394 replies to this topic

[Hawk]

Alternatively, we can address the realities of the demographics of rape and focus on supporting the most vulnerable people, even if it comes at the expense of bruising some egos. 

 

Equality. That's what feminism is about.

 

Pick one.  Either treat all men as equals or accept that "bruising some egos" is a swing beyond equality and into misandry.

[Dan]

Alternatively, we can address the realities of the demographics of rape and focus on supporting the most vulnerable people, even if it comes at the expense of bruising some egos. I'd rather see an actual improvement than go out of my way to ensure no one's feelings are hurt.

 

Anyways, there are plenty of men who are fully engaged in combating rape culture and supporting victims (male and female) without feeling personally attacked or the need to cry "not all men!". 

 

You misunderstood my post. By focusing on a subset of the issues, e.g. only applicable to one gender, we don't "bruise some egos", we create inequality.

 

The reason the retort "not all men" is being used so frequently is because of two reasons

• There are actually some people (not you, this isn't a personal attack) referring to nearly all, or even the majority of men as being misogynists or in some way enjoying of oppressing women - and this is obviously not proven by any evidence
• There is a real interest in wanting to disassociate oneself from the (minority of) men who do have oppressive or misogynistic thoughts. It's not meant to trivialize the point, but to make it clear that if you believe there are many oppressive and misogynistic men out there, "be assured that I am not one of them".

[Bone]

Pick one.  Either treat all men as equals or accept that "bruising some egos" is a swing beyond equality and into misandry.

 

Despite what Dan has insisted, men and women do not have equal status in society. If someone is going to take it as a personal attack when people try to empower women to have the same opportunities as men, that's their own problem. It is not "misandry". 

 

You misunderstood my post. By focusing on a subset of the issues, e.g. only applicable to one gender, we don't "bruise some egos", we create inequality.

 

The reason the retort "not all men" is being used so frequently is because of two reasons

• There are actually some people (not you, this isn't a personal attack) referring to nearly all, or even the majority of men as being misogynists or in some way enjoying of oppressing women - and this is obviously not proven by any evidence
• There is a real interest in wanting to disassociate oneself from the (minority of) men who do have oppressive or misogynistic thoughts. It's not meant to trivialize the point, but to make it clear that if you believe there are many oppressive and misogynistic men out there, "be assured that I am not one of them".

 

 

Women have fewer opportunities and face sexism far more than men. If we want men and women to have equal standing in society and solve this inequality, we need to focus on empowering women and enlarging choice. If society were truly equal, then devoting more resources to a single gender would create equality, but we are far from that point. I'm speaking from an American perspective, but I highly doubt there is any country that has reached true parity.

 

While there might be people who think all men are misogynists, the "not all men" gambit is used far more frequently than in those situations. It's far too often used to mean, "well, I haven't personally raped or murdered so there's no need for me to be engaged in feminism."

[Hawk]

Despite what Dan has insisted, men and women do not have equal status in society. If someone is going to take it as a personal attack when people try to empower women to have the same opportunities as men, that's their own problem. It is not "misandry". 

 

Women have fewer opportunities and face sexism far more than men. If we want men and women to have equal standing in society and solve this inequality, we need to focus on empowering women and enlarging choice. If society were truly equal, then devoting more resources to a single gender would create equality, but we are far from that point. I'm speaking from an American perspective, but I highly doubt there is any country that has reached true parity.

 

While there might be people who think all men are misogynists, the "not all men" gambit is used far more frequently than in those situations. It's far too often used to mean, "well, I haven't personally raped or murdered so there's no need for me to be engaged in feminism."

Inequal how?  You can't say that women are not equal to men in today's society without elaborating.  I can't even begin to counter such a blanket statement.

 

Fewer opportunities in what way?  More sexism?  From the study you brushed aside earlier, approximately 1 in 20 women (5.6%) and men (5.3%) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.  

 

To be fair, the bulk of us never will, yet you're making blanket suggestions like:

 

But I stand my generalization that, when it comes to adult men and women, it is clear which group (generally) more needs to be taught not to rape. 

Which is where the problem lies.  Treat both groups equally.  

 

 

You're completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of rapes, sexual assaults, and murders are perpetrated by men. Men don't need to be taught how to protect themselves from rape, and women don't need (as extensively as men do, at least) to be taught not to rape. To reach equality in a system that is so profoundly skewed against women, it's necessary to fight for women's rights. 

