Definition of Sexism

[Buyetyen]

I state a ton of facts and use them to make a theory about why they are the way they are. I think we can only make conclusions based upon good faith.

You state observations and then assign causality to them. That's not how it works.

What is the point of the experiment if it can never be conclusive and trust worthy?

Welcome to the world of science where there is no such thing as 100% certainty.

Still not getting the relevence. Men and women are born, and they are different. You write you want to make them "equal". In this context, what does that even mean?

How about enjoying equal rights and privileges as human beings?

I asserted a fact. Men are more likely to care for women than vice versa. I backed that fact up with that link. That isn't a causation argument. It just is. It is as if I said I have a blue car. You deny it so I show you a photo of the blue car and you say, "that doesn't prove what caused the car to be blue". Irrelevant given what we were talking about.

No, you showed that there are more stay-at-home moms than dads right now. You didn't show why. The why is pretty damn important.

Men and women include a lineage 1/2 male and 1/2 female. That a woman's grandfather may have had an unfair advantage over my grandmother does not give her rights against me. Where are we today? Law engaged in "brute force" against me on the basis of my sex is tyrannic evil. There is no excuse.

I will be blunt: you would not know oppression if it threw you in chains and made you pick cotton. The law does not given women "extra rights" anymore than legalizing marriage equality gave gay people "rights against you." You have been so spoiled that cannot tell the difference between a right denied and a minor inconvenience.

Sorry, me not being clear.
Even if a woman deserved a top job over a man rather than use the brute force of law to violate him, you could argue she shouldn't get it. She is likely to fail relative to the man to use that job for one of its social purposes: to distribute goods and services. In round numbers, if a man gets it, he will support a wife. 2 people served by the job. If a woman gets it, she will have cats. 1 person served.
But if I have to grudgingly say, "ok, she really merits the job, much as that hurts society, so be it" that is one thing. To have the law engage in what is bigotry against me due to my sex? That is evil.

So you automatically assume women are less qualified and capable than men? And all because you mistakenly believe that denying women careers is in the best interest of the economy? Are you for fucking real? Dude, if there's anything you know less about than women, it's economics. You're just making shit up at this point.

What's in the best interest of a market economy is that money continue flowing through the system. You want to strengthen the system? Don't tell half the available workforce that they're undeserving of jobs just because you've erroneously decided your only value as a person is as a breadwinner. Seriously, it's starting to sound as if you want to keep women subservient because you can't imagine any other way of doing things.

Men can apply for WIC. They should change its name.

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. If you're that insecure, you need to talk to a therapist.

 

[gorfias]

How about enjoying equal rights and privileges as human beings?

In practice, what does that mean? For instance, if there are 10% more women than men among eligible voters, do we need weighted voting so men have equal political power? A man's vote would be counted about 1.1 times that of a woman's single vote? You can hair split infinitely.

No, you showed that there are more stay-at-home moms than dads right now. You didn't show why. The why is pretty damn important.

Not in context to the point I was making. But it is important. I would support social movements that made women as likely to support men as vice versa. To do that, I do think the "why" you reference would be vital.

I will be blunt: you would not know oppression if it threw you in chains and made you pick cotton. The law does not given women "extra rights" anymore than legalizing marriage equality gave gay people "rights against you." You have been so spoiled that cannot tell the difference between a right denied and a minor inconvenience.

We can quibble about gay rights. I can see that as less impactful on straights as women, in their capacity as a political demographic majority, voting that they get stuff from men. As for what I know of oppression, you are out of line. You have no idea who I am and what I've lived through (and best so. Don't wanna be doxxed). I am not angry. I just think you do yourself no favors when you write something that on its face that you shouldn't have.

So you automatically assume women are less qualified and capable than men? And all because you mistakenly believe that denying women careers is in the best interest of the economy? Are you for fucking real? Dude, if there's anything you know less about than women, it's economics. You're just making shit up at this point.

Not in the best interest of the economy, but the society. In relative terms, ... well, please see above. You will not get the social utility from a woman getting a job that you get if the man gets it. But, as I wrote, I'd take that damage if it is fair. When you metaphorically stick a gun in someone's face and say, discriminate against him and hire her instead? That is evil. And why would I think her less qualified than him in this instance: because she needed a law passed in order to impose herself onto this board while the man did not.

Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it. If you're that insecure, you need to talk to a therapist.

aaaaaand that is where we enter in to the area of mysandry.

 

[Buyetyen]

In practice, what does that mean? For instance, if there are 10% more women than men among eligible voters, do we need weighted voting so men have equal political power? A man's vote would be counted about 1.1 times that of a woman's single vote? You can hair split infinitely.

Who the hell was talking about voting? What the fuck does that have to do with what I was saying?

