https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgg6IUwspB0
I still like Rep Gabbard and Rep Ellison. They aren't perfect, but I respect them anyway. But they aren't my district.
The idealism of one sex, one gender, one sexual preference ... is based on a denial of science, it is Lysenkoism aka Scientific Communism. It serves the Elite's agenda, for the rest of us to all be considered interchangeable "it". I don't normally support revolution, but the Elite deserve it. Again, equal outcome, is a social insect model (see E O Wilson). But who will be the Queen?
Humans are malleable, and we can have better egalitarianism. But as long as we enslave ourselves to the Elite, you can forget any real progress at all, except for the fake progress of the techno-saviors (AI plus robots equals ... freedom?). Marx predicted the disruptive effects of advanced technology too.
What feminism wants, is for almost all of us to the sterile female clones of the Queen. Then we will be truly "With Her". Remember, Freedom is Slavery etc. There are people here who want to be well paid drones ... or be Queens themselves. Fuck you.
Jesus fucking christ.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 10:35:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgg6IUwspB0
I still like Rep Gabbard and Rep Ellison. They aren't perfect, but I respect them anyway. But they aren't my district.
The idealism of one sex, one gender, one sexual preference ... is based on a denial of science, it is Lysenkoism aka Scientific Communism. It serves the Elite's agenda, for the rest of us to all be considered interchangeable "it". I don't normally support revolution, but the Elite deserve it. Again, equal outcome, is a social insect model (see E O Wilson). But who will be the Queen?
Humans are malleable, and we can have better egalitarianism. But as long as we enslave ourselves to the Elite, you can forget any real progress at all, except for the fake progress of the techno-saviors (AI plus robots equals ... freedom?). Marx predicted the disruptive effects of advanced technology too.
What feminism wants, is for almost all of us to the sterile female clones of the Queen. Then we will be truly "With Her". Remember, Freedom is Slavery etc. There are people here who want to be well paid drones ... or be Queens themselves. Fuck you.
Were you drunk when you posted this? In my eyes you are simply blaming the victim. You remind me of the 'historians' who claimed that being a slave in the South wasn't really all that bad. Are you seriously trying to convince me that Patriarchy isn't alive and well in this society--and world wide????
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2018, 12:18:33 PM
Were you drunk when you posted this? In my eyes you are simply blaming the victim. You remind me of the 'historians' who claimed that being a slave in the South wasn't really all that bad. Are you seriously trying to convince me that Patriarchy isn't alive and well in this society--and world wide????
Define the patriarchy. Go into detail.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 10, 2018, 03:57:53 PM
Define the patriarchy. Go into detail.
Google sez: The patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2018, 12:18:33 PM
Were you drunk when you posted this? In my eyes you are simply blaming the victim. You remind me of the 'historians' who claimed that being a slave in the South wasn't really all that bad. Are you seriously trying to convince me that Patriarchy isn't alive and well in this society--and world wide????
You feel guilty ... because you are a perp against women? Or just as a man, you blame all men? I feel sorry for you ... as a man, if that is so.
Release the Vagina Doomsday bomb ... every 28+ days ;-)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 10, 2018, 03:57:53 PM
Define the patriarchy. Go into detail.
Like the "one electron in the universe theory" ... there is only one man, the Patriarch, meandering forward and backward thru space-time ... and he/we are an asshole, always has been, always will be.
One German was an asshole (actually more than one but stay with me) ... therefore all Germans are evil, and all Germans must be exterminated, or WW III, WW IV etc will happen. Aieeeeeee. Take that insanity, and generalize to all men, instead of all Germans.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 10, 2018, 04:48:19 PM
Google sez: The patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.
You don't want to see my "Baruch" definition of everything that is wrong with women (and yes, men suck too).
You just need a good old Amazon matriarchy ... like in last year's movie ;-) There is no equality, there is only dominance ... but like the Cold War, we don't actually have to kill each other over this. A balance of power ... called marriage and family.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 10, 2018, 03:57:53 PM
Define the patriarchy. Go into detail.
Define why you are so fucking stupid. Go into detail.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 06:59:14 PM
You feel guilty ... because you are a perp against women? Or just as a man, you blame all men? I feel sorry for you ... as a man, if that is so.
Release the Vagina Doomsday bomb ... every 28+ days ;-)
Just another one of your typical, empty snide comments.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 07:03:14 PM
You don't want to see my "Baruch" definition of everything that is wrong with women (and yes, men suck too).
... called marriage and family.
Just what is the ideal christian family or muslim family or most other organized religions? The man is the head of the family unit and rules over all other members. I guess that is a balance of power, right? Except the power lies with the man.
Sargon has defected. He is still seriously whining about Anita Sarkeesian, as dead of a meme that she is. He is no longer a legitimate source for anything.
Sad, because I used to enjoy his stuff.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 10, 2018, 04:48:19 PM
Google sez: The patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children.
Demonstrate, then, that the US is a patriarchy.
