How convenient that your solutions are all about women being the ones who have to make the changes and do all the work for you.
Definition of Sexism
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
In a twisted sense, feminism ask men to make the changes and do all the work; but that's because the premise is that the structures and policies already in place are designed to favor men and masculine behavior. Sorry for devil advocating...
Right. And then? What's the plan for when all feminist laws have been abolished and injustice towards men still exists?
Depends. For instance, 95% work place casualties are male. Some MRAs are saying until that is 50-50, that's a problem. I'm writing, stop passing laws to take things from men and transfer them to women that did not earn them. A complaint may arise, that, for example, women are less likely to serve on Corporate boards. A reasonable response is that there are lots of differences out there, including that 95% work place casualty figure. So, I am more reactionary. I don't want 50-50 death rates. I want people to know that a disparity such as this can happen organically and creating laws to force people to do things/not do things till you have your radical egalitarianism is wrong, unjust, and ultimately destructive.
You really don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, do you?
Or we could look at the causes of workplace fatalities and mandate stricter safety regulations to match. What's wrong with that solution?
Women do not need to earn the right to join society.
These 2 sentences literally have nothing to do with each other.
And for disparities that don't happen organically that are unfair towards men and aren't caused by laws that force people towards egalitarianism?
EDIT: Also, wouldn't unions push for a bigger wage gap? I mean, if it's unavoidable for 95% of work place causalities to be male, then male workers are more at risk, thus they deserve greater compensation for putting their lives on the line. Just coaching women to be more agressive during wage negotiations wouldn't be enough to compete against unions.
Last edited:
I think your critique is incorrect here. Gorfias assumption was that things are being taken away from men. Which is wholly incorrect. If women can do something that men can do... that's not taking away at all. And it doesnt hurt anyone, except those that are way in identity politics... and its just feelings
Last edited:
i agree with MRAs. I think male dominated workplaces are pretty unsafe and could do with better safety standards
On workplace safety, which laws took away 'things' from males and gave them to females
I see where you are confused. The actual complaint is that these male directors are being picked based on that they are male and that they know others on the board. Not on their ability
So...I'm going to dial my snark back a bit for a moment and touch upon something real quick @gorfias: you keep bringing up the "95% of combat casualites" thing, but why do you think that is? Do you think women were just "No please Mr. Recruiter-san, don't send me into combat uwu" and that people like Patton (who struck soldiers afflicted with PTSD for being "pussies") would have gladly taken women into combat given the opportunity?
In this case, it just isn't relevant.
I wrote earlier, jobs have a social compenent to them. They serve to ensure people can get goods and services. Earlier we showed, in round numbers, that a man with a great job will have a stay at home spouse. The job serves 2 people. A woman with that great job? She'll have cats. 1 person served. There is a cost to allowing women to get such jobs. If she really is better than a man competing with her for the job? What is fair? She has to have it. But to have a job that requires bigotry against men in favor of women? Socially destructive, unjust, abusive, exploitative, and wrong. But that is where we are today.
Actually, it is women who have a greater "in group bias". Even so, suppose what you write is correct. Women , since 2015, control more money than men. Form your own damn companies and form your own damn boards. Women aren't victims and deserve nothing in the way of special protections.
Stats show, women don't want to serve in combat. They don't want to be eligible for combat draft. They don't even want to have to register for the draft. If a group is warned that they will soon be going into hostil territory, women can and do get pregnant and are able to opt out of dangerous duty. And they're getting their way and I'm fine with that. Just don't gob smack and exclaim that differences in representation in other better, higher paying, powerful areas of life disproportionately going to men is something that must be remedied by law. Plenty out there that is uneven. That is not defacto unreasoning bigotry. Passing a law allowing women to simply get things regardless of merit? That is bigotry.
As long as women can live off of men being exploitable, disposable utilities, and they are the majority of eligible voters? I am not waiting for them to make male workplaces perfectly safe. They have to have a dog in this fight.
Last edited:
There is nothing taken away from men here. Eg. Feminist who ask more 'more board CEOs' etc are explicitly stating that female CEOs are being ignored because they are female. Not ability. I.e. they think bigotry has been done against women
Now, it seems to me you are saying here that a woman, who is better at a job, is being unfair on a man by taking that job... because that's bigotry? Did you miss type something here. Why would you ask if that's fair?
All the 'socially destructive' stuff is just opinion. Compared to when to when society was forcibly limiting women so only men were working, WAY BETTER. Literally couldn't care less if they buy cats. I personally know a lot of women who are the bread winner in the household, so they are paying for all their husbands and kids needs. I know plenty of single mums who pay for their kids needs. In fact, that later is the VAST majority of sole parents. Seems like they ARE serving more than one person
Where is you proof they earn more? Is this more MRA stuff that misinterprets things, because I'm pretty sure they've always said that 'women control more money than men."
Awesome. Does this mean that men don't have group bias?
So you want equal representation in the workplace in what are traditionally male-dominated industries, but only so on average as many women die as men?
Man, I just prefer to make the work safer
No, the opposite. But the narrative as @Trunkage wrote, is that women are discriminated against as evidenced by the number of them on corporate boards. I'm saying that organically, there can be an imbalance of the sexes in occupations and offer the 95% death rate among men doing the hardest, most dangerous, outdoor, heavy lifting jobs as evidence.
Is it organic? Is it really? You still seem pretty hung up on biological determinism.
Are you writing that everything should be 50-50? Because that would be bad for everyone. I have no wish for work place deaths to be 50-50, and more.
What we seem to have is women saying good stuff that currently favors men should be 50-50. Bad stuff that happens to men more than women? That's fine. Good stuff that favors women? Of course it should! That's fine.
This isn't about egalitarianism. It's about exploitation and should be resisted.
I seriously have no idea what the fuck you're on about anymore and I don't think you do either. Earlier in this thread I suggested that we make workplaces safer in general, but that apparently isn't the solution you want because rather than engage with the point, you just keep repeating your victim complex.
Let me know when you make war safe too. Can't wait to read about it.
EDIT: No matter how "safe" you make work, some people will die. Should that be 50-50?
.... I don't know that I have the power to magically make death less arbitrary, but I can support making a work environment in which the fewest number of people possible die. What this has to do with warfare is a mystery to me.
Now answer my question: Are you seriously saying you want more women to die to even the score?