Not in context to the point I was making. But it is important. I would support social movements that made women as likely to support men as vice versa. To do that, I do think the "why" you reference would be vital.

Can we define "support" please, because it sounds a lot like your definition relies on one party being subservient to another.

We can quibble about gay rights. I can see that as less impactful on straights as women, in their capacity as a political demographic majority, voting that they get stuff from men. As for what I know of oppression, you are out of line. You have no idea who I am and what I've lived through (and best so. Don't wanna be doxxed). I am not angry. I just think you do yourself no favors when you write something that on its face that you shouldn't have.

And you do yourself no favors acting as if you live in a theocratic matriarchy as envisioned by the recently divorced. Because, you know... you don't. I can say with confidence that the majority of Americans do not know what oppression really is or feels like. Look no further than anti-maskers saying their rights are being violated. They don't know what they're saying, they just know that they mean it.

But I repeat: it's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.

Not in the best interest of the economy, but the society. In relative terms, ... well, please see above. You will not get the social utility from a woman getting a job that you get if the man gets it. But, as I wrote, I'd take that damage if it is fair. When you metaphorically stick a gun in someone's face and say, discriminate against him and hire her instead? That is evil. And why would I think her less qualified than him in this instance: because she needed a law passed in order to impose herself onto this board while the man did not.

I'll just go ahead and add "evil" to the list of things you don't understand. Do you know how much of a spoiled brat you sound like? How much could you possibly believe in equality if we have to twist your arm just to get you to begrudgingly let a woman have a career?

aaaaaand that is where we enter in to the area of mysandry.

Spare me the solipsistic melodrama. I'm not saying this because you're a man, I'm saying it because you're acting like a child.

 

[gorfias]

Who the hell was talking about voting? What the fuck does that have to do with what I was saying?



Can we define "support" please, because it sounds a lot like your definition relies on one party being subservient to another.



And you do yourself no favors acting as if you live in a theocratic matriarchy as envisioned by the recently divorced. Because, you know... you don't. I can say with confidence that the majority of Americans do not know what oppression really is or feels like. Look no further than anti-maskers saying their rights are being violated. They don't know what they're saying, they just know that they mean it.

But I repeat: it's not enough to wear the mantle of Galileo. You have to be right.



I'll just go ahead and add "evil" to the list of things you don't understand. Do you know how much of a spoiled brat you sound like? How much could you possibly believe in equality if we have to twist your arm just to get you to begrudgingly let a woman have a career?



Spare me the solipsistic melodrama. I'm not saying this because you're a man, I'm saying it because you're acting like a child.

I'm acting like a child? Of the two of us, I'm not writing laws should be passed to just give me stuff cuz I want it.

ITMT: thought this amusing:

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm acting like a child? Of the two of us, I'm not writing laws should be passed to just give me stuff cuz I want it.

What the hell are you talking about? Did you forget what this thread about or respond to the wrong person or something?

 

[gorfias]

What the hell are you talking about?

Our conversation shifted to you saying a law requiring about 50% women on corporate boards does not deprive me of my rights in no way, which is absurd. If there is an opening on a board, and I want it, but under law they have to hire a woman next, I have been deprived, by law, of that opportunity due to my gender. That they get this position, whether earned or not. This presumes there would be times when I merit the job more than the woman to which you are asking, why would I think that? I responded, because she needs a law to force herself upon that board, while I do not. If she's that great, strong, invincible and roaring all over the place, why would she need a law requiring a person of her gender? She'd show up, be that great, and they'd hire her.

Instead, they simply voted that they get these opportunities because they want them. Now that is infantile.

 

[CaitSeith]

The MRA position is that today's women's movements, at least in the 1st world, are simply lobbyists trying to gain advantage for their constituency.

And that's why the MRA is such a failure. They make good points about injustice towards men, and then they do a heel-turn and accuse feminism of making things worse. They are more focused in opposing feminism than in improving things for men.

 

[Avnger]

This presumes there would be times when I merit the job more than the woman to which you are asking, why would I think that? I responded, because she needs a law to force herself upon that board, while I do not. If she's that great, strong, invincible and roaring all over the place, why would she need a law requiring a person of her gender? She'd show up, be that great, and they'd hire her.

Except for, you know, the sexism........

See Exhibit A of it:

Even if a woman deserved a top job over a man rather than use the brute force of law to violate him, you could argue she shouldn't get it. She is likely to fail relative to the man to use that job for one of its social purposes: to distribute goods and services. In round numbers, if a man gets it, he will support a wife. 2 people served by the job. If a woman gets it, she will have cats. 1 person served.

How you can argue that women, by virtual of being women and regardless of qualification, don't deserve "top jobs" and then, less than two hours later, state that women would undoubtedly be selected for jobs if they were qualified, is mindboggling.