You were referring to the US, at least among others, when you said, 'this society', yes?
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2018, 08:33:33 PM
Define why you are so fucking stupid. Go into detail.
You are so fucking weak.
You can't defend your position, and you're aware that you don't need to because to surround yourself with people who believe the same things you do. Thus, you know you can insult someone for merely questioning your positions integrity and not face any social backlash for it. In fact, in earns you credibility in their eyes, for you're a good member of the group; you tow the line.
It's precisely that the vast majority of humans are the same way as you that this world is complete shit.
Anti-intellectual fucking retards. Too stupid to live.
QuoteDemonstrate, then, that the US is a patriarchy.
Number of male-to-female presidents.
Number of male-to-female Senators.
Number of male-to-female Supreme Court Justices (96%-to-4%)
Number of male-to-female business owners and CEOS.
Number of male-to-female leadership in unions.
Number of women who adopt their husband's name instead of keeping their own or having him adopt theirs.
Number of instances of sexual objectification in marketing of women vs men.
Number of women who get involved in STEM fields due largely in part to the fact that it is "not a woman's role" or what women should be interested in.
Number of women who face domestic abuse versus the number of men.
Number of women who face rape versus the number of men.
Number of laws restricting a woman's right to her body vs number of laws restricting a man's right to his body.
Number of American citizens practicing one form of another of fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Judaism which are inherently patriarchal in nature.
Number of American women who are pressured into marriage, or arranged a marriage vs number of American men who are pressured or arranged into a marriage (and yes, this is a "white" person thing too; my adopted mother is Scottish and her first wedding to an abusive alcoholic was an arranged marriage).
Number of jobs that are exclusively male vs number that are exclusively female (this again comes down to religion, mostly Southern Baptist).
The fact that a 30 year old woman who is unmarried is significantly more socially stigmatized than a man who is 30 years old.
The fact that women who are "too smart" are believed to turn men off.
The fact that women hold 21% of leadership positions in nonprofits despite the fact that they make up 76% of nonprofit workers.
32% of households with women as the head live in poverty vs 16.1% headed by men.
Women outside of marriage are significantly more likely to live in poverty than men.
Women on average will make between 3% and 33% less money than a male in the same field in their life time.
Women will be passed over for promotion if a male is available.
Women make up 78.4% of the labour force in health care and social assistance, while only making up 14.6 percent of XOs and 12.4% of board directors (and 0.0% CEOs).
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2018, 08:34:45 PM
Just another one of your typical, empty snide comments.
I had a mother etc, have an ex and a daughter. I don't need Left ideology to know what women are like. And I still like them in spite of my experience with them. I went into it not knowing what to expect, and I still don't ;-)
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
Just what is the ideal christian family or muslim family or most other organized religions? The man is the head of the family unit and rules over all other members. I guess that is a balance of power, right? Except the power lies with the man.
So you hate your family of origin? Did your dad beat all the family members, and rape all the female members? Really? Were you raised by chimps?
You agree to define women as a victim group. You are Identity politics ... you are Democrat ... aka SJW ... aka Communist?
Quote from: Shiranu on February 10, 2018, 09:46:31 PM
Number of male-to-female presidents.
Number of male-to-female Senators.
Number of male-to-female Supreme Court Justices (96%-to-4%)
Number of male-to-female business owners and CEOS.
Number of male-to-female leadership in unions.
Number of women who adopt their husband's name instead of keeping their own or having him adopt theirs.
Number of instances of sexual objectification in marketing of women vs men.
Number of women who get involved in STEM fields due largely in part to the fact that it is "not a woman's role" or what women should be interested in.
Number of women who face domestic abuse versus the number of men.
Number of women who face rape versus the number of men.
Number of laws restricting a woman's right to her body vs number of laws restricting a man's right to his body.
Number of American citizens practicing one form of another of fundamentalist Christianity, Islam, Judaism which are inherently patriarchal in nature.
Number of American women who are pressured into marriage, or arranged a marriage vs number of American men who are pressured or arranged into a marriage (and yes, this is a "white" person thing too; my adopted mother is Scottish and her first wedding to an abusive alcoholic was an arranged marriage).
Number of jobs that are exclusively male vs number that are exclusively female (this again comes down to religion, mostly Southern Baptist).
The fact that a 30 year old woman who is unmarried is significantly more socially stigmatized than a man who is 30 years old.
The fact that women who are "too smart" are believed to turn men off.
The fact that women hold 21% of leadership positions in nonprofits despite the fact that they make up 76% of nonprofit workers.
32% of households with women as the head live in poverty vs 16.1% headed by men.
Women outside of marriage are significantly more likely to live in poverty than men.
Women on average will make between 3% and 33% less money than a male in the same field in their life time.
Women will be passed over for promotion if a male is available.
Women make up 78.4% of the labour force in health care and social assistance, while only making up 14.6 percent of XOs and 12.4% of board directors (and 0.0% CEOs).
