5 ms·

I don't think you are approaching this right. You are painting an entire group of people under the same brush... Also, feminism is promoting equality.

adventured 9y ago
I disagree that feminism is promoting equality. I think I'm approaching it exactly right. Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. If this were a personal discussion on Facebook or Twitter, the left's censorship/control attack wave would be rolling in right now, calling me countless labels (instead, here you'll just get downvotes, your life won't be ruined and your business won't be threatened with boycott for not being in favor of eg illegal immigration).
- mercurysmessage 9y ago
  Because you don't want to hear others opinions.
  - adventured 9y ago
    No, it's because I'll get attacked for not agreeing with x y z position. It's no longer acceptable to have discussions about such topics. It's no longer acceptable to just not stand in the way of such topics (I'm not against people being feminists for example, I don't care) - you must agree, or you're regarded as being against. Unless you specifically agree with illegal immigration and feminism, then you are against them. That is the present approach taken by the left in the US (the right does it with various topics as well, such as gun control). We now live in an us-vs-them society, you have to choose a side or else.
    - richmarr 9y ago
      Maybe I'm missing part of the thread, but who is attacking you? This is a discussion forum and people are discussing the opinions you shared... because that's what happens on discussion forums. Do you expect to only receive praise and agreement?
      - adventured 9y ago
        > Maybe I'm missing part of the thread, but who is attacking you? I'm not being attacked on HN / in this thread. HN tends to be about 10x more civil than public social media. I can't post any of what I said on here - none of which was very inflammatory - without practically enraging dozens of my Democrat/liberal/left-oriented (is there a PC term for that?) friends on eg Facebook. These are good people I'm talking about, and they now lose their minds at the drop of a hat on discussing these topics (post Trump, it has all gone into another gear). And if this conversation were being held on Twitter, I'd be getting death threats (or something close to it; maybe I'd just get called horrible names and proclaimed as being a racist Trump supporter etc) by now for not specifically being in favor of feminism / illegal immigration (as two examples). It's not agreement I seek, I don't need it. I can't voice opinions about these subjects on public social media, as myself, without people being enraged about the discussion (and or possibly worse, people taking what I say out of context, or failing to understand what I'm arguing (either of their own fault or mine) etc), that response is a business risk that I can't tolerate.
        root_axis 9y ago
        > I can't post any of what I said on here - none of which was very inflammatory - without practically enraging dozens of my Democrat/liberal/left-oriented (is there a PC term for that?) friends on eg Facebook. Do you not see the irony in this complaint? You're bemoaning the end of free-speech because people who disagree with you engage with the commentary that you broadcast on a platform for sharing speech. If you don't want to invite public commentary on your political opinions, don't broadcast them to the public. It doesn't matter what the opinion is, who is responding to it, or (short of threats) what they are saying in response, even if they are demonstrably and objectively incorrect; free-speech means other people are free to speak in response to your speech; period. And as an aside, if you want to limit the visibility of particular posts to a subset of individuals who respond within what you consider to be the acceptable range of discourse, Facebook does allow you to do this. > These are good people I'm talking about, and they now lose their minds at the drop of a hat on discussing these topics (post Trump, it has all gone into another gear) So what? Do you wish they would just stop expressing their opinions? Do you wish they'd just stop expressing their opinions on your posts? Do you wish they'd just be "more reasonable" in their opinions? Or is it more that you'd prefer they expressed their opinions in a way that makes you feel comfortable? What about their speech do you wish would change so that they would meet your standard for acceptable expression of their opinions? > And if this conversation were being held on Twitter, I'd be getting death threats This is a universal truth of the twitter cesspool regardless of the topic and has nothing to do with "PC" or "the left". I've seen plenty of rape and death threats directed towards feminists on twitter and I've seen my own kid addressed with death threats because of his opinion on PlayStation vs Xbox. > I can't voice opinions about these subjects on public social media, as myself, without people being enraged about the discussion Free-speech means you get to express your opinion, it doesn't mean you get to control how other people feel about the opinion you express.