 

[Buyetyen]

If she's that great, strong, invincible and roaring all over the place, why would she need a law requiring a person of her gender?

Because you just admitted that you wouldn't give her the job unless we made you do it because you think she's better off barefoot and pregnant.

They are more focused in opposing feminism than in improving things for men.

No bullshit, I've tried opening up to MRAs in the past about my own problems with mental health and suicidal ideation. But rather than help me, they tried to convince me it's all feminism's fault. Hell, a couple told me to just go ahead and kill myself. The MRM is not really about fairness, it's just a backlash against feminism for the crime of existing.

 

[gorfias]

And that's why the MRA is such a failure. They make good points about injustice towards men, and then they do a heel-turn and accuse feminism of making things worse. They are more focused in opposing feminism than in improving things for men.

Feminism is pushing incredible and outrageous injustices. They are the lobbyists doing things like passing the California law we were just describing.
MRAs, especially among the MGTOW are thought to be failures because it is too late. Elite men gave women the vote. In any Democratic society, men are a minority of eligible voters (Unless you want weighted voting to balance things back out again). Some of the MGTOW believe women will always be too myopic and self serving. That they are over grown children who will always simply vote to get free stuff that on balance will come from men until there is a societal collapse and men will have to take back over and clean up the mess.

My hope is at some point, there are enough red pilled men and female allies to start thinking about creating a more just society.

Except for, you know, the sexism........

See Exhibit A of it:


How you can argue that women, by virtual of being women, don't deserve "top jobs" and then, less than two hours later, state that women would undoubtedly be selected for jobs if they were qualified, is mindboggling.

I stated in that same post, I'd grudgingly give it to her if she really were the best candidate for the job. I don't know how the California law is holding up. I thought gender discrimination has been illegal in the US for 60 years.

Because you just admitted that you wouldn't give her the job unless we made you do it because you think she's better off barefoot and pregnant.

See just above.

No bullshit, I've tried opening up to MRAs in the past about my own problems with mental health and suicidal ideation. But rather than help me, they tried to convince me it's all feminism's fault. Hell, a couple told me to just go ahead and kill myself. The MRM is not really about fairness, it's just a backlash against feminism for the crime of existing.

You're using a broad brush again. Some MRAs are assholes. Some are vocal about creating a more just society. PUAs tend to suck, but some of them actually seem like wanting men to find a partner: not someone to exploit. They're basically match makers. The MGTOW are just trying to go their own way.
I'd write Feminists are OK but they've achieved the reasonable goals of their movement. Now they do things like pass laws requiring discrimination against men. Of course MRAs have a right to be pissed about this.

 

[Avnger]

Feminism is pushing incredible and outrageous injustices. They are the lobbyists doing things like passing the California law we were just describing.
MRAs, especially among the MGTOW are thought to be failures because it is too late. Elite men gave women the vote. In any Democratic society, men are a minority of eligible voters (Unless you want weighted voting to balance things back out again). Some of the MGTOW believe women will always be too myopic and self serving. That they are over grown children who will always simply vote to get free stuff that on balance will come from men until there is a societal collapse and men will have to take back over and clean up the mess.

My hope is at some point, there are enough red pilled men and female allies to start thinking about creating a more just society.


I stated in that same post, I'd grudgingly give it to her if she really were the best candidate for the job. I don't know how the California law is holding up. I thought gender descrimination has been illegal in the US for 60 years.

Seriously mate, how the fuck do you type shit like this and not immediately have a "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment when reading it back to yourself? This is the exact type of drivel that white supremacists say about non-white people....

POC are pushing incredible and outrageous injustices. They are the lobbyists doing things like passing the California law we were just describing.
Moderates, especially among the Klan are thought to be failures because it is too late. Elite men gave non-white people the vote. In any Democratic society, white people are a minority of eligible voters (Unless you want weighted voting to balance things back out again). Some of the klan believe non-white people will always be too myopic and self serving. That they are over grown children who will always simply vote to get free stuff that on balance will come from white people until there is a societal collapse and white people will have to take back over and clean up the mess.

My hope is at some point, there are enough race realist white people and non-white allies to start thinking about creating a more just society.

 

[CaitSeith]

My hope is at some point, there are enough red pilled men and female allies to start thinking about creating a more just society.

How about start thinking on how the society can be made more just now? Because so far it seems that the plan is pretty shortsighted.

Step 1: Get rid of feminism
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit! Just society!

 

[gorfias]

Seriously mate, how the fuck do you type shit like this and not immediately have a "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment when reading it back to yourself? This is the exact type of drivel that white supremacists say about non-white people....

