The thought laden inside Evolutionary Psychology is one of the chief causes of inequality.

[oktalist]

OP starts off in confused ramble apropos of nothing, then becomes more coherent towards the middle and end.

[1st paragraph]

I have literally zero idea what you are talking about there. I think you presuppose too much knowledge. Some context would help.

[2nd paragraph]

You appear exceedingly familiar with the subject matter. That is cool.

I am a feminist.

Me too. Also male. And I know there are others on the Escapist.

Just like you call economic movements in class-centric terms. Are proletarian movements classist and evil and reverse discriminator because they don't include the bourgeois in their talk? No, because fighting for economic equality means fighting for the proletariat. And in the same way feminism still exists and makes sense as a term because male privilege still exists.

As a Marxist I say that is a VERY good analogy.

And in the same way that the bourgoisie would be equally entitled to the benefits of an economically just society, so too would men derive some benefit from a gender egalitarian one. Of course women get the worst effects of sexism, but all sexism is also to the detriment of men. Whether it is sexism against men or against women, it hurts all of society. It is for this reason that I have advocated presenting feminism not as women-against-men, but as nonsexists-against-sexists. But you've caused me to start rethinking my position.

Seeing the argument from the male perspective makes it harder to just blame all the inequality on men, but whether this is a good or bad thing is hard to tell. Probably a bit of both. The position of the male feminist is rather like that of the communist millionaire.

And the differences and inequalities are not biological.

Of course most of the inequalities are societal and not biological, but you have to admit that there are some biological and psychological differences. They are generalisations, so they don't apply to everyone, and they in no way imply any difference in ability to perform certain tasks or in suitability for certain roles. Difference need not imply inequality, and there is a place in society for gender difference. Ignorance of difference led some early feminists to mistakenly demand that women be treated exactly the same as men were, leading to a negation of their female identity; in effect, achieving gender equality by just making women more masculine.

This stupid crap that says that women earn less, not because of society, but because they have a biological hardwiring towards it and depending upon a man.

That is crap. People are stupid.

 

[HeroKing89]

"Though I do think that a lot of the problems men face ironically actually come from patriarchal, male privileging, or even male supremacist notions."

I'll be blunt. This is sexist in of itself. You can change the language and call it female privilege just as easily. There is nothing that supports the idea that men dominate society. It is true that men dominate certain spheres of society. I admit that, but so do women. I also admit that it is more unbalanced in favor of men and that it does need more fixing but to think that the problems come from a male dominated society is disingenuous. You are better off talking about spheres of influence rather then society as a whole since the idea you are espousing is a myth.

"Such as that women are sexually attracted to power"

It is all of psychology. Research has shown that women are more attracted to men with status where as men are more attracted to females who are physically attractive. I wouldn't call these facts of life but they are certain social norms that exist. These ideas wouldn't be said if there wasn't some form of research attached to it even if you don't like what they say you will be hard pressed to argue with the data. It's not as if women are somehow any less shallow in this respect then men or vise versa.

"If you support equality between the sexes, than you yourself are a feminist."

This isn't true either. This is only true if you think women should have equal rights as men but ignores that men need equal rights to women in a lot of fields as well.

 

[Hagi]

Anyone who judges according to race, sexual orientation or gender, male or female, has no business being anywhere outside of an insane asylum, because that's the last home for such a repugnant level of stupidity, chauvinists and feminists included.

That would be everyone....

Check out this website [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/] here. It's quite interesting.

 

[Dastardly]

I hope someone here remotely agrees with me. I'm not an angry women. I don't hate men. I hate that people support these kinds of notions and ignore the bigger, "patriarchal" picture.

What you're talking about here are layers upon layers of social expectations and constructs that were perhaps originally built upon a foundation of biological imperatives.

For instance, in our "caveman days," birth control wasn't a thing, so women were pregnant pretty often. And pregnant women don't make the best hunters. Additionally, men are more biologically suited to the demands of hunting large animals. So the best, most efficient way to handle things was to put the men on the hunt... and that meant someone at camp had to handle the camp stuff (what we now consider "home-making"). It was necessity.