Get thee to Amazon island, but get a sex change first ;-) Feminism (as discussed here) is based on fear/hate of men. Men who are feminists are self-hating men. That is bigoted ... either you hate all humans or you love all humans ... or you are a bigot.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 05:44:52 AM
Feminism (as discussed here) is based on fear/hate of men. Men who are feminists are self-hating men. That is bigoted ... either you hate all humans or you love all humans ... or you are a bigot.
If you truly believe this, you are a moronic fool.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 11, 2018, 08:55:59 AM
If you truly believe this, you are a moronic fool.
Then bigots are geniuses. I am still divided on loving or hating humanity as a whole. As far as individuals go, I am trying to only dislike what they do, as individuals, not who they are ... nor group them into Democratic party special interest groups. I am not interested in helping any political party achieve the Satanic status they all crave.
I have noticed that the left, SJWs, feminist have the same superior feeling, certitude, self-righteous arrogance, rudeness that the fundamentalist religious have.
Challange their beliefs and you are attacking their ego, their personhood.
More and more people leaving the SJW/leftist/feminist ideology.
That is a good thing.
See the many Youtube videos there are "Why I am not a Feminist" or an SJW.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9nf1QTNqEA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD65wnDGuTg
Anyone who is pro-woman, because they are pro-human ... I consider to be good. Being pro-woman doesn't involve being anti-man or anti-child, because those are not pro-human. I happen to be a religious humanist, but I consider secular humanists to be allies. But I consider no person as an enemy, even though our actions as human beings, are often wrong. And we must be very careful of the distortion caused by tribalism of ideology.
And as pro-human (a humanist) I am not unaware of my natural environment, proper care for nature beyond human beings. We are a part of our natural environment ... an entirely artificial environment (as we might find on Martian/Lunar colonies or at a S Pole station ... is not conducive to humanity. Artificial environments can only ever be partial, as outposts still connected to some natural environment.
I don't see any flaws with this outline, only flaws in implementation.
If there is terraforming of Mars some day ... we will have another natural environment to despoil.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 05:41:58 AM
I had a mother etc, have an ex and a daughter. I don't need Left ideology to know what women are like. And I still like them in spite of my experience with them. I went into it not knowing what to expect, and I still don't ;-)
I see you just simply don't tire of inane comments.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 05:43:27 AM
So you hate your family of origin? Did your dad beat all the family members, and rape all the female members? Really? Were you raised by chimps?
You agree to define women as a victim group. You are Identity politics ... you are Democrat ... aka SJW ... aka Communist?
Your forte--inane and snide comments.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 09:09:01 AM
Then bigots are geniuses.
You do seem to think so--and in your particular case, I think that is correct. I still regard much of what you say as in the 'genius' area. But you do have a proclivity to make utterly bigoted statements about people lumping them into a 'either or' category. I know you know that few things are simply all black or all white, most live in an area of grey; but you don't say that very often. You seem to love to blame the victim quite a bit--or that is how you come across.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 11:40:53 AM
Anyone who is pro-woman, because they are pro-human ... I consider to be good. Being pro-woman doesn't involve being anti-man or anti-child, because those are not pro-human. I happen to be a religious humanist, but I consider secular humanists to be allies. But I consider no person as an enemy, even though our actions as human beings, are often wrong. And we must be very careful of the distortion caused by tribalism of ideology.
And as pro-human (a humanist) I am not unaware of my natural environment, proper care for nature beyond human beings. We are a part of our natural environment ... an entirely artificial environment (as we might find on Martian/Lunar colonies or at a S Pole station ... is not conducive to humanity. Artificial environments can only ever be partial, as outposts still connected to some natural environment.
I don't see any flaws with this outline, only flaws in implementation.
If there is terraforming of Mars some day ... we will have another natural environment to despoil.
This statement is in stark contrast to the other bombastic replies you've made about this topic. I agree with it. I criticize the society I live in not to tear it down, but to improve it, make it more fair and equitable. The same for my country--I point out its flaws to improve it, not destroy it.
My dad was a Southern boy from rural Texas, steeped in 'the man is the head of the family' and 'a man's home is his castle'. My mother was a feminist in that she did not feel relegated to the traditional role of a wife supporting a husband in all things. It was not a rebellion. It was her living her life with the ideal (unspoken) that a marriage was a partnership in that each partner needed to make a 100% commitment to that relationship and that it needed to be fair to all parties. So, me and my brothers grew up in an environment in which it was evident that my mother was not the inferior to the husband, but a partner who expected to be treated with respect. She did not live her life rebelling against a husband treating her unfairly; she lived her life expecting and accepting no less that being treated as and regarded as an equal partner. That example is where I draw my meaning of what a feminist is.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 10, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
Demonstrate, then, that the US is a patriarchy.
You were referring to the US, at least among others, when you said, 'this society', yes?
You're going to keep moving the goalpost, aren't you?