 

This isn't to say women can't be individually guilty of any of these crimes. But, on a systemic level, male entitlement and constructs of masculinity lead to the majority of these crimes being committed by men, and the broader oppression of women.

 

Feminism is about dismantling the societal construct that men should hold authority over women. Yes, the patriarchy negatively affects men as well. Men should be feminists too. But the reality is that the patriarchy hurts women significantly more than it hurts men when it comes to issues of sexual agency.

 

You're taking feminism's stance against the patriarchy personally. Feminism isn't about individuals, and feminists don't believe that all men are rapists.

 

Men, men, more men, it's all man's fault, they need to be taught not to rape.  All we try and do is keep you down.  You're singling out men, your point is to bring men down.

 

Stop being the Malcolm X-s of feminism, be the Martin Luther King Jr.

[Bone]

Inequal how?  You can't say that women are not equal to men in today's society without elaborating.  I can't even begin to counter such a blanket statement.

 

In so, so many ways.

 

Fewer opportunities in what way? More sexism? From the study you brushed aside earlier, approximately 1 in 20 women (5.6%) and men (5.3%) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape in the 12 months prior to taking the survey.

 

Yes, as a result of sexism, men are afforded more social, educational, career, and political opportunities. 

 

I discussed my reservations with extrapolating the results of that study earlier. It would be inaccurate to conclude that men face sexual assault/rape at a rate equal to women from those results. And that doesn't even touch on the structural bias against women that persists in society.

 

To be fair, the bulk of us never will, yet you're making blanket suggestions like:

Which is where the problem lies. Treat both groups equally.

 

The fact stands that the vast majority of rapists are men. If the intention is to prevent rapes, does it make sense to devote an equal amount of resources to teach women and men to not rape? Treating both groups equally won't solve existing inequality.

 

Men, men, more men, it's all man's fault, they need to be taught not to rape. All we try and do is keep you down. You're singling out men, your point is to bring men down.

Stop being the Malcolm X-s of feminism, be the Martin Luther King Jr.

 

The fact of the matter is, men do need to be taught to rape. The point isn't to bring down men, but to empower women. It just so happens that men are more often complicit in bringing women down. 

 

By the way, I'm a man.

[Mishelle]

Are you serious? The longer this thread goes on the more foolish you look Mishelle.

 

You can harp on and on about latest word you learned in Women's Studies last week, but you're still trying to push a square shape into the triangular hole. At the end of the day, women are mostly equal in my country, your country and generally most western countries. 

 

Every rational person on this planet agrees with the following:

• Sexual assault (including any form of non-consensual sexual contact) is something that neither sex should have to endure, however it does happen and we have to try and mitigate that the only way we can - by both providing victims with the support and care that they need and teaching both sexes about the dangers of the inevitably existent criminals in our society
• All people should have equal rights and equal opportunities, and we should work toward educating people and achieving this

 

There are many factors within society today that are not perfect, and I encourage you and everybody else with a voice to explore the possibilities in which we can fix it and move forward. We wouldn't be where we are today without people doing that.

 

However, you need to realise that people will not take you or your opinions seriously if it appears that you're not actually trying to help.

 

If your mission in life is to stop people sexually assaulting each other, or to improve the system to provide equal rights for everyone then please voice this in a manner that doesn't make it look like you're targeting a certain sex, color, gender. If you truly want to end sexual assault then we need to recognise that these criminals exist in both genders, and we should fighting the core issue and not sparking what ends up looking like an attack on anyone. We need both sexes to work together if we're going to solve these issues.

 

You used a lot of words to say a lot of tone policing bullshit. 

No, it takes a sworn affidavit.  No trial required.  

Valid point.  It's only to prevent selling to individuals in those groups.

 

 

 

The mass killing near Santa Barbara, California, has prompted a proposal to create a "gun violence restraining order" that would temporarily bar a mentally unstable person from buying and possessing firearms after family, partners or friends call police.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...ee-legislation/

[Dan]

You used a lot of words to say a lot of tone policing bullshit. 

This is the problem here I suppose. You can make whatever argument you like but if the person you're debating with doesn't approach the issue with a mature mindset willing to discuss and accept other people's views, it's synonymous with shouting at a brick wall.

