5 ms·

No reason that women can't accomplish important things, the problem is that feminism pushed the false narrative that men and women are equal across the board, t

by apta 6y ago

No reason that women can't accomplish important things, the problem is that feminism pushed the false narrative that men and women are equal across the board, this is obviously a fallacious and dangerous premise, and now society is paying the price. They also brainwashed people that any criticism of their toxic ideas is automatically labeled as "misogynistic", "patriarchal" and "authoritarian", etc. Add to that the notion of equality of outcome (instead of equality of opportunity), and we see what it leads to.

cforrester 6y ago
I would appreciate if you could make a more substantial comment instead of simply trying to use "feminism" as a dirty word. I invite you to revisit the comment I replied to and recognize the way it denies women's agency by presuming that the author understands women's aspirations better than they themselves do. Paternalistic attitudes about how women don't belong in the workplace for their own good are rooted in misogyny, and facile appeals to "brainwashing" don't make for a compelling statement to the contrary.
- apta 6y ago
  I didn't say they never belong in the workplace. However, the toxicity of feminism is that one of the rotten values it introduced is that a woman must go to the workplace, otherwise she is worthless. Not only that, she has to compete head to head with men, even though biologically speaking, men and women are not the same. Men are more vicious and ferocious, and expecting women to face up to them will not end up well. Anyone paying attention already sees it unfold in front of us.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    > Men are more vicious and ferocious I mostly agree with what you're saying but it's important to address this fallacy. "Men" are not more vicious or ferocious. On average, "men" are mediocre. Compared to the average woman, the inability to reproduce makes the average man far less valuable. It is only a select few individuals who carry exceptional abilities. Women don't have to compete with average men, they have to compete with the top men. It's the top men society looks up to. It's the top men that women want. Average men are invisible. A useless by product of natural selection.
    - apta 6y ago
      I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military. Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
  - cforrester 6y ago
    The vast majority of employment opportunities do not involve physical labour requiring strength on a level unobtainable by women. Even moreso intellectually and socially, the sweeping majority of employment opportunities are equally accessible on physiological grounds to any sex. Time and again, we find that the main impediments to women's success in the workplace are the social constructs built to keep men and women in their designated roles. You're leaning very heavily on a fallacious understanding of human biology to make unsupportable declarations regarding the nature of human social interaction. It's troubling that you appear to believe women are inherently incompetent when working alongside men, and thus in need of protection from them. It's a given that I find that paternalistic view acutely misogynistic, but I'd also like to emphasize the disservice you do to men by painting them as brutish predators. I wholly reject any concept of manhood rooted in emphasizing social and physical superiority over women, such as this.
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them. I don't presume to know what any individual's aspirations are, but I do know that a species doesn't survive if its members don't want to reproduce. I also know that women's happiness has only declined over the past several decades despite what we are told are great strides towards women's liberties and opportunities. The women around me are under incredible stress due to the opposing pressures of a society that wants them to work and "be strong" and their own biological clock telling them to reproduce before it's too late. Just look at the statistics on anti-depressant and other drug use amongst women. You'd have to be crazy to think this is healthy. You cry misogyny but it's you who is killing them. This isn't what women want. They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would?
      - cforrester 6y ago
        > What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them. Your choice of words is curious. Unless you yourself are something that women need to be protected from, nobody is trying to be a saviour here. I'm not overly concerned if you want to dismiss me as a white knight, since it's not my own social abilities which are in question. > They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would? You won't find much argument from me that the modern working environment is inhumane. If this is the root of your argument, you can drop the sexual angle entirely -- we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex. Patronizing women and dictating their social roles to them will not bring us any closer to achieving that as a species, nor will falling into the trap of trying to wrap human social behaviour up in a nice little bow with overly simplistic biological hypotheses.

by apta 6y ago

cforrester 6y ago

I would appreciate if you could make a more substantial comment instead of simply trying to use "feminism" as a dirty word. I invite you to revisit the comment I replied to and recognize the way it denies women's agency by presuming that the author understands women's aspirations better than they themselves do. Paternalistic attitudes about how women don't belong in the workplace for their own good are rooted in misogyny, and facile appeals to "brainwashing" don't make for a compelling statement to the contrary.

apta 6y ago
I didn't say they never belong in the workplace. However, the toxicity of feminism is that one of the rotten values it introduced is that a woman must go to the workplace, otherwise she is worthless. Not only that, she has to compete head to head with men, even though biologically speaking, men and women are not the same. Men are more vicious and ferocious, and expecting women to face up to them will not end up well. Anyone paying attention already sees it unfold in front of us.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  > Men are more vicious and ferocious I mostly agree with what you're saying but it's important to address this fallacy. "Men" are not more vicious or ferocious. On average, "men" are mediocre. Compared to the average woman, the inability to reproduce makes the average man far less valuable. It is only a select few individuals who carry exceptional abilities. Women don't have to compete with average men, they have to compete with the top men. It's the top men society looks up to. It's the top men that women want. Average men are invisible. A useless by product of natural selection.
  - apta 6y ago
    I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military. Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.
- cforrester 6y ago
  The vast majority of employment opportunities do not involve physical labour requiring strength on a level unobtainable by women. Even moreso intellectually and socially, the sweeping majority of employment opportunities are equally accessible on physiological grounds to any sex. Time and again, we find that the main impediments to women's success in the workplace are the social constructs built to keep men and women in their designated roles. You're leaning very heavily on a fallacious understanding of human biology to make unsupportable declarations regarding the nature of human social interaction. It's troubling that you appear to believe women are inherently incompetent when working alongside men, and thus in need of protection from them. It's a given that I find that paternalistic view acutely misogynistic, but I'd also like to emphasize the disservice you do to men by painting them as brutish predators. I wholly reject any concept of manhood rooted in emphasizing social and physical superiority over women, such as this.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them. I don't presume to know what any individual's aspirations are, but I do know that a species doesn't survive if its members don't want to reproduce. I also know that women's happiness has only declined over the past several decades despite what we are told are great strides towards women's liberties and opportunities. The women around me are under incredible stress due to the opposing pressures of a society that wants them to work and "be strong" and their own biological clock telling them to reproduce before it's too late. Just look at the statistics on anti-depressant and other drug use amongst women. You'd have to be crazy to think this is healthy. You cry misogyny but it's you who is killing them. This isn't what women want. They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would?
    - cforrester 6y ago
      > What's troubling to me is that people like you act like some kind of saviour for women yet you don't appear to have ever spoken to or really, really listened to one of them. Your choice of words is curious. Unless you yourself are something that women need to be protected from, nobody is trying to be a saviour here. I'm not overly concerned if you want to dismiss me as a white knight, since it's not my own social abilities which are in question. > They don't want to go to work. Who the hell would? You won't find much argument from me that the modern working environment is inhumane. If this is the root of your argument, you can drop the sexual angle entirely -- we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex. Patronizing women and dictating their social roles to them will not bring us any closer to achieving that as a species, nor will falling into the trap of trying to wrap human social behaviour up in a nice little bow with overly simplistic biological hypotheses.