But the tricky thing about such constructs is that they are self-reinforcing. Because these expectations were in place, society favored men who "were men" and women who "were women," and so each successive generation was actually conditioned earlier and harder to fill these roles. Bigger men were favored for reproduction, so men overall "got bigger," and then the biggest of those were favored, and so on.

And while the biological expectations were socially reinforced, the social expectations were also reinforced right along with them. Over hundreds of generations, this pattern wasn't just "maintained." It was refined and distilled. Sociology and biology set the definitions of "masculine" and "feminine," and evolution (both physical and social) caused each successive generation to exaggerate those traits more and more. (Of course, each generation didn't see it as an exaggeration, because it was "normal" to them.)

Society has, for the past century or so, been at a place where we no longer depend on such rigid gender roles. Manual labor is increasingly mechanized, so the strength differential between "average man" and "average woman" isn't as big a factor, for instance.

But we're talking about hundreds of generations building this. That's layers and layers and layers of establishing and reinforcing. And while we'd love to believe it's as easy as "knock the building down and rebuild it from scratch," it's not that easy.

There are plenty of women who don't want the notion of "equality" that some people push. And yes, it's socially programmed, and we all understand that -- but it's in there deep. These people believe it, beyond the conscious mind.

Take addiction. Knowing and admitting that you're addicted is the first step, and it's often the hardest. Once that's done, most still can't handle a "cold turkey" quit -- mentally or physically. They have to be weaned. And the length of that process is dependent on how long and how hard they were addicted. It can take years for some people.

Now consider that addiction, at its worst, may last someone 80 years if they live that long, and is usually confined to one or two generations. Our society's "addiction" to these gender roles has been around for thousands of years and thousands of generations. Our biology itself has been altered by it. This isn't changing the kitchen wallpaper. This is changing the entire houses of the entire neighborhood.

If we don't treat this change as a process, people will rebel against it even harder. And that means "natural selection" will be stacked against the extremists, and their ideas will again and again fail to propagate to the next generation. Yes, it's outdated. Yes, it's "wrong" in a cosmic moral sense. But changing it is like changing course on a giant ship -- if you don't do it little by little, you'll sink the whole boat. Or the crew will kick you off and you won't get to change course at all.

_____

Aside: I think the biggest problem is those who act like these expectations and roles are intentional and malicious -- that men are trying to "keep women down" as the goal itself, for instance. While certain behaviors defending the norm may be so, the idea itself is not. It was deeply and naturally built into us.

And by assuming it's intentional and malicious, too many people make the reaction to it the same -- violent and belligerent, malicious in its own right. Trying to fight something natural by unnatural means will provoke a primal, subconscious response -- people will fight it without even fully understanding "why."

To change the way people think, you must first understand it and then work to shape it. You can't just impose it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Just wondering Miss OP, do you also agree that standards for, say, joining the police or the fire brigade should not be lowered for women? That no matter whether you're a man or a women, you have to live up to the same standards?

Because if you do, you'd indeed be a non-hypocritical feminist, which would give you a thumbs up from me. I've seen plenty of so-called feminists who'd still want these different standards, but that's not gender equality at all, making them more like women-supremacists and less like a feminist.

Wholeheartedly agree. Lovely post OP. Bashing on two of the things that are easily in my top 10 of things I hate: Evolutionary Psychology and anti-Feminism.

Heej now. Don't blame evolutionary psychology, blame people taking the conclusions from that scientific field and bending/using them for their own political agenda.

That's the only thing that I disagree with with the OP. It's people who use the scientific knowledge from evolutionary psychology, though this can be applied to many other fields and many other situations, who are to blame, not the field itself. What's wrong with it anyway?

snip

You sir, are a genius. Quoted for sheer brilliance.

 

[Zerazar]

Right and this disproves me saying you don't take feminist issues seriously how?

If you took them seriously you'd actually make the effort to find out what the issues are and you'd discover that the vast majority of Feminists aren't at all like those militant ones you run into.

