Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 03:23 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 03:27 AM by One Above All.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:20 AM)One Above All Wrote:  ..but to imply that men cannot represent women (and vice-versa) is fallacious and contrary to evidence.

Facepalm

[Image: tumblr_inline_mgtttkMdQa1qfe5t2.png]

Did I miss something? Did you not say the percentage of women in politics and such needs to be proportional to the percentage of women in the general population, presumably because men cannot represent women? If not, why do women need to have women represent them, if men can do the job?
NOTE: I am not saying that women shouldn't be elected or hired or treated equally. I honestly don't give a crap if workers are men or women, as long as they do their job properly. I'm just asking what's the basis for requiring the aforementioned percentage of women. I inferred that it was based on the assumption that men can't represent women, and you've said nothing against that. I feel compelled to conclude that I'm right in this inference.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:29 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:22 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:14 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Because you are forcing an issue. Ideally is not reality and in this instance a group that is in fact a majority of voters has less than 23% of the representatives. If you don't see the problem with that you need to go take some basic math courses.

The problem is your assumption that men can't represent women. If you don't see the problem with that, you need to go out and interact with intelligent men and women.

That point would be valid if we were talking about a 5% give or take but when it is more than 30% then it is an issue. Yes men can represent women and vice versa however when a group is that under represented it creates a natural imbalance and is the reason why hard won victories of the feminist movement are being eroded.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:33 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:29 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That point would be valid if we were talking about a 5% give or take but when it is more than 30% then it is an issue. Yes men can represent women and vice versa however when a group is that under represented it creates a natural imbalance

...If men can represent women, how are women being under represented? I honestly don't understand how you can't see the contradiction here.

(20-10-2014 03:29 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  is the reason why hard won victories of the feminist movement are being eroded.

I was unaware of this. I do know that there have been setbacks (abortion has been a "hot button" topic lately), but I was under the impression that, by and large, women's issues were being worked on, albeit slowly (as social issues tend to be).
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I was unaware of this. Can you give me some articles I can read about this?

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:36 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:23 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Facepalm

[Image: tumblr_inline_mgtttkMdQa1qfe5t2.png]
Did I miss something? Did you not say the percentage of women in politics and such needs to be proportional to the percentage of women in the general population, presumably because men cannot represent women?

"Do I realistically expect them to perfectly match the actual population ratios? No, that would be silly."

The hell you think?


(20-10-2014 03:23 AM)One Above All Wrote:  If not, why do women need to have women represent them, if men can do the job?

I never said that. But when you look at positions of power, women are clearly under-represented at less than 20%, especially considering they are more than half of the population.


(20-10-2014 03:23 AM)One Above All Wrote:  NOTE: I am not saying that women shouldn't be elected or hired or treated equally. I honestly don't give a crap if workers are men or women, as long as they do their job properly. I'm just asking what's the basis for requiring the aforementioned percentage of women. I inferred that it was based on the assumption that men can't represent women, and you've said nothing against that. I feel compelled to conclude that I'm right in this inference.

You're dead-wrong in your inference.

Woman cannot be voted into office if they're not even on the ballot. I want more choice, I want the chance to be able to see female candidates, evaluate their positions, and the option to vote for them. But when the only two options I have are a male Democrat and a male Republican, I don't even get that choice. I'm not saying that I would vote for the woman, or that men can't represent women, but I want the have the fucking option.

And I would bet good money, that if we all had more choices, women would make up more than a measly <20% of representation.


I'm not mandating quotas, but rather lamenting the fact that our options are severely limited; and often women are not even included among those options.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:43 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:33 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:29 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That point would be valid if we were talking about a 5% give or take but when it is more than 30% then it is an issue. Yes men can represent women and vice versa however when a group is that under represented it creates a natural imbalance

...If men can represent women, how are women being under represented? I honestly don't understand how you can't see the contradiction here.

Are you being sarcastic here or just blindly stupid? This is like saying that Since white people can represent black people the Jim Crow era south had no racial problems.

(20-10-2014 03:33 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:29 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  is the reason why hard won victories of the feminist movement are being eroded.

I was unaware of this. I do know that there have been setbacks (abortion has been a "hot button" topic lately), but I was under the impression that, by and large, women's issues were being worked on, albeit slowly (as social issues tend to be).
And no, I'm not being sarcastic. I was unaware of this. Can you give me some articles I can read about this?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...hut%20down

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...%20control

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...r+on+women

Start there.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
20-10-2014, 03:45 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:23 AM)One Above All Wrote:  Did I miss something? Did you not say the percentage of women in politics and such needs to be proportional to the percentage of women in the general population, presumably because men cannot represent women?

"Do I realistically expect them to perfectly match the actual population ratios? No, that would be silly."

The hell you think?

Add "give or take a few percent" to my statement, reread it, then get back to me.

(20-10-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I never said that. But when you look at positions of power, women are clearly under-represented at less than 20%, especially considering they are more than half of the population.

OK, let's start this from the beginning.
We both agree that men can represent women, right? As in, men can vote in favor of eliminating women's issues, even though they're men.