Sargon really loves beating dead horses, it would seem. Although I'm not really surprised, given that he seems to be following the lead of God-Emperor Trump these days.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2018, 12:02:34 PM
I see you just simply don't tire of inane comments.
You know all women intimately, and have taken an average and standard deviation of their opinions? If I don't know of women directly, but only thru Marxist ideology, then may Lenin's mom expel me from the Party!
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2018, 04:17:20 PM
Sargon really loves beating dead horses, it would seem. Although I'm not really surprised, given that he seems to be following the lead of God-Emperor Trump these days.
If one is really anti-Feminist ... I don't know if he is or not ... then it must really suck being ruled by a Queen.
Quote from: Baruch on February 11, 2018, 04:35:57 PM
You know all women intimately, and have taken an average and standard deviation of their opinions? If I don't know of women directly, but only thru Marxist ideology, then may Lenin's mom expel me from the Party!
????????????????
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2018, 06:51:23 PM
????????????????
I wrote out an identical thing but didn't post it.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2018, 10:35:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgg6IUwspB0
I still like Rep Gabbard and Rep Ellison. They aren't perfect, but I respect them anyway. But they aren't my district.
The idealism of one sex, one gender, one sexual preference ... is based on a denial of science, it is Lysenkoism aka Scientific Communism. It serves the Elite's agenda, for the rest of us to all be considered interchangeable "it". I don't normally support revolution, but the Elite deserve it. Again, equal outcome, is a social insect model (see E O Wilson). But who will be the Queen?
Humans are malleable, and we can have better egalitarianism. But as long as we enslave ourselves to the Elite, you can forget any real progress at all, except for the fake progress of the techno-saviors (AI plus robots equals ... freedom?). Marx predicted the disruptive effects of advanced technology too.
What feminism wants, is for almost all of us to the sterile female clones of the Queen. Then we will be truly "With Her". Remember, Freedom is Slavery etc. There are people here who want to be well paid drones ... or be Queens themselves. Fuck you.
Did you even watch Sargon of Akkad's video you posted?
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 11, 2018, 08:21:08 PM
Did you even watch Sargon of Akkad's video you posted?
Yes. He made some good points, relevant to the current string. No, I don't reject people because they voted wrong in the last British election. I don't reject people if they like Trump or Hillary (but they lose a lot of brownie points doing that). Like I said, this is about one of only two Congress people I would not vote off Survivor Island. She doesn't have to be perfect, neither does Rep Ellison. The rest however can be dropped into Haiti. They serve only as negative examples.
Other people here, using litmus tests, reject Gabbard because she supports Modhi as leader in India. I am not fond of him either.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 10, 2018, 09:46:31 PM
Number of laws restricting a woman's right to her body vs number of laws restricting a man's right to his body.
I find it curious that as a man I could walk into any pharmacy in america and pick up a pack of condoms, but as a woman, I'd need to sit through a video about abortion before I could pick up a morning after pill.
Quote from: Mermaid on February 11, 2018, 08:00:58 PM
I wrote out an identical thing but didn't post it.
It is helpful for both of you to understand that while engaging with the man babbling along the sidewalk is an act of kindness and caring, it is also most useless.
Quote from: Jason78 on February 12, 2018, 12:11:05 PM
I find it curious that as a man I could walk into any pharmacy in america and pick up a pack of condoms, but as a woman, I'd need to sit through a video about abortion before I could pick up a morning after pill.
Not in Europe as I understand it. Blame the puritans. Not all men are puritans. In fact, usually it is conservative women who enforce the sisterhood rules.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 10, 2018, 09:46:31 PM
Number of male-to-female presidents.
Etc.
Desire for the jobs, which is improving.
Tolerance for the jobs, which is improving.
Learning to stop whining when insulted, which is improving.
And there are benefits of women in politics. More consensus, less anger, more inclusiveness.
But that can go too far as well. Consensus can mean no progress, less anger can mean less passion for programs, inclusiveness just to be inclusive can leave out some best talents because they exceed quotas.
I hope for a merit-based balance of all, sometimes some imbalances when talent meets opportunities, but general balance over time.
Yes, but that isn't their point ... you are being egalitarian aka American Revolution ... not French Revolution. The sans-cullotes want a bureaucrat on every corner (aka commissar) and buckets of blood.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 05:32:10 AM
Yes, but that isn't their point ... you are being egalitarian aka American Revolution ... not French Revolution. The sans-cullotes want a bureaucrat on every corner (aka commissar) and buckets of blood.
That is your claim. *I* think they just want my hot 6.6% Iberian and Middle Eastern genes. Beat THAT you Frankophile! ;)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2018, 04:17:20 PM
Sargon really loves beating dead horses, it would seem. Although I'm not really surprised, given that he seems to be following the lead of God-Emperor Trump these days.
I'm still not convinced that he supports Trump... I have a feeling he's just being labeled as a trump supporter/alt right because he's horrible at letting go of beating dead horses...