[Mishelle]

This is the problem here I suppose. You can make whatever argument you like but if the person you're debating with doesn't approach the issue with a mature mindset willing to discuss and accept other people's views, it's synonymous with shouting at a brick wall.

 

I feel the exact same way about you. Women are in here discussing how this effects their lives. I've provided studies, they've provided their stories and agreed that this is a problem that negatively effects them and we all want it to stop. Even Bone has agreed. I've basically said everything I can to you and all you've continued to do is dismiss people like me, Eefi, Turnips and Pamplemousse and reiterate this not all men crap. So stop trying to tell me to play nice and state my argument in a nicer way when you've made it obvious that no matter how we say it you don't give a shit.

Edited by Mishelle, 29 May 2014 - 06:37 PM.

[Speedracer]

California is proposing a bill that allows a person or law enforcement to petition to the courts to put a gun restraining order on a person if they believe them to be a danger to themselves or others. The judge will decide within 7 days and the restraining order will block a person from being able to purchase a gun and confiscates any weapons they already own. It's most likely going to pass because our legislature is majority Democrat. 

I understand the reasoning behind this but it is only a feel good law as multiple people have stated there are a lot more weapons than firearms. All you have to do is look at knife sprees such as the one in the Pittsburgh school or the many in china to realize those that intend on doing harm will find a way to do so.

 

I care more about my right to live than the right for a psychopath to own a gun. Not sorry. 

"Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." - Ben Franklin

 

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” - Hitler 

 

People talk about California as if we have the strictest gun laws in the country when in reality our gun laws aren't that strict. Anyone who even suggests some common sense gun reforms gets called a nazi who hates all rights and wants to take all guns away it's insanity.

California definitely has the strictest gun laws. I'll use the brady campaign as a source, on rankings they are 9 points higher than the closest state and more than 70 points higher than than 30 states on a 100 point scale, they are also the only 4 star ranked state. California by far has the most extensive and strict gun laws in the US.
Source: http://www.bradycamp...rd_Rankings.pdf

If you want a detailed break-down of how the rankings were calculated you can find it here: http://www.bradycamp...A3-2 Sheet1.pdf

[NapisaurusRex]

California definitely has the strictest gun laws. I'll use the brady campaign as a source, on rankings they are 9 points higher than the closest state and more than 70 points higher than than 30 states on a 100 point scale, they are also the only 4 star ranked state. California by far has the most extensive and strict gun laws in the US.
Source: http://www.bradycamp...rd_Rankings.pdf
If you want a detailed break-down of how the rankings were calculated you can find it here: http://www.bradycamp...A3-2 Sheet1.pdf

Your source is from 2011, I'm positive Connecticut has passed Cali by now.

 

Can't find my source.

[Dan]

I feel the exact same way about you. Women are in here discussing how this effects their lives. I've provided studies, they've provided their stories and agreed. Even Bone has agreed. I've basically said everything I can to you and all you've continued to do is dismiss people like me, Eefi, Turnips and Pamplemousse and reiterate this not all men crap. So stop trying to tell me to play nice and state my argument in a nicer way when you've made it obvious that no matter how we say it you don't give a shit.

 

Dismissing you? I haven't dismissed anyone here except Pamplemousse's poor quality post.

 

Challenging your claims and offering up different points of view isn't dismissing you. In fact it's the opposite -I'm including you! I'm sorry that you would prefer a culture where nobody questioned what you said, and it was all taken as gospel.

 

I'm happy to hear about how all of this affects women's lives.

 

As @Hawk and I have both iterated albeit separately, if you want equality, let's get equality on the issues that both sexes face. It makes no sense to split up - again, we need to work together if we want to be truly equal.

[Bone]

Dismissing you? I haven't dismissed anyone here except Pamplemousse's poor quality post.

 

You've told me that you don't take my posts seriously.

[Hawk]

In so, so many ways.