(20-10-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Woman cannot be voted into office if they're not even on the ballot. I want more choice, I want the chance to be able to see female candidates, evaluate their positions, and the option to vote for them. But when the only two options I have are a male Democrat and a male Republican, I don't even get that choice. I'm not saying that I would vote for the woman, or that men can't represent women, but I want the have the fucking option.

I understand wanting to have choices, but when the choice is the same as another one, how is that a choice? I believe the expression "six of one, half a dozen of the other" applies here. If you agree that gender doesn't define what you support and oppose, what's the problem? (This is an actual hypothetical scenario, by the way. If you don't agree with the hypothesis, then this discussion won't go anywhere)

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:52 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 03:57 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:33 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 03:29 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  That point would be valid if we were talking about a 5% give or take but when it is more than 30% then it is an issue. Yes men can represent women and vice versa however when a group is that under represented it creates a natural imbalance
...If men can represent women, how are women being under represented? I honestly don't understand how you can't see the contradiction here.

Choice.

Take a typical election in the rural southern United States; let's say Nowhere Alabama. It's very religiously conservative, and the only two parties in town are the big two; Republicans and Democrats. Both can only field one candidate. Both field a male. Both have similar anti-abortion, anti-education, and anti-welfare stances. Their major disagreement is foreign policy.

Where is the pro-choice option? Where is the pro-education option? Where is the pro-social-safety-net option? These three things that would be incredibly important to a single woman or mother, yet they have no representation. And because these policies are so important to women (universal Pre-K would help more women than men), you would more likely find women who would agree with these points and be willing to run on them. Not that you couldn't have a male candidate run on this platform, or have a woman run against it. But neither party want to take that chance, their primary concern is winning the election: full stop.

But anybody that wanted a female candidate, or a candidate that ran on pro-woman policies simply isn't available. The choice simply isn't there. So there is a dearth of female representation, who can bring a female perspective to their work. We're still not at the point where men are just as likely to champion women's advancement as readily as their own. When we're having debates on policies that affect women more than men (i.e. abortion, pre-K education), is it wrong to want greater female representation? Access to a greater female perspective, access we simply do not currently have?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-10-2014, 04:03 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Are you being sarcastic here or just blindly stupid? This is like saying that Since white people can represent black people the Jim Crow era south had no racial problems.

It's not, in fact, like that. Not only can men represent women, but men are representing women.
Social issues start being discussed when the oppressed minority (in this case, for some bizarre reason, majority) makes its issues "known" to the majority (yes, I know this is a very simplistic model, but it's irrelevant to the main point). However, assuming there was no mass-murder of everyone who disagreed with the minority, it's then the majority - the ones in power - that enact changes. Better laws, affirmative action, and treating women as people, rather than walking incubators. In this case, women's issues are being worked on primarily by men. That's why I don't understand why you say that women are being underrepresented. If men are working to get women equal rights, are they not effectively representing women?

(20-10-2014 03:43 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  <snip>
Start there.

Thumbsup
Thanks.

(20-10-2014 03:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Take a typical election in the rural southern United States; let's say Nowhere Alabama. It's very religiously conservative, and the only two parties in town are the big two; Republicans and Democrats. Both can only field one candidate. Both field a male. Both have similar anti-abortion, anti-education, and anti-welfare stances. Their major disagreement is foreign policy.

Where is the pro-choice option? Where is the pro-education option? Where is the pro-social-safety-net option? These three things that would be incredibly important to a single woman or mother, yet they have no representation. And because these policies are so important to women (universal Pre-K would help more women than men), you would more likely find women who would agree with these points and be willing to run on them. Not that you couldn't have a male candidate run on this platform, or have a woman run against it. But neither party want to take that chance, their primary concern is winning the election: full stop.

But anybody that wanted a female candidate, or a candidate that ran on pro-woman policies simply isn't available. The choice simply isn't there. So there is a dearth of female representation, who can bring a female perspective to their work. We're still not at the point where men are just as likely to champion women's advancement as readily as their own. When we're having debates on policies that affect women more than men (i.e. abortion, pre-K education), is it wrong to want greater female representation?

You make an excellent point, for the most part.

(20-10-2014 03:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Access to a greater female perspective, access we simply do not currently have?

This is where we have a disagreement. Not over whether or not we should have access to different perspectives, but on the premise that women have a different perspective solely on the basis that they're women. However, this is a topic for another thread.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 04:51 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 04:03 AM)One Above All Wrote:  This is where we have a disagreement. Not over whether or not we should have access to different perspectives, but on the premise that women have a different perspective solely on the basis that they're women. However, this is a topic for another thread.

Well, considering that as a man I do not have a vagina or uterus, there is part of the human experience that I am fundamentally incapable of experiencing myself. Empathy only gets your perspective so far. I'll never have to actually be the decision-maker when it comes to my own abortion, because I'm physically incapable of bearing the personal responsibility for that decision.

So yeah, in some instances, there can be a fundamental difference in experiences between the sexes; which in turn colors our perspective. So when women's issues arise, and arise they will, I don't want them under-represented in the decision making process because of discrimination or a broken system.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 04:53 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
This is a big topic! Look Feminism is just as valid as maleism. Oh wait
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: