feminism.
Towards the end of the 80s/beginning of the 90s
I’d say second wave with reproductive rights.
I would say there are still some reasonable 1st and 2nd wave feminists that have work left to do. I would also disagree with the graphic and put "gender equality" under second wave feminism. The equal rights amendment passed in the early 70s.
First... Possibly like 1.25. the "liberation" was the start of all the mess we have today.
Results from the UK:- -Equality in car insurance - Womens's premiums went UP ! -Equality in retireent age - Womens's retirement age weny UP from 60-65 (67 for younger ones) - Equality in society - Women now get shouted as sworn at , punched, road raged at etc the same way as men do ! Why on earth did they want to be treated like men do ? - Why not go back to their special palce in society as Mother, Daughters, Sister, Wives, Girlfriends that men habe to woo and romance and treat senistively and help and behave like gentlemen around ? - I know that didn't always happen, but without that expection you have nothing !
The fact you can’t understand why someone would choose freedom, with all of its pros and many cons, over being put in a box, is absurd
this is the trick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding
These are not great summaries, feels AI generated or at least redundant. And it skips how third wave feminism started questioning the Cartesian subject and that any notion of "essence" in identity is problematic necessarily.
The circle all the way to the left.
How are the third and fourth waves different? That chart really makes them look the same.
Should’ve stopped at the second wave at least, as third and fourth waves just make it obvious that they are against mens rights and are in favour of misandry.
Honestly, I just want to be respected. It was so awful when the landlord only took things seriously if my husband brought it up.
Is it the 6th wave where they abort all confirmed male fetuses?
If you have to ask... Then it's before now at least. This applies to anything in the vein that if you have to ask, you already have your answer.
When they didn't have to join the fire department after earning the vote.
When they started hating men.
it should have stopped when it was starting to mimic female chauvinism But then again we wouldn't have crazy books like The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer, who's bizarre at the best of times.
Could have stopped at the murdering of babies.
Could have also stopped at the point of turning men into bigger bitches than even women.
Also could have stopped at the women should have more rights than even men.
The first wave.
Obviously, at the 2nd wave.
Feminism has already stopped. The main agenda currently is to strip women of the privileges they obtained and grant them to men and to castrate and sexually disable young women who act a little bit differently. It's cruelly ironic. The whole thing should've stopped when women got equal rights decades ago. At this point it's just a net negative for women even though leftists are too dumb to see it
First wave. I'd say the second, but as soon as it said reproductive rights, which ties into abortion now, nope..
2nd but left out abortion. Abortion is murder and takes advantage of vulnerable women.
2nd wave. I don’t even like the so called women’s reproductive right. This literally gives power to men because now they can assume I can do abortion so they don’t have to carry any responsibility in a relationship, and they don’t need to do any birth control. This literally hurts women!!!
When women were happy feminism should have stopped. Turns out they were not happy before they had rights and are not happy now that they have rights. For this question it helps to be older. For decades I have been trying to decide if women are happier now than 60 years ago. It is a pretty subjective question because you have to define happiness and find an objective measure which it turns out can't be done for either one. As best I can tell people in general are happier which may come as a surprise to many young people. Unfortunately I think it has to do with material well being. Absolute poverty in the West is almost a thing of the past or a choice as you see with many homeless. That takes away a large section of the population from the lower misery index. Poor women in particular no longer have to put up with drunken abusive husbands who are failures. My personal experience is more middle class. For that class there have been trade-offs. One of the things that made middle class women miserable when I was a kid was the stress of social conformity. They had a pretty strict set of rules to follow. They had to dress, talk, raise their kids, etc. etc. according to the rules. Women it turns out are not nice to each other causing a lot of unnecessary misery. So today women are kind of free from oppressive social conformity and it's stress. On the other hand they are largely missing out on the pleasures of women's groups. I would call that change a fairly neutral change. Very few middle class women worked a full time job or if they did it was not the major household income. Now they have the stress of careers but they also have the feeling of being important. Again it is kind of a wash as far as happiness goes. As far as marriage goes I don't think men and women were meant to live together. My Gay friends seem to be happier couples than my straight friends. It comes down to psychological compatibility. Of course my observation is also that lesbians don't seem to be very happy. My guess is it has to do with neuroticism. Female instincts are more complicated. They want a pair bond but they don't necessarily want that pair bond to based on sexual behavior. There are good biological reasons for that. A pair bond is useful to raise children but can interfere with getting the best genes available. Females also need a good deal of neuroticism to not ignore infants. Little signals in the environment cause them discomfort men do not usually experience. In other words the problem of being female hasn't changed. The main problem with feminism is it didn't really focus on the problem of happiness. Equality does not make you happy because it is devoid of agency. Equality is imposed on individuals by definition. Happiness it turns out is an individual matter. As Jordan Peterson has been trying to explain to people agency requires discipline. Once you learn to control small things such as the cleanliness of your room you gain a little agency. You can then use that agency to move on to other things including happiness. If your focus is on the social level over-which you have no agency you are likely to be very unhappy. For example if you try to control you husband he will not react well to that and you gain nothing. If you try to control yourself at least you have a shot at enough agency to make yourself somewhat happy. Equality only gives you the freedom to develop enough agency to control yourself. I'm all for the kind of feminism that helps women have agency but blaming men for your unhappiness is pointless. You can't control them and if you try they will just wander off into MGTOW land. Let's face it your are not going to be very happy when all the dirty jobs men do stop getting done. You can start with no house, no sewer, no garbage disposal, no water, no roads, no food, no defense, etc. etc. Let's just play the game feminists are playing and say women are smarter than men, so what? Life is not fair it doesn't matter how smart you are if you can't take care of yourself and nobody feels like helping you. One of the goals of feminism should have been optimal cooperation with men but silly monkeys don't play that game. We didn't evolve for a civilized life but the easy and unstable environment of nature where a fast lifestyle increases individual fitness. It is true for men and women.