 

Inequalities by wiki point:

• Political participation - Becoming a mother is not conducive to the career paths one usually takes in becoming a politician.
• Work life and economics -
  • While parental leave is not mandated by law, companies do have it. It affects both individuals in a relationship equally.
  • Sex discrimination depends on the position.  As a male, I can guarantee you I have zero chance in hell at getting positions in a few companies.  Also, because of EEO, I am in the group most likely to be discriminated against if I am competing for a job against a person who is not a white male.  We may have the same qualifications, I may have a slight edge, but sometimes things need to happen for hiring statistics.
  • Occupational segregation - Men sure as shit don't choose women's majors in college.  It's not anyone's fault that men are more likely to pursue high paying majors, while women are more likely to pursue some social work, teaching, etc.
  • Social life - It seems like they're hitting on the fact that women are more likely to be "stay-at-home mothers", especially since leisure time is roughly equal.
  • Education - Nursing is definitely not a terribly underpaid position.  I don't have a point about institutions selecting more men.  This also makes note of women's education choices, which of course affects the individual's lifetime earning potential.
  • Other issues- Yeah, the humor needs to stop.

Yes, as a result of sexism, men are afforded more social, educational, career, and political opportunities. 

As a result of choices made by women, they choose not to pursue what is listed.  Life is full of decisions.

 

I discussed my reservations with extrapolating the results of that study earlier. It would be inaccurate to conclude that men face sexual assault/rape at a rate equal to women from those results. And that doesn't even touch on the structural bias against women that persists in society.

I understand your concern, but you're arguing with a point that directly goes against statistics as released by the CDC here.  They've done a hell of a lot more research, but clearly they do not know what they're doing.  (Yeah, appeal to authority fallacy, but I do not know what better way of saying who I'm more likely to believe.)

 

The fact stands that the vast majority of rapists are men. If the intention is to prevent rapes, does it make sense to devote an equal amount of resources to teach women and men to not rape? Treating both groups equally won't solve existing inequality.

 

The fact of the matter is, men do need to be taught to rape. The point isn't to bring down men, but to empower women. It just so happens that men are more often complicit in bringing women down. 

 

It's a human-kind issue.  Not just men.  Everyone should be treated equally.  Once you start creating double-standards you've progressed beyond equality, which is where feminism (rightfully) wants to go, and into misandry.  This issue is starting to sound a lot like affirmative action - "Empowering" women is akin to a prestigious university denying a white male candidate because a slightly less qualified but black candidate was his competition.  By bringing up the black individual, a white man was just brought down.  

 

What I am trying to get at is this:  Just aim for equality and you're significantly less likely to upset rational individuals.  Rather than making it something across the board, you're now saying men should be taught how to keep themselves under control because they're more likely to lose control.  That establishes a structural inequality, which is exactly what feminism wants to eliminate (for women... but screw men, right?).

[Speedracer]

Your source is from 2011, I'm positive Connecticut has passed Cali by now.

 

Can't find my source.

http://www.bradycamp...eads-points.pdf

 

There is 2013 it is much more difficult to read which is why I used 2011, California is still ranked first; Connecticut is only 5 points behind though

[NapisaurusRex]

http://www.bradycamp...eads-points.pdf

 

There is 2013 it is much more difficult to read which is why I used 2011, California is still ranked first; Connecticut is only 5 points behind though

Yeah, I knew Connecticut had jumped, I just thought it was higher than that.

 

That's a pretty interesting 'state scorecard' though.

[Hawk]

http://www.cnn.com/2...ee-legislation/

Did you seriously link me to an article about a proposed bill that I directly linked?

 

So the quoted portion of that bill, which is exactly as written, is wrong?  What point were you trying to even make?  Read the proposed bill as-written, if it gets too confusing for you ask questions, and try and really comprehend what is going on within the bill.  I can guarantee you that no trial is required, only a sworn affidavit.  I know this because I read the proposed bill on the government website.

[Bone]

Inequalities by wiki point:

• Political participation - Becoming a mother is not conducive to the career paths one usually takes in becoming a politician.
• Work life and economics -
  • While parental leave is not mandated by law, companies do have it. It affects both individuals in a relationship equally.
  • Sex discrimination depends on the position.  As a male, I can guarantee you I have zero chance in hell at getting positions in a few companies.  Also, because of EEO, I am in the group most likely to be discriminated against if I am competing for a job against a person who is not a white male.  We may have the same qualifications, I may have a slight edge, but sometimes things need to happen for hiring statistics.
  • Occupational segregation - Men sure as shit don't choose women's majors in college.  It's not anyone's fault that men are more likely to pursue high paying majors, while women are more likely to pursue some social work, teaching, etc.
  • Social life - It seems like they're hitting on the fact that women are more likely to be "stay-at-home mothers", especially since leisure time is roughly equal.
  • Education - Nursing is definitely not a terribly underpaid position.  I don't have a point about institutions selecting more men.  This also makes note of women's education choices, which of course affects the individual's lifetime earning potential.
  • Other issues- Yeah, the humor needs to stop.