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 13, 2018, 03:08:21 PM
I'm still not convinced that he supports Trump... I have a feeling he's just being labeled as a trump supporter/alt right because he's horrible at letting go of beating dead horses...
Saying anyone, not American, that they support Trump ... is paranoid (usual D party condition). Looks like it was the D-party making kissy face with Putin. Sargon may or may not support PM May etc. The British Labor party is serious communism. I would like to see them do more of what they already did there, so that Americans can see the crash and burn in action. Venezuela isn't enough of an object lesson.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 13, 2018, 09:15:43 AM
That is your claim. *I* think they just want my hot 6.6% Iberian and Middle Eastern genes. Beat THAT you Frankophile! ;)
The French are interesting ... but that doesn't mean I agree with them. I would be on the side of the Scarlet Pimpernel.
Quote from: Baruch on February 13, 2018, 07:40:43 PM
Saying anyone, not American, that they support Trump ... is paranoid (usual D party condition). Looks like it was the D-party making kissy face with Putin. Sargon may or may not support PM May etc. The British Labor party is serious communism. I would like to see them do more of what they already did there, so that Americans can see the crash and burn in action. Venezuela isn't enough of an object lesson.
Saying the Democrats were making kissy-face with Putin for looking at opponent research started by Republicans and learned by a Brit is getting WAY over the cliff here. Especially when the reports were actually started by a drunk Republican strategist talking to a foreign diplomat...
I wish you would stop cherry-picking the news and pay more attention to more overall-respected news sources.
Get yer facts straight buddy, this isn't the Fox News Channel!
Quote from: Cavebear on February 15, 2018, 03:02:46 AM
Saying the Democrats were making kissy-face with Putin for looking at opponent research started by Republicans and learned by a Brit is getting WAY over the cliff here. Especially when the reports were actually started by a drunk Republican strategist talking to a foreign diplomat...
I wish you would stop cherry-picking the news and pay more attention to more overall-respected news sources.
Get yer facts straight buddy, this isn't the Fox News Channel!
Demos pick enough cherries to bake a pie. You believe all the COINTELPRO since the Warren Commission, amIright?
Quote from: PickelledEggs on February 13, 2018, 03:08:21 PM
I'm still not convinced that he supports Trump... I have a feeling he's just being labeled as a trump supporter/alt right because he's horrible at letting go of beating dead horses...
It's more in the line that Sargon of Akkad thinks Trump is an useful idiot.
Quote from: Baruch on February 18, 2018, 08:28:54 PM
Demos pick enough cherries to bake a pie. You believe all the COINTELPRO since the Warren Commission, amIright?
I believe verifiable information. And, BTW, I call "Republicans", "Republicans". You can have the decency to call "Democrats", "Democrats". And it isn't the "Democrat" party, it's the "Democratic" party...
Unless you want to be called "Repubs".
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2018, 02:32:12 AM
I believe verifiable information. And, BTW, I call "Republicans", "Republicans". You can have the decency to call "Democrats", "Democrats". And it isn't the "Democrat" party, it's the "Democratic" party...
Unless you want to be called "Repubs".
There isn't anything democratic, about the Democrat Party central committee. By all means, call any party by rude names ... they deserve it. Worthless turds in a septic tank that they are.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2018, 07:09:26 AM
There isn't anything democratic, about the Democrat Party central committee. By all means, call any party by rude names ... they deserve it. Worthless turds in a septic tank that they are.
You say "central committee" as if the Democratic party was a Soviet. They aren't and never will be. And you are still saying "Democrat" party. That is a deliberate insult. I request you please stop doing that.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 19, 2018, 08:21:31 AM
You say "central committee" as if the Democratic party was a Soviet. They aren't and never will be. And you are still saying "Democrat" party. That is a deliberate insult. I request you please stop doing that.
They are turncoats ... in 1776, 1861 and onward and downward. I am not insulting you. But if you consider a party, to be a person, then you must be a SCOTUS member ;-( It isn't possible to insult an inanimate thing or an idea. I have toyed with you, never insulted you. Unless of course you can't separate your ideology from your own personality.
Quote from: Baruch on February 19, 2018, 08:10:31 PM
They are turncoats ... in 1776, 1861 and onward and downward. I am not insulting you. But if you consider a party, to be a person, then you must be a SCOTUS member ;-( It isn't possible to insult an inanimate thing or an idea. I have toyed with you, never insulted you. Unless of course you can't separate your ideology from your own personality.
Given that you want the US to return to 1776, I hold out no hope for you. And less interest.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 28, 2018, 05:18:12 AM
Given that you want the US to return to 1776, I hold out no hope for you. And less interest.
Just enough interest to keep replying. ;)
Quote from: pr126 on February 28, 2018, 05:45:00 AM
Just enough interest to keep replying. ;)
Defiant projection and self justification is what we do.