I don't get it. I have said in each post that I think it's a real issue that needs to see some improvement. Why are you so hellbent on trying to tell ME what YOU think I believe? Why do you want another enemy?

Christ, what an assumptious *****. I guess it's just another one of those militant feminists. Meh, I'm off.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I would like to respectfully disagree with you on this one OP. All of the books which I have read on evolutionary psychology have delved into the issue of gender differences, and the conclusion is almost always that what differences they are can be overcome, and that both genders have skills in which they are (ON AVERAGE) more or less proficient. Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate in particular comes to mind, as it repeatedly stressed that while there were some biological gender differences, they didn't account for much.

Even if evolutionary psychology didn't account for this, however, the honest truth is that blaming evolutionary psychology for inequality, is like blaming quantum theory for motivating people to continue to drive low efficiency cars, because they've become convinced that if they look at the sun the observer effect will prevent light particles from getting into earth's atmosphere and causing global warming. Yeah, it's not impossible that someone might come to that conclusion, but it's beyond ridiculous to think that that's why people continue to do it.

I have the misfortune to live in Oklahoma, and not just that, but to work at a WalMart in Oklahoma. You want to take a guess at what we have a lot of down here? Sexist assholes and gender inequality. I see it all fucking day. And let me tell you this, most of those assholes don't believe in evolution in the first place, so the idea that evolutionary psychology is the chief cause of gender inequality (at least here where I live) is so far beyond preposterous that it doesn't even bare mentioning.

All that said, even if what you contend were true, that evolutionary psychology causes gender inequality, it wouldn't change the science. There is a lot of good reason to find validity in evolutionary psychology, and if you really have a problem with it, then you should address it in that light. And no, just throwing around words like "pseudo science" doesn't make it so. Evolutionary Psychology is a widely accepted school of psychology, and it continues to gain popularity. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it so.

 

[Hagi]

Right and this disproves me saying you don't take feminist issues seriously how?

If you took them seriously you'd actually make the effort to find out what the issues are and you'd discover that the vast majority of Feminists aren't at all like those militant ones you run into.

I don't get it. I have said in each post that I think it's a real issue that needs to see some improvement. Why are you so hellbent on trying to tell ME what YOU think I believe? Why do you want another enemy?

Christ, what an assumptious *****. I guess it's just another one of those militant feminists. Meh, I'm off.

You're doing exactly what I'm accusing you off. You're dismissing the entirety of Feminism because a few militant Feminists dismiss your point of view.

If you take the issues seriously then why do you, in each of your posts, state that you're anti-Feminist because of a few militant Feminists.

By that logic Fox News is totally reasonable in it's anti-Gamer stance as there certainly is a vocal minority of violent Gamers. Just like there's a vocal minority of militant Feminists.

 

[Hagi]

Wholeheartedly agree. Lovely post OP. Bashing on two of the things that are easily in my top 10 of things I hate: Evolutionary Psychology and anti-Feminism.

Heej now. Don't blame evolutionary psychology, blame people taking the conclusions from that scientific field and bending/using them for their own political agenda.

That's the only thing that I disagree with with the OP. It's people who use the scientific knowledge from evolutionary psychology, though this can be applied to many other fields and many other situations, who are to blame, not the field itself. What's wrong with it anyway?

I should probably have specified.

There's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle has some influence on our psychology. Which is definitely true.

Then there's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle determines our psychology. Basically saying that if something was true for cavemen or if it makes evolutionary sense (more offspring if men impregnate multiple women thus men are incapable of monogamy for example) then it must be true! Completely dismissing that there's many, many other influences on our psychology.

 

[Hagi]

Whoops. Double post. Sorry for that.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I should probably have specified.

There's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle has some influence on our psychology. Which is definitely true.

Then there's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle determines our psychology. Basically saying that if something was true for cavemen or if it makes evolutionary sense (more offspring if men impregnate multiple women thus men are incapable of monogamy for example) then it must be true! Completely dismissing that there's many, many other influences on our psychology.