As a result of choices made by women, they choose not to pursue what is listed.  Life is full of decisions.

 

I understand your concern, but you're arguing with a point that directly goes against statistics as released by the CDC here.  They've done a hell of a lot more research, but clearly they do not know what they're doing.  (Yeah, appeal to authority fallacy, but I do not know what better way of saying who I'm more likely to believe.)

 

 

It's a human-kind issue.  Not just men.  Everyone should be treated equally.  Once you start creating double-standards you've progressed beyond equality, which is where feminism (rightfully) wants to go, and into misandry.  This issue is starting to sound a lot like affirmative action - "Empowering" women is akin to a prestigious university denying a white male candidate because a slightly less qualified but black candidate was his competition.  By bringing up the black individual, a white man was just brought down.  

 

What I am trying to get at is this:  Just aim for equality and you're significantly less likely to upset rational individuals.  Rather than making it something across the board, you're now saying men should be taught how to keep themselves under control because they're more likely to lose control.  That establishes a structural inequality, which is exactly what feminism wants to eliminate (for women... but screw men, right?).

• Motherhood doesn't need to be an impediment to a career in politics. But the social construction that a woman should be the primary caregiver and forgo a career for childbearing/rearing persists. Regardless, there remains the fact that women are socialized to avoid careers in politics and that the major U.S. parties are dominated by "boy's clubs" and retain stigma against women running for office.
• I'm just pulling this from the Wikipedia page, but sex discrimination in employment has time and time again been shown to benefit men more than women. The few career paths in which women are favored are almost exclusively associated with lower pay and control than their traditionally male counterparts. Businessmen vs secretaries, professors vs teachers, doctors vs nurses. 
• The very notion of "women's majors" and "men's majors", and the fact that the "men's majors" are almost exclusively associated with higher paying careers, evidences that women face socialization that they should choose paths that are less powerful than mens. It's not individual man's fault that he chooses a "men's major," but the deep institutional and cultural bias against women in traditionally male-dominated career paths is problematic and should be worked against.
• I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's clear that working mothers are expected to perform more housework than their husbands.
• I've touched on this point twice already. I don't have much else to say but to reiterate that women are expected to pursue lower-paying careers.
• Yep

Yes, everyone has individual choice, but women face a much greater degree of coercion and expectation to make choiecs that reinforce traditional roles that are associated with lower earnings and less power.

 

I'm not really sure what the relevance of that statistic is, anyways. I never said that I don't trust the statistic, only that I haven't read the whole report so I'm not sure on how exactly they should be interpreted. In any case, men commit sexual assault and rape at higher levels than women.

 

Yes, it's a human-kind issue. But it's not a matter of double standards. Women are held to higher levels of scrutiny on all of the aforementioned levels. Yes, it's comparable to affirmative action. Which is positive, because it (attempts to) take into account the privilege or lack thereof that has influenced how two individuals have come to comparable qualifications. Both men and women should be taught not to rape, but the brunt of attention should be directed at men, because 99% of rapes are committed by men. Doing anything else would be holding men to a lower standard than women are held to.

 

What I'm trying to get at is this: to aim for equality, existing inequality needs to be targeted and eliminated. Treating everyone as equally unequal won't lead to progress.

[Futurama]

I disagree with Dan just because it's Dan. Give me rep now.

Edited by Futurama, 29 May 2014 - 07:32 PM.

[Adam]

I disagree with Dan just because it's Dan. Give me rep now.

I disagree with everything Dan says, cuz Dan.

[Kat]

I disagree with him all the time! Where's my rep??? SEXISTS!!

[Futurama]

I disagree with him all the time! Where's my rep??? SEXISTS!!

 

 

 

Adam is female though.

[Adam]

I disagree with him all the time! Where's my rep??? SEXISTS!!