Quote from: pr126 on February 28, 2018, 05:45:00 AM
Just enough interest to keep replying. ;)
Only game in town sometimes. But I would prefer better.
Quote from: Baruch on February 28, 2018, 06:18:25 AM
Defiant projection and self justification is what we do.
Well, you ARE projecting and justifying. I mostly just correct you. Its a dirty job, but someone has to do it.
I'm a woman and don't feel oppressed. There, I said it.
Feminism, at its inception, was an incredible path-blazing movement that caused women to have the same freedoms as men. This doesn't mean we become identical to men, but that we should be allowed the same freedoms as men. But, with that, should come the same responsibilities for those freedoms. Many radical feminists want to play the victim when it suits, asking men to rescue us, and in the next breath, telling men that we don't need them.
Once that stops, and a balance returns, and we stop competing with who is better, we will see less strife between men and women. Discrimination still goes on, and so does sexism and misogyny. But, misandry is also a very real thing, and two wrongs will never make a right.
Outstanding.
A positive co-dependent relationship, or a negative co-dependent relationship ... isn't the ideal. A partnership between complementary gender, complementary personality.
Quote from: Baruch on April 04, 2018, 09:30:01 PM
Outstanding.
A positive co-dependent relationship, or a negative co-dependent relationship ... isn't the ideal. A partnership between complementary gender, complementary personality.
Equal doesn't mean 'same.' I don't want to be 'like a man.' I also don't want to have to prove myself to be 'as good as a man' at anything. That is where feminism is going wrong, it's setting this bar for women that we have to measure up to men, as if being a man is the standard. Which is hypocritical in the sense that as a woman, I'm already good enough. Isn't that what feminism wants me to believe? In the same token, feminism wants to push the idea that I need to keep striving to 'beat' men at life, and I strive to do my best for me. Not to be as good as a man, because it's insulting to tell me that I'm only worthwhile if I can be as good as a man at something.
Quote from: Deidre32 on April 04, 2018, 10:17:00 PM
Equal doesn't mean 'same.' I don't want to be 'like a man.' I also don't want to have to prove myself to be 'as good as a man' at anything. That is where feminism is going wrong, it's setting this bar for women that we have to measure up to men, as if being a man is the standard. Which is hypocritical in the sense that as a woman, I'm already good enough. Isn't that what feminism wants me to believe? In the same token, feminism wants to push the idea that I need to keep striving to 'beat' men at life, and I strive to do my best for me. Not to be as good as a man, because it's insulting to tell me that I'm only worthwhile if I can be as good as a man at something.
I understand that completely. I had a valued woman co-worker for years and while we did not always agree on everything (but most) I learned from her and she learned from me. I became a bit more consensus-oriented and she learned to be a bit more assertive. It benefited both of us. Actually, we became quite a good team in the office.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 04, 2018, 11:27:56 PM
I understand that completely. I had a valued woman co-worker for years and while we did not always agree on everything (but most) I learned from her and she learned from me. I became a bit more consensus-oriented and she learned to be a bit more assertive. It benefited both of us. Actually, we became quite a good team in the office.
That's great, and really, what it should be if we all work on it. The media is caught up with pitting men against women, forcing the feminist narrative to mean that women should always be competing with men. The message is often double sided, that there's a bad man lurking on every corner, but at the same time, women need men to bail us out of our own mistakes, or help us out in life. It's just a constant mixed message, and it really creates this victim mentality, instead of offering solutions that men and women can work by, to not only coexist, but thrive. We should want more for ourselves than mere coexistence. Thanks for sharing that Cavebear. :)
People do need other people ... but the next time you need help (and you will, we all do) ... it doesn't have to be a man.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 11, 2018, 12:28:43 PM
This statement is in stark contrast to the other bombastic replies you've made about this topic. I agree with it. I criticize the society I live in not to tear it down, but to improve it, make it more fair and equitable. The same for my country--I point out its flaws to improve it, not destroy it.
My dad was a Southern boy from rural Texas, steeped in 'the man is the head of the family' and 'a man's home is his castle'. My mother was a feminist in that she did not feel relegated to the traditional role of a wife supporting a husband in all things. It was not a rebellion. It was her living her life with the ideal (unspoken) that a marriage was a partnership in that each partner needed to make a 100% commitment to that relationship and that it needed to be fair to all parties. So, me and my brothers grew up in an environment in which it was evident that my mother was not the inferior to the husband, but a partner who expected to be treated with respect. She did not live her life rebelling against a husband treating her unfairly; she lived her life expecting and accepting no less that being treated as and regarded as an equal partner. That example is where I draw my meaning of what a feminist is.
Nice. When Baruch is challenged, he tends to feel forced to write sensibly. The problem is that he doesn't get challenged enough. I've sort of given up on him. I think he has potential, but something stops him. I have a life that demands more attention than solving his problems, though.
Quote from: Deidre32 on April 04, 2018, 11:40:38 PM
The media is caught up with pitting men against women, forcing the feminist narrative to mean that women should always be competing with men.