Well yeah, that's basically people using those conclusions for their own agenda. Many scientific fields are, sadly, susceptible to such abuse.

 

[Hagi]

I should probably have specified.

There's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle has some influence on our psychology. Which is definitely true.

Then there's evolutionary psychology as in evolution and our early cavemen lifestyle determines our psychology. Basically saying that if something was true for cavemen or if it makes evolutionary sense (more offspring if men impregnate multiple women thus men are incapable of monogamy for example) then it must be true! Completely dismissing that there's many, many other influences on our psychology.

Well yeah, that's basically people using those conclusions for their own agenda. Many scientific fields are, sadly, susceptible to such abuse.

Not really as much as evolutionary psychology (or many other psychological theories).

Most scientific fields are quite interconnected. If you go by theory A which is based on theory B then you must also go by theory C because it follows logically from theory B. You can't really see specific theories on their own. You can only see them as part of the greater picture.

For psychology that's a lot harder since so many spots in that greater picture aren't filled yet. When it comes to the human brain there's a lot of gaps in our understanding. This leaves quite a few theories, like evolutionary psychology, kind of floating around in that greater picture without having the amount and strength of connections you see in other fields.

Which makes it possible to see such a theory purely on it's own without looking at the rest of the picture. Which is why I kind of hate seeing these theories discussed on their own in non-scientific contexts, because all too often they're quite horribly misrepresented. I find that most intelligent mentions only address psychology and not a specific theory that exists within it.

 

[Johnny Impact]

If feminists -- whether the sensible ones who want true equality (whatever that means), or the foaming-at-the-mouth, down-with-dicks types -- woke up tomorrow to discover that every grievance on their list had been instantly "corrected" by a genie, they'd find something else to be loudly unhappy about by next Thursday lunch.

That's not a criticism of feminists. All humans display this behavior to one degree or another.

Everyone is unhappy. Way too many of us think we are entitled to more, that our unhappiness can be fixed by things outside ourselves, that we would be happy if only ______ were equal or (be honest) tilted our way just a bit. We all want more. We all complain about it to anyone who will listen. The truth is, if we're unhappy now, we probably wouldn't be happy if we got the things we think we want.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

I'm sure that drives a stake of irritation into many who hear it.

Actually, it?s that another thread is using pseudo-intellectualism to justify another pro-woman debate which inherently scrutinizes male perspectives as? ?ignorant anti-women chauvinism?.

That's right, the mentality, not Evolutionary Psychology itself, but the aspects of society it is brethren with, the assuming a hypothesis to be true with no attempt to disprove it, and instead only feeding it, is a brand comparable to psuedoscience which supports the very social pillars of male privilege.

You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by mentioning how society continues to reinforce gender based memes throughout history due to gender based generalizations. Certainly sounds a lot cleaner.

Society creates male privilege, not biological "differences", and shifting the blame supports it's existence.

I love how you generalize all of society by using examples of male domination in specific fields. I?m also loving how you entirely ignore the biological differences as an explanation for the domination of either gender in additional specific societal roles.

And unsurprisingly, there are many bedfellows who seem to be willingly ignorant of male privilege.

Considering that in the entirety of your rant, you didn?t cite any specific evidence to support this notion, are you really all that surprised?

It's not surprising that many people who claim to be anti-feminist, but anti-sexist, think that only equality in law matters, and is somehow the proper fix to everything and everything else is biological in terms of inequality and shouldn't be messed with.

So your end goal isn?t merely a matter of equality in legal matters in society but the regulations of core values every individual expresses in free societies? You feminists might disagree with me on this one; but *legal* matters are the only ones that should matter in a democratic sense; you have no authority to control the opinions of others based on their individual experiences with either gender.

A lot of them say "it's women who are privileged today! There's loads of reverse sexism! Look at the preference for giving children to women!". Ignoring the fact that pushing women into child rearing roles and stereotypes that created this so called "female privilege" is what pushes women away from any real power.