Welp since you brought out the sexist card!! I have to :[

[Kat]

Welp since you brought out the sexist card!! I have to :[

 

Muahahaha chauvinistic pigs! *bathes in fake internet points*

[Hawk]

 

• Motherhood doesn't need to be an impediment to a career in politics. But the social construction that a woman should be the primary caregiver and forgo a career for childbearing/rearing persists. Regardless, there remains the fact that women are socialized to avoid careers in politics and that the major U.S. parties are dominated by "boy's clubs" and retain stigma against women running for office.
• I'm just pulling this from the Wikipedia page, but sex discrimination in employment has time and time again been shown to benefit men more than women. The few career paths in which women are favored are almost exclusively associated with lower pay and control than their traditionally male counterparts. Businessmen vs secretaries, professors vs teachers, doctors vs nurses. 
• The very notion of "women's majors" and "men's majors", and the fact that the "men's majors" are almost exclusively associated with higher paying careers, evidences that women face socialization that they should choose paths that are less powerful than mens. It's not individual man's fault that he chooses a "men's major," but the deep institutional and cultural bias against women in traditionally male-dominated career paths is problematic and should be worked against.
• I don't know what you're trying to say, but it's clear that working mothers are expected to perform more housework than their husbands.
• I've touched on this point twice already. I don't have much else to say but to reiterate that women are expected to pursue lower-paying careers.
• Yep

Yes, everyone has individual choice, but women face a much greater degree of coercion and expectation to make choiecs that reinforce traditional roles that are associated with lower earnings and less power.

 

I'm not really sure what the relevance of that statistic is, anyways. I never said that I don't trust the statistic, only that I haven't read the whole report so I'm not sure on how exactly they should be interpreted. In any case, men commit sexual assault and rape at higher levels than women.

 

Yes, it's a human-kind issue. But it's not a matter of double standards. Women are held to higher levels of scrutiny on all of the aforementioned levels. Yes, it's comparable to affirmative action. Which is positive, because it (attempts to) take into account the privilege or lack thereof that has influenced how two individuals have come to comparable qualifications. Both men and women should be taught not to rape, but the brunt of attention should be directed at men, because 99% of rapes are committed by men. Doing anything else would be holding men to a lower standard than women are held to.

 

What I'm trying to get at is this: to aim for equality, existing inequality needs to be targeted and eliminated. Treating everyone as equally unequal won't lead to progress.

 

• It is more than just motherhood.  It is also the choice of a major to pursue.  What you end up doing before getting into politics.
• To the tune of women being paid 96% of what men get paid with all benefits considered for identical positions. Also note that the article brings up men being more likely to negotiate a higher salary, which can easily be a few % points.
• I was not constructing the sentence like that.  I was saying that men do not force women to choose a specific major.  If women wanted to get into petroleum engineering, I'm sure they would be just as successful as men (Both financially and on-the-job performance).  You can't fix an issue of pay differential when you're comparing apples and oranges; if certain fields had more women, the pay differential would be a hell of a lot less than the oft-cited but incorrect number in the 75% range.
• If it is a working mother, then where is the equal leisure time coming from?  Are they only working part-time, are you sure they're not "stay-at-home" mothers?  Because the 24-hour day is pretty damn limiting.  If both parents work an equal amount of time, commuting identical (or nearly identical) distances, and the woman does double the time on house work, then the leisure time WILL NOT be roughly equal.
• No, they're not.  They choose to go that route.  Women can do whatever their heart desires, whether you want to admit that or not.

It is not men's fault that women can't think independently and instead opt to follow traditional career and life paths.

 

Affirmative action is a form of discrimination.  Funny enough, the Supreme Court recently upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action.  Gotta love legal precedence, huh?  By definition, that's not equality.  Trumpet that 99% of rapes are committed by men statistic all you want, but rape by females on males is significantly under reported.  Finally, we're not talking about standards to hold men and women accountable.  You've been discussing punative actions against all men (Teach them) because of the actions of a subset of the group.  Regarding standards - Those must be the same across the board: Do not commit sexually assault against anyone.  No mention of gender. To do otherwise creates a structural inequality.

 

What I'm getting at is you're completely incorrect.  To get rational, intelligent individuals on board with your ideas, don't be a fucking idiot.  Aim for what you truly believe in, which is equality.  Don't fucking overshoot for the sake of working down.  This isn't a negotiation.  Don't fucking cherry-pick stats.  Do have well reasoned arguments.  Just try and treat men as equals.  That's feminism's god damned goal, you said it yourself, is to eliminate inequalities between men and women.  Don't establish new inequalities.

[Turnip]

It is not men's fault that women can't think independently and instead opt to follow traditional career and life paths.

 
*vomits*