  - badcede 9y ago
    Nobody wants to hear others opinions.
- root_axis 9y ago
  > Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. That's not a free-speech problem. In a discussion about free-speech, you broadcasted your particular personal opinions regarding notoriously controversial topics and castigate "the left" as anti-freespeech, and then when someone responds to you with a civil disagreement, you exclaim that is what's killing free speech. This is how free-speech works, it means that people can respond freely to the statements you made freely, where is the problem?
- mcbobbington 9y ago
  Adventured is right, about both feminism and censorship. I think the ERA would actually help men more than women. Right now it is much better to be a woman in america. Feminism has more than accomplished its goals of equality. Women can do anything they want, yet they also get these benefits: If accused of a crime less likely to be convicted If they hit a man far less likely to be charged with harsh domestic violence laws If convicted, men get 60% longer sentences If another Vietnam happens, women will stay home while men are forced to get killed, get their arms and legs blown off in war. If they have a child out of wedlock they get free money from the government If there is a divorce, they get custody 80% of the time. The reason men make more money is because on average, they have a higher iq than women (this is scientifically proven), because they have more natural drive than women, and because they have fewer emotional insecurities that prevent them from succeeding in the workplace. Feminism has achieved equality of opportunity in every regard. Today it is no longer about equality of opportunity, but equality of results. If feminists are going to fight for equal pay, regardless of merit, they should also fight for mandatory longer prison times, and mandatory higher conviction rates just for being women in order to match men. Or if they think things should be decided on relative merit of the individual, then they should quit whining about being women. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. Find your niche, instead of trying to win at someone else's and then cheating because you came in second and wanted first. Edit: As for the dogmatic downvoters, why don't you at least present some sort of rebuttal against these facts, instead of a media-ingrained fear downvote?
  - dang 9y ago
    This is the sort of generic ideological rant that we're trying to avoid here, and we ban accounts that use HN primarily for this purpose. So would you please stop posting like this to HN? Nothing good or new can come of it; these discussions are always the same and always become nasty. Boring and uncivil are the two sins on HN.
    - mcbobbington 9y ago
      Dang, please help me understand. I was responding to the thread in the comments. How would have been a better way to express my thoughts in a HN appropriate way?
tanilama 9y ago
Feminism is not simple as that. > People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine. This is from Justice Ginsburg, and a widely shared quote by a lot of feminist articles. This claim feels pretty vindictive to me and definitely not about equality. In the other words, it is not about REDUCE the inequality, it is about REVERSE the inequality.
- mercurysmessage 9y ago
  So it's fine if there are nine men in court but not nine women? I don't get your point. Shouldn't it not matter? You are also arguing that one persons opinion represents an entire group.
  - nilkn 9y ago
    It's entirely possible for someone to maintain the position that neither of those situations is ideal.
  - tanilama 9y ago
    First of all, they are currently 3 women at the supreme court. But ideally, if equal, shouldn't the court, if we assume both gender are equal, split 50:50? If you are advocating for opportunity equality, that is fine with me. But in reality, a lot of companies, as inspected by the media, seems like to hail a 50:50 gender split goal. Those are not compatible with each other.
- adventured 9y ago
  > Feminism is not simple as that. I never said it was simple and I fully recognize there are countless gradients of all sorts in feminism. I believe it's unnecessary as a concept. Pursuing and agreeing with the concept of equality nullifies feminism - that is my opinion. It's a very unpopular opinion with the left today. I've been having discussions about feminism for two decades online, there is hardly any conversational ground I haven't covered in the process.
  - 9y ago