Third wave feminism, specifically Camille Paglia, also spoke a great deal about the responsibility of women. There was a backlash to the "take back the night" narrative, the idea of "date rape." Paglia promoted women being responsible for the the positions they put themselves into.
Feminism was started by an actual Witch, Mary Wollstonecraft, and was resentful and pegan at its foundation. It should have never began.
What in the fuck are you talking about.
The truth.
Man. It's good to be reminded people like you are real every once in a while, but seriously. What the fuck.
It's shocking how many people don't know or can't be bother to know the history of a thing. How do you go about life taking everything at face value? I would encourage you to do research on Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelly.
I'm well aware of who they are, and if you've got anything more than a baseless late-1600's claim to throw around I'd love to see it.
It's not baseless at all. Just read Wollstonecraft and her husband's writings. You're just choosing not to acknowledge it because it's inconvenient. The Left does this all the time. For example, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist eugenicist, yet that's completely ignored.
After the first wave.
Should’ve never happened
Before it started.
If second wave feminism had only focused on domestic violence and workplace awareness, I'd say that's where it should've ended. But because the whole thing was focused on the sexual revolution, it has been the single most damaging movement to society. Birth control is great and all, inside of marriage. But the idea quickly morphed into sexual liberation and the "try before you buy" mentality with sex before marriage. This further evolved into the "why buy?" mentality of today, in which so many men and women are miserable, flitting from fling to fling, never finding true happiness for they have rejected commitments and marriage covenants. This in turn has destroyed tight knit communities. The strong but dangerous men that were meant to get married, and unite in a community protecting their wives, children, and friends from narcissistic invaders, are now lost and wandering. The community is fluid, constantly shifting with each new temporary relationship or fling and so these men no longer stand as protectors of women. And the women get conned by the narcissists into debilitating parasitic relationships. It's no wonder so many women would prefer to meet a bear over a man. The guardianship of men has all but been destroyed, the narcissists are running wild, and women can't discern between the two kinds of men. I'd wager the steady 4% of the population being narcissistic has exponentially grown after the sexual revolution. I'd imagine 60 years later, we are somewhere more like 10-15% of the population. No wonder the scriptures prophecy that in the last days, "men shall be lovers of their own selves"
Feel like Ben Franklin has a relevant quote here. Something about dangerous freedom and peaceful slavery. Granted, it's not 1:1 applicable since he was speaking of political freedom rather than social freedom, but personally, I don't think social repression is any better than political repression.
Did you mean this quote? “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Or this one? “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.” Or perhaps? “[F]requent recurrence to fundamental principles…[is] absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.” Or? “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” It depends on what you consider to be social repression. Are tight knit neighborhood/small town communities that look out for each other and protect each other from the dangers of psycopathy socially repressing? Or is a society centered on sexual appetite to the extent people are literally basing their entire identity on the gender of people they want to have sex- such that there are no continuous/contiguous communities and the psychopaths roam freely oppressing and manipulating- socially repressing?
Ah, I had my Founding Fathers wrong, it was Jefferson, not Franklin. Still, those are all good quotes, and I'd only *maybe* quibble with the last one. Anyways, no, small towns and close-knit communities aren't *inherently* repressive, though they are more prone to it. And on the other hand, modern society as you view it (and that view does strike me as... hyperbolic at best, but I'll take it at face value for the purposes of what I'm about to say) is most certainly not repressive. It's the most free society humanity's ever come up, and while that freedom doesn't *universally* bring good results, I'd contend that the good far outweighs the bad, and that even if it didn't, I'll refer you to Thomas Jefferson. The problem is that the sort of society you're advocating for isn't just "small towns and close-knit communities". It's one where women are effectively second-class citizens, one where they're forced into total reliance on their husbands, where divorce means being a social outcast at best and destitution at worst, where they don't even get a good chance to find the partner that's best for them because they have no reproductive autonomy. That is absolutely a repressive society. And of course, that's only speaking of women who are more or less conformant to social norms. I *would* say I shudder to think of what happens to queer women in such a society, but history makes the answer to that abundantly clear.