So you are skipping over the examples of female privilege in today?s society because? it defeats the argument that women don?t have any gender based privileges in today?s society? Society pushing women into child rearing roles isn?t a matter of gender bias; it?s a matter of biological capability. For a society to survive it must reproduce; women are the only gender capable of sustaining reproduction.

You can say mothers are respected all you want. It's corporate CEOs that have real power.

In a financial sense; yes. Again, you?re arguing a specific circumstance to justify your generalization in all of society.

And they say, "because (I) am against inequality, I'm a masculist instead!". And many seem actually reasonable. And then you have the types, who instead of saying "gender roles are bad for men, too", you get the types who fall back on male privilege and while decrying all the "oh so horrible" discrimination men face that those "evil feminists/women" are insensitive to, fall back on male supremacist notions, that the areas that men have it better, fall to biological differences in humans that those evil feminists don't understand simple logic about. Notions that say women are attracted to money, should depend on a man, and that women being as wealthy or wealthier than men of their own work and accord, hurts reproductive and romantic health and should be eliminated.

So gender specific sexual attraction is now the basis for male privilege? Others have already addressed this better then I feel I could, but a dating stereotype does little to support the ideals of feminism.

I will tell you what. I am a feminist. And you know why? Because there's no better ideology that makes more sense for gender equality that exists.

Humanist. I know this will sound odd, but feminism has nothing to do with gender equality; it?s merely the avocation that women should have equal rights in social and political fields. Equal rights does not mean gender equality.

I'll worry about how "sexist" the label "feminism" sounds, when male privilege doesn't exist.

Oh for god?s sake. I get so sick of seeing this. Next thing you?re going to tell me is that Affirmative Action isn?t racist.

You fight for civil rights for equality, which means the minority, to be equal. Just like you call economic movements in class-centric terms. Are proletarian movements classist and evil and reverse discriminator because they don't include the bourgeois in their talk? No, because fighting for economic equality means fighting for the proletariat. And in the same way feminism still exists and makes sense as a term because male privilege still exists.

Sure, because the continued struggle for monetary control in a capitalist society is so apt a metaphor for the struggles of gender privilege. Actually it is, you give every $50, and in a few days you?ll have people that have made money and people that have lost money. So does someone whose monetary smarts make them privilege in this circumstance justify the regulations to make everyone equal in a system which is designed to reward shrewd business decisions? Fuck it, communism for the win!

And I also have found almost no anti-feminist who is not hypocritical on some level. Who claims to be against sexism, claims that feminism is sexist, but refuses to see the bigger picture and the blatant evidence of male privilege.

Just so long as your blatant stereotyping has as much validity to others who have had nothing but poor experiences with feminism; I?ll accept it. But hey, as long as the big picture is still obvious right? Robin Hood may have been doing good for the people, but he was still a murder and a thief. And with this justification, we can overlook minor discretions visited upon minorities because we have the big picture in mind.

And turns around and claims that inequality between the sexes is biological. Almost without fail I hear the same biological determinist, pro-male, inequality believing things from anti-feminists. Not to mention laden with incorrect ignorance about most feminists, feminist materials and norms, but of women themselves. It is getting ridiculous and it is not making me sympathetic toward the masculist and "anti-feminist" crowd. Especially the "anti-feminist" crowd.

Did you know that certain differences are determined biologically? Egads! That fact that I have a penis makes me different than any female out there. As such, there comes an inequality in the manufacturing and sale of public toilets. There is a disproportionate amount of commercials for feminine hygiene products further supporting the inequality of advertising; I demand something must be done! Are we going to gloss over the obvious inequalities when it comes to legal options for females in the realm of procreation in today?s society? Because that couldn?t possibility be biological motivated now could it? But sure, I?m willing to wait for you to come up with just one example of this! (Or one example for anything really)

Equality before the law is not enough for blacks. And it is not enough for women.

Yah, I?ve already said it once, but I?ll say it again. Legal equality is the ONLY thing that matters in today?s society. But I?ll give you the opportunity to explain to me what else you could possibly want that doesn?t require the violation of the foundations of a free society?