So opposing a law requiring bigotry against a minority (men) in favor of a relatively pampered majority of eligible voters (women) makes one a baddie? I'd work harder to identify whose helmet has the skull on it if you are writing that.

How about start thinking on how the society can be made more just now? Because so far it seems that the plan is pretty shortsighted.

Step 1: Get rid of feminism
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit! Just society!

Step 1: Red pill society. Wake them up. Get them to understand that men have problems too;
Step 2: Stop creating laws requiring bigotry against men;
Step 3: Work to have a world that is fairer. I don't want to write more equal as, men and women are different so that I don't know what that means. As likely to have a baby if they want, regardless of gender? How you achieve that may be anything but fair.

 

[Buyetyen]

That they are over grown children who will always simply vote to get free stuff that on balance will come from men until there is a societal collapse and men will have to take back over and clean up the mess.

Now we get to the truth of the MRA fantasy. You want everything to go to shit so you can be proven "right" and get to be the one who swoops in and saves everybody. It's a fantasy that comes from a position of powerlessness.

I stated in that same post, I'd grudgingly give it to her if she really were the best candidate for the job.

And you expect us to be impressed with that?

You're using a broad brush again. Some MRAs are assholes. Some are vocal about creating a more just society. PUAs tend to suck, but some of them actually seem like wanting men to find a partner: not someone to exploit. They're basically match makers. The MGTOW are just trying to go their own way.

No, MRAs are assholes by default. I have yet to meet one who wasn't. PUAs are the larval form of MRAs. And MGTOWs are an oxymoron because they claim to be going their own way, but are still slaves to their own bitterness, misogyny and insecurity.

 

[Buyetyen]

So opposing a law requiring bigotry against a minority (men) in favor of a relatively pampered majority of eligible voters (women) makes one a baddie? I'd work harder to identify whose helmet has the skull on it if you are writing that.

You're not opposing bigotry, you're just whining and seeing everything as zero-sum. Every job a woman gets is a job you don't get, even if you didn't want or qualify for it.

Step 1: Red pill society. Wake them up. Get them to understand that men have problems too;
Step 2: Stop creating laws requiring bigotry against men;
Step 3: Work to have a world that is fairer. I don't want to write more equal as, men and women are different so that I don't know what that means. As likely to have a baby if they want, regardless of gender? How you achieve that may be anything but fair.

That's not a plan. Those are platitudes, which is really all we can expect from the MRM. It's an intellectually bankrupt movement.

The real truth here is that the MRM isn't saving society or anything else really. It's just getting left behind as the rest of the world moves on without them.

 

[CaitSeith]

Step 3: Work to have a world that is fairer.

Work how? Because stop creating new laws or even removing the ones created won't fix the problems men have been facing even before that (most of the injustices men face aren't caused by those laws).

 

[gorfias]

Now we get to the truth of the MRA fantasy. You want everything to go to shit so you can be proven "right" and get to be the one who swoops in and saves everybody. It's a fantasy that comes from a position of powerlessness.



And you expect us to be impressed with that?



No, MRAs are assholes by default. I have yet to meet one who wasn't. PUAs are the larval form of MRAs. And MGTOWs are an oxymoron because they claim to be going their own way, but are still slaves to their own bitterness, misogyny and insecurity.

At this point, you're just engaged in some vicious bigotry. Not sure what else to ad after that tirade.

Work how? Because stop creating new laws or even removing the ones created won't fix the problems men have been facing even before that (most of the injustices men face aren't caused by those laws).

Example of making the world a fairer place: Jordan Peterson, for instance, reports great success coaching women on how to be more aggressive when, for instance, negotiating salary. That negotiating salary is not a tea party: it's a blood sport. And he reports they're making substantial gains over average. Helping women help themselves sounds fair and just and is closing the gender earnings gap.

 

[Buyetyen]

At this point, you're just engaged in some vicious bigotry. Not sure what else to ad after that tirade.

Proving my point that you don't know what oppression is. How do you expect to lead the world into a better place if you're so thin-skinned you can't handle even the most softball criticism without showing your belly and crying about what a victim you are? I can't take you or any other MRA seriously because you say shit like this.

When I tell you to talk to a therapist, that is the best I can do to help you.

 

[CaitSeith]

That negotiating salary is not a tea party: it's a blood sport.

Why should it be a blood sport? Well, that's a different can of worms...

Helping women help themselves sounds fair and just and is closing the gender earnings gap.

OK, but I wanted to discuss fixing injustices that men are facing...

 

[gorfias]

Why should it be a blood sport? Well, that's a different can of worms...


OK, but I wanted to discuss fixing injustices that men are facing...

For starters, if we can help women help themselves, I truly think you'll see them less likely to pass laws in which they just take things from men without earning them. That's a start.