3 ms·
> By selectively only looking at the top 1% we disregard the context of the other 99% But that's not what we do. First, instead of looking at just 2% of the po
by pron 9y ago
> By selectively only looking at the top 1% we disregard the context of the other 99%
But that's not what we do. First, instead of looking at just 2% of the population as you seem to suggest we should do, we look at all of them, and on the whole, much more power is held by men than by women. Second, we feminists generally care much more about the bottom 1% (or 50%) of society -- be they men, women, black or white -- than the rich and powerful men at the top 1%. You can see that not only in historical events (feminists were a strong power among the abolitionists in 19th century US) but even if you look at current events, and see that women are disproportionately represented in demonstrations against unfair incarceration, against deportation of refugees etc..
> "Men violence against women" - Title of a lot of writing, government reports, books, and so on from the left.
I don't see any reference to innate qualities here.
> We don't see "foreigners violence against Swedes" or "Muslims violence against non-believers".
First, because unlike men violence against women, those are actually outliers rather than the norm. Second, like I wrote in another comment, I don't understand your expectation. If the position of Muslims and immigrants in a Western country is so very different from that of native men, why would you even want them to be treated the same? Is a diamond handled the same way as limestone just because they are both rocks? Note that I am not talking about any innate qualities, just the current state of affairs.
> Gender roles has also existed for that long, but only very recently being describe as subjugating.
That's just a total and complete fabrication. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_feminism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protofeminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protofeminism
> Reading how life was a few hundred years have very little in the form of gender subjugating, unless you count taking men from their home and against their will putting them on the war front to die.
I actually studied history (mostly medieval) in grad school, and what you're writing here is total BS.
> Much of cultural values in historical society can be derive from two core gender roles, that of the nurture role and the support role. One exist to create the family, the other exist to supply food and defense.
Do you still believe that the world is made of the four classical elements? Do you believe that the Earth is flat? If you had actually studied history from actual historians and primary sources, the ideas you mention here would sound equally ridiculous to you as the four elements and the flat Earth. 1. they are mostly ahistorical fabrications, and 2. to the small extent that they are historically true, their explanative power is false as the claim would work in the same way to justify any current state of affairs -- we're here because the system is good. For example, in the time of slavery I could use the exact same description to justify slavery; in fact people did exactly that (and slavery has made much more economical "sense" than the subjugation of women) and yet changing the system turined out just fine. Finally, suppose that this fantasy were true (although I truly feel sorry for you that you've somehow been convinced by such BS), as I mentioned above throughout history women have expressed anger at their subjugation -- do you morally support constantly harming billions of others even for some imagined greater good? Do you also support slavery, then?
I can't stop you from being of the opinion that women should be subjugated (unfortunately, this is far from a fringe opinion; in a way, it's still the ruling opinion although it's no longer usually made so explicit), but please don't try to justify that position using fabricated history.
- Yetanfou 9y agoJust to show that 'the left' really means it when they state that it is 'racist' to relate criminality with ethnicity and religion here's a quote from the latest congress of the Swedish 'Vänster' (communist in all but name) party, published today in the Swedish media [1]: Kritikerna menar att det finns de som vill ha brottsstatistik över etnicitet, det är en helt annan debatt. Det är rasism att koppla ihop brott med etnicitet eller religion. Den debatten är bortspelad för länge sedan, förutom hos vissa moderater som vill värva röster från Sverigedemokraterna, säger Daniel Riazat. This translates to: Critics state there are those who want to collect statistics on ethnicity related to criminality but that is an entirely different debate. ___It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity or religion___. This debate has played out a long time ago apart from some 'Moderates' (neo-liberals) who want to gather votes for the Sweden Democrats (nationalists) says Daniel Riazat. This is a literal quote from a congress which finished today, "It is racist to connect crime with ethnicity or religion". [1] https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-religion https://www.svd.se/v-vill-samla-in-info-om-etnicitet-och-rel...
- pron 9y agoAgain, it is unfortunate that you confuse this with the statements I was talking about. I identify with this assertion, while still maintaining all I said above. It is possible for fact/claim X to not be racist at all in itself, and for the discourse of claim X to be extremely racist. I thought the story about the madman -- due to Kierkegaard -- clarified this point. So, it is very racist to connect crime with ethnicity; the fact that blacks are overrepresented among violent criminals does not, however, do that (indeed, this fact only reflects the racism towards blacks in the US), and is not in itself racist, although bringing it up may well be, depending on context.
- Yetanfou 9y agoAgain, just to get back to the statement which launched this thread: Studies like this are hard, because they're usually labeled 'racist', or it turns into an ad hominem attack on the authors, or struck down in the media for singling out some minority group. You stated this was not true, upon which many reactions - mine amongst them - came with citations to prove that the original claim was, indeed, true. I presented a few examples to prove this point but you keep on talking around the issue - "studies are labelled racist, authors are attacked verbally" (and sometimes physically, see the actions of Antifa/AFA and several islamist groups). The result of this is yet again shown by a study published by the Swedish defence academy ("Försvarshögskolan") which was recently published. To quote from an article published today on SVT (Sweden's national broadcaster) about the fact that Sweden has become a recruiting ground for islamic terrorism due to the fact that this activity was close to risk-free in this country [1]: Vilken roll kan det ha spelat? – Jag tror att den aktivism som fanns mot både Säkerhetspolisen och de som försökte lyfta allvaret i de här frågorna. Det gjorde att tröskeln blev högre för både politiker och andra att ge sig in i det här området, säger han. – Man riskerade att bli utpekad som rasist på ett sätt som man inte såg i andra europeiska länder. Där var den här frågan lika okontroversiell som vikten av att bekämpa nazism och högerextremism. Men i Sverige tog det lång tid innan det gick att diskutera jihadismen på samma sätt som vi under lång tid diskuterat nazism, säger Hyllengren. Translated: What role can this have played? – I think that the activism against both the security services and those who tried to point out the seriousness of the situation [played a role]. This made that the bar was raised both for politicians and other who would dare to speak out on these subjects, he said. – You ran the risk of being pointed out as racist in a way which was not seen in other European countries. There this question was as uncontroversial as the importance of fighting nazism and right-wing extremism. In Sweden on the other hand it took a long time before it was possible to discuss jihadism in the same way we've been discussing nazism for a long time, says Hyllengren. This is, yet again, a literal quote proving the point of the original statement which launched this thread. While it is possible to discuss the finer details of what and why and how the extreme-left wants to put a racist label on this but no that, the fact stands and the effects it has on society are chilling. Where freedom of expression was once a stalwart talking point for the traditional 'left' the current stance taken by many of those identifying themselves as 'left-wing' is an anathema to this foundation of the enlightened society. [1] https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16 https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/sverige-16