And the differences and inequalities are not biological. And thinking like that is a waste of time unless you are in a field to fix it if you believe that is a cause.

Many differences are biological. Did you know that biological speaking men are on average generally taller than women? Oh my god! We should compensate for this by lowering all of the ?you must be this tall to ride this ride? signs by a good 2 to 3 inches! Or we could wait to see what the next few hundred years of human evolution deem necessary.

When you tell people who want to fight sexism in our social structures and thought, that it's pointless, because it's biological. You are standing right in the way of equality based upon a sexist hypothesis you can't prove.

Because you?re proving the reverse? You?re right. No time off for women to raise children because men can?t bare them! No separate bathrooms because we?re all people! No sense in addressing the biological differences between the gender in any situation; because that?s stupid.

Feminism isn't about hating men. It's about hating this stupid crap. This stupid crap that says that women earn less, not because of society, but because they have a biological hardwiring towards it and depending upon a man. A biological hardwiring, to physical, economic, emotional, and every kind of possible inferiority in comparison to men. A male privilege that is every so conveniently ignored.

Ah, so it was always a financial thing to you then? Because this is the only example you have ever provided (and even then not supported). Never mind that society has adapted certain unconscious compensations for this by ideas such as ladies night, or additional dating stereotypes like the man paying for dates? I don?t really care. Seems like a lot of useless talk for whining about getting paid a little less than a man. You blame this on society as a whole, citing male privilege based upon historically driven gender biases evolving through time, yet fail to consider that maybe it?s just one douche bag taking a financial opportunity to stiff someone because they can. Because the boss is always a man isn?t it? And they always make less don?t they? Funny how you are using one societal example of financial disparity to represent male privilege found anywhere else.

I hope someone here remotely agrees with me. I'm not an angry women. I don't hate men. I hate that people support these kinds of notions and ignore the bigger, "patriarchal" picture.

I don?t disagree with your intentions; I disagree with your arguments. I get a little tired of people coming here and bitching about male privilege, ignoring contrary evidence or arguments and insist that people should think like they do because legal equality isn?t enough compensation for the hardships they?ve never really personally experienced. And of course, that I, being a man, am supporting discrimination of any kind by failing to see the issue the same way you do.

As far as I have been able to determine, Feminism has always been about insuring that men have no advantages over women, without sacrificing the advantages they have over men. I fail to see any difference in the OP?s positions and arguments. The *only* response I have seen to my position, is one that has already been expressed in the OP; ?fix this first, then we?ll talk.? No, if you really want me to take you seriously, we?re going to talk now.

 

[Nickolai77]

I think i'd agree with the psychology graduate on this thread, there are psychological mechanisms which relate to humans finding ways of having healthy off-spring, which of course is related to evolution.

Yes, there are physical differences between males and females, there are also physical differences in the brain between males and females. It's idealogical hubris to deny that there are differences between male and females, but just because there are differences doesn't mean that either gender should not be treated with moral and legal equality.

 

[Batou667]

I think feminists are the same as any section of society who see themselves as repressed - they may have a valid basis, but by god do they get annoying when the start demonising Average Joes for being "enablers" or "puppets of the status quo" or whatever. Kind of like hyper-sensitive ethnic groups who see racism in every shadow and behind every wall; the common man just doesn't care enough to give you offense, so stop being offended.

 

[Therumancer]

Im not a femanist nor am i an anti-femanist i am a Humanist and i believe we are all equally stupid .

If you believe that the sexes are equal, than you are a feminist, by definition.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. So yes but its only aimed at women, but you could also say im a masculinist looking for equal rights for men.

I say humanist because it encompasses every one regardless of gender.

Well, the thing is that at the end of the day men and women are not equal, which is the flaw with the OP's arguement. Women will never top out as being as strong, fast, or physically capable as men. Likewise, the biological issues with periods, pregnancies, and other things present complications that DO hamper women in a practical sense.

Men wound up dominating because we're physically more powerful, but also because we're the protectors. The way animals react to women at various times when they are most vulnerable in of itself represents a complication. Sociologically speaking the whole "women as home makers" thing also puts women in the safest/most defensible place... but this gets into a whole differant area of discussion.