Welcome to frankfurt marxism =]
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2018, 03:20:17 AM
Welcome to frankfurt marxism =]
Capitalism liked 1970s feminism, because it meant ... pay men less, by having their wives and girlfriends compete with them in the job force. Empowering women wasn't as troublesome as it could have been, because the public continued to be brainwashed, while believing it was progressive.
Quote from: Baruch on April 08, 2018, 08:26:57 AM
Capitalism liked 1970s feminism, because it meant ... pay men less, by having their wives and girlfriends compete with them in the job force. Empowering women wasn't as troublesome as it could have been, because the public continued to be brainwashed, while believing it was progressive.
Yep.
The work force - the supply of labour - suddenly doubled, almost overnight, but the demand stayed mostly the same. And so wages plummeted. Any woman who was coupled with a man and chose to work didn't bring any more money to the household, because what they made together was what the man used to make by himself. It allowed women to become dependent, if they so chose it, at least.
Thing is, that's not what they chose.
Rather than receiving resources from a man DIRECTLY, and rather than paving their own way through life, women,
as a collective, now depend on the state for resources. In the US, and most (if not all) other first world nations, women as a demographic do not pay taxes - since as a demographic they use more dollars worth of social services than they pay in taxes. They're still leeching off the men of the nation even after feminism, only they're not living with them or fucking them, anymore. They're using the state to force the men to pay for their expenses while they remain single. All the while feminists bitch and moan that men are to blame for all their problems, meanwhile men built and maintain everything around them, and pay all the nations taxes and subsequently for all of womens social services.
Most feminists are retarded. The others are capitalising on the stupidity of the former.
The deliberate destruction of marriage, and the creation of female dependence on the State, initially focussed on our horrendous Welfare system created in the 1960s, designed to create an indirect destruction of African-American communities (which had scared the White folk with the Civil Rights and Black Power movements). The front door Democrat suppression of Blacks with firehoses and police batons and police dogs was replaced with the back door Democrat suppression of Blacks with a welfare system that encouraged single motherhood, lots of children out of wedlock, and the disproportionate drafting of young Black men into Vietnam, and the prison system. The form of oppression in the US has changed from the 1950s, but is still ongoing. The Left of the 60s were COINTELPRO by the MIC then, and now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HRUEqyZ7p8
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 08, 2018, 11:09:44 AM
Yep.
The work force - the supply of labour - suddenly doubled, almost overnight, but the demand stayed mostly the same. And so wages plummeted. Any woman who was coupled with a man and chose to work didn't bring any more money to the household, because what they made together was what the man used to make by himself. It allowed women to become dependent, if they so chose it, at least.
Thing is, that's not what they chose.
Rather than receiving resources from a man DIRECTLY, and rather than paving their own way through life, women, as a collective, now depend on the state for resources. In the US, and most (if not all) other first world nations, women as a demographic do not pay taxes - since as a demographic they use more dollars worth of social services than they pay in taxes. They're still leeching off the men of the nation even after feminism, only they're not living with them or fucking them, anymore. They're using the state to force the men to pay for their expenses while they remain single. All the while feminists bitch and moan that men are to blame for all their problems, meanwhile men built and maintain everything around them, and pay all the nations taxes and subsequently for all of womens social services.
Most feminists are retarded. The others are capitalising on the stupidity of the former.
I'm reminded about the Cathy Newman debate with Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News; Cathy argued that girls had to pay more for helmets because pink helmets cost more than blue ones. Most people saw this argument for what it was: ignoring consumer options. If something is cheaper and of the same quality, people will (unless they're some ridiculous aesthetic reason) always choose the cheaper option. Besides, you could just as well just paint the helmet pink.
As for the gender pay gap, the gap exists because the output of the female work force is simply less than that of men. All the statistics point to this inescapable fact. Even if feminists wanted to close the gap, they would only be able to do so by either/or reducing men's work output and/or increasing women's output, because the same amount of work NETS THE SAME AMOUNT OF PAY. Again, men simply work more than women on average.
I don't understand why they even want to eliminate this pay gap anyways, other than achieving some nefarious ideology (coughrafidicalfeminismcough). So what if a difference exists? You want to strive for a higher pay? That means there's a ladder to climb, and if there was no ladder to climb you wouldn't want to improve, now would you? Instead of trying to eliminate the differences, instead recognize them for what they are: a multitude of differences, from biological to technological to cultural and social and find your place in the world of work and salary.
Quote from: Sal1981 on April 09, 2018, 01:08:15 PM
I don't understand why they even want to eliminate this pay gap anyways, other than achieving some nefarious ideology (coughrafidicalfeminismcough). So what if a difference exists? You want to strive for a higher pay? That means there's a ladder to climb, and if there was no ladder to climb you wouldn't want to improve, now would you? Instead of trying to eliminate the differences, instead recognize them for what they are: a multitude of differences, from biological to technological to cultural and social and find your place in the world of work and salary.