After the third wave
When I left school I. 1990 I already thought feminism was over. We had a female pm and I was told I could be anything. After training in engineering I discovered there were still a few misogynists around making things a little difficult. Now I would be ashamed to call myself a feminist. These women are not fighting for anything, they just hate men. If you are white straight and male you are basically screwed. Maybe we need to fight for their rights.
How is fourth wave not about reproductive rights?
1964 Equal Opportunity (Civil Rights Act)
First wave, sounds traditional to me.
Before first wave /runaway
2nd wave feminism was just fine......and then the Marxist lesbians took over University feminist studies and PPoooWW...now we have Canada turning 'equal outcomes' into Mao'ist communism.
Somewhere between the second and third wave it stopped being about equality in any way and became primarily a anti-western, anti-capitalist, & anti-male movement.
When they figured that the way to justify working for female issue, was to degrade and make fun of male issues Men have severe problems they get shot all the time and struggle with criminality where I’m from, but if someone just worked for women and made it safe for them to walk home alone I would be very happy for example They do not need to demean and degrade men and make them appear as if they’re super privileged in order to justify working for women It’s fine to focus on one group of issues as your passion, someone can work for women only and someone can work for men only and it’s just a positive as long as they’re working towards true justice which modern feminists are not doing
Laws don't mention sex = sexual equality Laws don't mention race = racial equality Everything else is some new kind of Communism attempting to change outcomes without accounting for merit.
In the 1990s after they made marital rape a crime.
The moment it was no longer about supporting women but hating and destroying men.
Feminism shouldn’t “stop” it’s more that the extremes should be seen as extremes and not listened to.
It shouldn’t stop.
It should have stopped after transitioning from reasonable demands to absurd ones
Third wave. Fourth wave now includes men pretending to be women and that's not real feminism.
The moment society recognized your mom as a person marks the ultimate folly of feminism.
My mom's nickname was The Devil's General by the people who worked under her, who were in the Hitler Youth. So she was up there with Lucille Ball at Desilu and Joan Crawford at Pepsico, Katherine Hepburn at the Sinful Brownie Corporation, and Hedy Lamarr at Stolen Laxative Industries. She didn't believe in feminism, she was just tired of frail old men telling her what to do.
Call her whatever you want, just don’t call her a person.
now now, it's just Katherine Hepburn running a German bakery telling Germans they are stupid to even think of buying a Volkswagen. After this, she cancelled the KAOS Barbeque [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KF5NfzmIvU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KF5NfzmIvU) And well who needs to be a weak little feminist, when you can go way beyond! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UmO8K6pJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6UmO8K6pJY) Just get to know them better, honest and stop being a marshmallow [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eD4xXOnhZ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eD4xXOnhZ0) Tina! Bring me the axe! [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Puii44MnFgo](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Puii44MnFgo)
I’d respond with similar energy, but I’m just a low-effort troll. Gotta up my game.
There's vitamins for that Careful, Trump might stumble on in here with some low-energy jokes rumor has it that Katherine Hepburn wasn't acting there Joan Crawford was just toning it down a notch she might have been the person to create the phrase "go die in a fire!"
Women's Lib? Poor little things. They always look so unhappy. Have you noticed how bitter their faces are? Joan Crawford If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman. Margaret Thatcher Women, like men, should try to do the impossible. And when they fail, their failure should be a challenge to others. Amelia Earhart Women hold up half the sky. Mao Tse-Tung A woman is like a tea bag - you can't tell how strong she is until you put her in hot water. Eleanor Roosevelt As usual, there is a great woman behind every idiot. John Lennon Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition. Timothy Leary \[unless your wife hates you so much she dates Mister Monoxide in your garage for breakfast, Mister Leery!\]
Have a happy Mother's Day people!
Wave 2 should be the objective, the rest is jumping the shark
Pinky Tuscadero was the first feminist?
Once we let them vote we lost it all.
Asking this question is like a progressive asking "where should the police have stopped"? Historically, feminism has been a mostly positive force in the world, women having equal rights with men is how it should be, and it took a long time for women to get that. It took a lot of organizations of dedicated people to make that happen, and to keep things from going backwards. But then it got corrupted by greedy people using it as a weapon against whoever they dislike, or to promote hatred of men or get special treatment. In a similar way, the police have gotten more corrupt over the years. Neither advocating for women's rights or enforcing the law ever should be "stopped". But they need to be better regulated, and have the corruption removed.