The bottom line is that feminism basically demands that women should simply be given things in an overall sense, rather than having to earn them based on their inherant capabilities, and allowing for their gender. That things like the physical requirements to be a police officer should be lowered for women, or that an employer should have to make special allowances for a woman who gets pregnant or has gender-related complications in the workplace.

Your typical anti-feminist is someone who argues that if a woman meets the physical requirements for a job, they should be allowed to do it, but those standards shouldn't be changed as they exist for a reason, or that if a woman decides to have a baby the workplace should not have to adapt itself around that. One typical issue is a woman who winds up with divided responsibilities due pregnancy or having a kid might find her advancement options limited as she is not going to be able to focus entirely on the job for the duration.

Now yes, none of this is fair in an absolute sense, but that's kind of the point, these problems are an inherant condition to the gender. The basic arguement behind feminism is that the gender shouldn't matter, until a woman needs allowances to be made for what she wants to do.

It CAN be argued back and forth (which is why it remains a big issue).


As far as racial equality goes, it's not an issue that can be addressed entirely by looking at one country or area of the world. The bottom line is that the global state of people that look a certain way tends to influance how they are treated in most nations and where they wind up. Like it or not Africa is a wasted, war torn hell hole for the most part, overpopulated, disease stricken, and ravaged by famine (yes this is a generaility, there are doubtlessly exceptions). As a result people who are black tend to have very little, even when they enter into other countries, it can take generations in a nation with oppertunities for a single family's lineage to rise out of poverty, and with increasing lifespans a few generations could mean centuries. Right now with people living 75-80 years someone (of any ethnicity) entering the US with nothing would logically expect it to take 300-500 years assuming average performance and no great oppertunities for the family to generally hit middle class or upper middle class, through the willing of properties, and gradual growth. That's longer than the US has existed. The same applies throughout most of the world to one extent or another, and of course does nothing to comfort people who want a better life for themselves, right here and now. If conditions improved in Africa I think the condition of blacks globally, and the perceptions, would also change along with it, as among other things it would mean less immigrants of that ethnicity coming into nations with nothing.

That said, things tend to move back and forth, it's just that the civilized Western World likes to wrack itself with guilt. Human civilization started with blacks down in the Fertile Crescent region. White guys were the schlubs of humanity for thousands upon thousands of years, being victimized by the African coastal kingdoms and empires like Egypt, and then later by the dusky and olive skinned Mediterreaneans (Greeks, Romans). So called "white Anglo Saxon" civlization didn't really come to pass until after the fall of Rome.

Give if a few thousand years and someone else will be in charge. Heck, it might not even be that long. Truthfully I suspect the era of great white civilizations is going to end fairly soon due to our own morality. If we don't bite the bullet and take action I think we might very well see the world being run from Asia, probably China. When that happens I think it will be a bad world to be a white person, due to how racist people are outside of our civilizations (which we don't accept) and how massively outnumbered we are. Not to mention the previous "big dog" is never well liked and I kind of suspect a lot of people are going
to line up to take a kick, deserved or not.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I think feminists are the same as any section of society who see themselves as repressed - they may have a valid basis, but by god do they get annoying when the start demonising Average Joes for being "enablers" or "puppets of the status quo" or whatever. Kind of like hyper-sensitive ethnic groups who see racism in every shadow and behind every wall; the common man just doesn't care enough to give you offense, so stop being offended.

The "common man" doesn't care enough to go out of their way to cause offense. That's not quite the same thing. Apathy and ignorance can cause problems without malice being involved.

Hell, there's no point claiming something is offensive if the intent was to offend you. It only works if the person made a mistake and would want to correct it, or at least avoid making it again in the future.

 

[zehydra]

"willingly ignorant of male privilege"

Sigh.

I'll become a Feminist when Feminists drop the Female label. I'm a "Gender Egalitarian".

Just for the record, fighting for economic equality IS NOT fighting for the proletariat.