In their mind inequality (that is; simply not equal in proportion) =
inequity. They're not the same thing. They don't stop to think as far as you. They don't question what it actually means to make the total net income between sexes the exact same, nor do they question why it not being the same is even bad.
The only way I could see a nation making its net income for its citizens equal between the sexes is for government to force every corporation to pay exactly the same for every single job, and to also take CEO's income until it equals that of everyone elses pay, and to also not let any more men earn income than there are women earning income.
^ That's what it means to close the gender wage gap.
But feminists don't think that far. They don't know what it is they are advocating for. They're so fucking stupid that when they hear 'pay gap' (which is a false characterisation; it'd be more accurately described as a 'wage gap') they think that they're hearing about an omnipresent custom of paying individuals differently for doing the same job.
And then feminists are dogmatic as all fuck, too. As bad as any cult are 'progressives.' As soon as you challenge their narrative, they just resort to ad hominems and group-ostracisation. You see, they posit that believing in their narrative is necessary to being a good person, and so if you question it, you are a bad person. Leftists are really good at demonising their opponents - to the point where don't even consider their detractors human; rather they are monsters. And you don't argue with monsters.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 02:16:54 PM
And then feminists are dogmatic as all fuck, too. As bad as any cult are 'progressives.' As soon as you challenge their narrative, they just resort to ad hominems and group-ostracisation. You see, they posit that believing in their narrative is necessary to being a good person, and so if you question it, you are a bad person. Leftists are really good at demonising their opponents - to the point where don't even consider their detractors human; rather they are monsters. And you don't argue with monsters.
Girl apes have always controlled boy apes that way (in civilized ape town). You either tow the line, or no possibility of dates or marriage or children. The preferences of women are what control male genetics (bigger and stronger and less feminine). The preferences of men are also controlled by women, we are programmed to desire the more feminine women ... of course this pisses off the Plain Janes to no end. Men are controlled, coming and going ... and this wasn't apparent until most modern times ... before it was done indirectly, now it can be done by consumer choice and voting. In patriarchal society, women aren't allowed to shop BTW. Things are the way they should be, as of 200 years ago. Pre-industrial and un-liberated women. This won't last. Post-industrial women won't need men at all ... robots do all the work, and medicine makes artificial pregnancy, and a really liberated woman doesn't need to give birth or breast feed or raise children ... Brave New World is the Feminist agenda.
Quote from: Baruch on April 09, 2018, 10:41:56 PM
Girl apes have always controlled boy apes that way (in civilized ape town). You either tow the line, or no possibility of dates or marriage or children.
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.
Have you ever had a pretty girl bat her eyes at you? Why are you hanging out with bats anyway? ;-)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.
That is interesting. Feminism would have died without women too... Or been irrelevant.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 09, 2018, 10:56:01 PM
Bingo. You now have the reason as to why feminism has been allowed to exist as long as it has. Without any men, it would've died. Sadly, there's a lot of cowardly weakling out there who will to anything for pussy, even sacrifice their own political convictions, and subsequently their whole damn nation.
This. This is GENIUS! Genius, I tell you!
imagine being so dumbfucking stupid that you're an identitarian about your sex.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 10, 2018, 11:14:19 AM
imagine being so dumbfucking stupid that you're an identitarian about your sex.
Or skin color, hair color, language, favorite sport team ...
Used to be that tribes were all cousins, if not family. Now you can synchronously shake spears across the whole planet.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on April 10, 2018, 11:14:19 AM
imagine being so dumbfucking stupid that you're an identitarian about your sex.
If we had just one gender, there would be no sexism. But we do, and there is the problem. Differences cause differences and we all struggle with that. I am totally in favor of men and women getting the same pay for the same job. That was ONE of the good things about the Civil Service; equal job, equal pay. The best co-worker I had was a woman at the same grade at the same pay. But we also had a male and a female co-worker at the same grade and pay and neither were worth keeping as trash-collectors.
It depends on the skills of the person, not gender either way.
Quote from: Cavebear on April 13, 2018, 01:26:37 AM
If we had just one gender, there would be no sexism. But we do, and there is the problem. Differences cause differences and we all struggle with that. I am totally in favor of men and women getting the same pay for the same job. That was ONE of the good things about the Civil Service; equal job, equal pay. The best co-worker I had was a woman at the same grade at the same pay. But we also had a male and a female co-worker at the same grade and pay and neither were worth keeping as trash-collectors.
It depends on the skills of the person, not gender either way.
The civil service and military are better dealing with sexism, because they have actual rules, and bureaucratic levels of rank and step, that make it harder to manage arbitrarily. In the private sector, the supervisor can do anything his boss lets him do.
As far as deadwood goes, that seems to depend on if the supervisor is pro-active instead of reactive ... but with some people, you are pushing a rope no matter what you do. Also, some people require a much more structured work environment. I am experienced and reasonably self motivated, so a light hand is good for me.