adventured 9y ago

I disagree that feminism is promoting equality. I think I'm approaching it exactly right. Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. If this were a personal discussion on Facebook or Twitter, the left's censorship/control attack wave would be rolling in right now, calling me countless labels (instead, here you'll just get downvotes, your life won't be ruined and your business won't be threatened with boycott for not being in favor of eg illegal immigration).

mercurysmessage 9y ago
Because you don't want to hear others opinions.
- adventured 9y ago
  No, it's because I'll get attacked for not agreeing with x y z position. It's no longer acceptable to have discussions about such topics. It's no longer acceptable to just not stand in the way of such topics (I'm not against people being feminists for example, I don't care) - you must agree, or you're regarded as being against. Unless you specifically agree with illegal immigration and feminism, then you are against them. That is the present approach taken by the left in the US (the right does it with various topics as well, such as gun control). We now live in an us-vs-them society, you have to choose a side or else.
  - richmarr 9y ago
    Maybe I'm missing part of the thread, but who is attacking you? This is a discussion forum and people are discussing the opinions you shared... because that's what happens on discussion forums. Do you expect to only receive praise and agreement?
    - adventured 9y ago
      > Maybe I'm missing part of the thread, but who is attacking you? I'm not being attacked on HN / in this thread. HN tends to be about 10x more civil than public social media. I can't post any of what I said on here - none of which was very inflammatory - without practically enraging dozens of my Democrat/liberal/left-oriented (is there a PC term for that?) friends on eg Facebook. These are good people I'm talking about, and they now lose their minds at the drop of a hat on discussing these topics (post Trump, it has all gone into another gear). And if this conversation were being held on Twitter, I'd be getting death threats (or something close to it; maybe I'd just get called horrible names and proclaimed as being a racist Trump supporter etc) by now for not specifically being in favor of feminism / illegal immigration (as two examples). It's not agreement I seek, I don't need it. I can't voice opinions about these subjects on public social media, as myself, without people being enraged about the discussion (and or possibly worse, people taking what I say out of context, or failing to understand what I'm arguing (either of their own fault or mine) etc), that response is a business risk that I can't tolerate.
      - root_axis 9y ago
        > I can't post any of what I said on here - none of which was very inflammatory - without practically enraging dozens of my Democrat/liberal/left-oriented (is there a PC term for that?) friends on eg Facebook. Do you not see the irony in this complaint? You're bemoaning the end of free-speech because people who disagree with you engage with the commentary that you broadcast on a platform for sharing speech. If you don't want to invite public commentary on your political opinions, don't broadcast them to the public. It doesn't matter what the opinion is, who is responding to it, or (short of threats) what they are saying in response, even if they are demonstrably and objectively incorrect; free-speech means other people are free to speak in response to your speech; period. And as an aside, if you want to limit the visibility of particular posts to a subset of individuals who respond within what you consider to be the acceptable range of discourse, Facebook does allow you to do this. > These are good people I'm talking about, and they now lose their minds at the drop of a hat on discussing these topics (post Trump, it has all gone into another gear) So what? Do you wish they would just stop expressing their opinions? Do you wish they'd just stop expressing their opinions on your posts? Do you wish they'd just be "more reasonable" in their opinions? Or is it more that you'd prefer they expressed their opinions in a way that makes you feel comfortable? What about their speech do you wish would change so that they would meet your standard for acceptable expression of their opinions? > And if this conversation were being held on Twitter, I'd be getting death threats This is a universal truth of the twitter cesspool regardless of the topic and has nothing to do with "PC" or "the left". I've seen plenty of rape and death threats directed towards feminists on twitter and I've seen my own kid addressed with death threats because of his opinion on PlayStation vs Xbox. > I can't voice opinions about these subjects on public social media, as myself, without people being enraged about the discussion Free-speech means you get to express your opinion, it doesn't mean you get to control how other people feel about the opinion you express.
- badcede 9y ago
  Nobody wants to hear others opinions.
root_axis 9y ago
> Your response is conceptually exactly why I no longer post opinions as myself on social media now. That's not a free-speech problem. In a discussion about free-speech, you broadcasted your particular personal opinions regarding notoriously controversial topics and castigate "the left" as anti-freespeech, and then when someone responds to you with a civil disagreement, you exclaim that is what's killing free speech. This is how free-speech works, it means that people can respond freely to the statements you made freely, where is the problem?
mcbobbington 9y ago
Adventured is right, about both feminism and censorship. I think the ERA would actually help men more than women. Right now it is much better to be a woman in america. Feminism has more than accomplished its goals of equality. Women can do anything they want, yet they also get these benefits: If accused of a crime less likely to be convicted If they hit a man far less likely to be charged with harsh domestic violence laws If convicted, men get 60% longer sentences If another Vietnam happens, women will stay home while men are forced to get killed, get their arms and legs blown off in war. If they have a child out of wedlock they get free money from the government If there is a divorce, they get custody 80% of the time. The reason men make more money is because on average, they have a higher iq than women (this is scientifically proven), because they have more natural drive than women, and because they have fewer emotional insecurities that prevent them from succeeding in the workplace. Feminism has achieved equality of opportunity in every regard. Today it is no longer about equality of opportunity, but equality of results. If feminists are going to fight for equal pay, regardless of merit, they should also fight for mandatory longer prison times, and mandatory higher conviction rates just for being women in order to match men. Or if they think things should be decided on relative merit of the individual, then they should quit whining about being women. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses. Find your niche, instead of trying to win at someone else's and then cheating because you came in second and wanted first. Edit: As for the dogmatic downvoters, why don't you at least present some sort of rebuttal against these facts, instead of a media-ingrained fear downvote?
- dang 9y ago
  This is the sort of generic ideological rant that we're trying to avoid here, and we ban accounts that use HN primarily for this purpose. So would you please stop posting like this to HN? Nothing good or new can come of it; these discussions are always the same and always become nasty. Boring and uncivil are the two sins on HN.
  - mcbobbington 9y ago
    Dang, please help me understand. I was responding to the thread in the comments. How would have been a better way to express my thoughts in a HN appropriate way?

tanilama 9y ago

Feminism is not simple as that. > People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine. This is from Justice Ginsburg, and a widely shared quote by a lot of feminist articles. This claim feels pretty vindictive to me and definitely not about equality. In the other words, it is not about REDUCE the inequality, it is about REVERSE the inequality.

mercurysmessage 9y ago
So it's fine if there are nine men in court but not nine women? I don't get your point. Shouldn't it not matter? You are also arguing that one persons opinion represents an entire group.
- nilkn 9y ago
  It's entirely possible for someone to maintain the position that neither of those situations is ideal.
- tanilama 9y ago
  First of all, they are currently 3 women at the supreme court. But ideally, if equal, shouldn't the court, if we assume both gender are equal, split 50:50? If you are advocating for opportunity equality, that is fine with me. But in reality, a lot of companies, as inspected by the media, seems like to hail a 50:50 gender split goal. Those are not compatible with each other.
adventured 9y ago
> Feminism is not simple as that. I never said it was simple and I fully recognize there are countless gradients of all sorts in feminism. I believe it's unnecessary as a concept. Pursuing and agreeing with the concept of equality nullifies feminism - that is my opinion. It's a very unpopular opinion with the left today. I've been having discussions about feminism for two decades online, there is hardly any conversational ground I haven't covered in the process.
- 9y ago