|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 18 2013 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 07:55 Danglars wrote:On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction". I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say. Besides the fact that that 'literally' can generally be used instead of 'figuratively' nowadays to make a point (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/), would you care to make an actual point instead of giving false advice regarding your own language?
It's a sad day for the language, but now that I know you're in that crowd we can talk a bit more understandably. I think we both know women were treated a great deal better than cattle far more recently than you imply. The women's movement did gain a bit more freedoms and gains that were still denied them. Now, we're seeing a push in third-wave feminism with some particularly nasty side effects. Side effects that fall on deaf ears for those that purport to be for equality instead of privilege. Paglia's seen it. If you read the article and understood her points, what do you dispute?
|
On December 18 2013 12:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 09:26 Nyxisto wrote:On December 18 2013 07:55 Danglars wrote:On December 17 2013 12:08 Nyxisto wrote:
I also find it very funny that women have been discriminated for millennia to the point where they literally were treated like cattle but after like what, a few decades of feminism and a few women showing their boobs on tv men are "on the verge of extinction". I know, the branding of women with marks like CCC or Lazy L in the West was so very widespread. They were kept in pastures surrounded by fences, fed and bathed by others. They were literally treated like cattle, as you say. Besides the fact that that 'literally' can generally be used instead of 'figuratively' nowadays to make a point (http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/), would you care to make an actual point instead of giving false advice regarding your own language? It's a sad day for the language, but now that I know you're in that crowd we can talk a bit more understandably. I think we both know women were treated a great deal better than cattle far more recently than you imply. The women's movement did gain a bit more freedoms and gains that were still denied them. Now, we're seeing a push in third-wave feminism with some particularly nasty side effects. Side effects that fall on deaf ears for those that purport to be for equality instead of privilege. Paglia's seen it. If you read the article and understood her points, what do you dispute?
Paglia is heavily implying that men and women are so fundamentally different that a kind of division of labor is necessary. She makes the mistake of taking the status quo as unchangeable. But even if we just look at the last few decades we can see how percentages have shifted and that nowadays, with some barriers gone, women are present in many jobs they were not 50 years ago. Her logic basically works like this:
100 years ago: Hey, women are great in the kitchen, but don't let them vote!
80 years ago : Hey, women are great at voting, but don't let them go to college!
50 years ago: Okay, women are pretty good artists, but don't let them study physics!
Paglia today : Hey, women can go into politics or to college, but don't let them do x or y, that can only work for men!
Seeing the pace with which the role of women has changed in the last hundred years it's realistic to expect that women can do every job men can do. These fundamental differences Paglia sees between women and men are merely a snapshot that disappears if you put it in historical context And i believe in equality of outcome. If women are still underrepresented in so many fields, they can't be so very privileged.
And regarding the cattle comparison: In the US (as well as here in Germany) marital rape wasn't a thing before the 90's. By definition you just couldn't rape your wife. Even today some states are treating rape in a marriage different from other forms of rape.
And her "men built everything we have argument" is borderline cynical. That's like saying white men built everything we have, so black men must be destined to harvest cotton. But the point is that (in this case) women were never given the chance to do what men did, so it's not surprising that everything has been built by men in the first place.
|
On December 18 2013 11:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 10:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 18 2013 09:30 sam!zdat wrote:
lol camille paglia is a hilarious provocateur Of course. That's why I posted the article in the first place. The reaction of the average "Jane Feminist" is amusing. How is she "average"? She seems fairly fringe to me.
I'm referring to the average feminist's reaction to her.
|
Paglia's article were comments at a debate:
Be it resolved, men are obsolete…
November 15, 2013
Pre-Debate
16% Pro 84% Con
Post-Debate
44% Pro 56% Con
Source.
|
If a society existed where one gender or the other became obsolete, I don't think I'd want to live in that society.
|
On December 18 2013 13:39 TheFish7 wrote:
If a society existed where one gender or the other became obsolete, I don't think I'd want to live in that society.
I think there was a porno about that, it seemed to work out alright for the last man alive...
|
On December 18 2013 13:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 13:39 TheFish7 wrote:
If a society existed where one gender or the other became obsolete, I don't think I'd want to live in that society. I think there was a porno about that, it seemed to work out alright for the last man alive...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandread
|
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century
|
On December 18 2013 14:13 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 13:51 aksfjh wrote:On December 18 2013 13:39 TheFish7 wrote:
If a society existed where one gender or the other became obsolete, I don't think I'd want to live in that society. I think there was a porno about that, it seemed to work out alright for the last man alive... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandread
Not quite. It's hard to find given Google's reluctance to be helpful when searching for obscure "obscene" content...
|
Modern feminism is pure shit. The idea that men are "obsolete" is so retarded to me...
Feminism today is like occidental marxism since the eighties, a discussion between bourgeois, far away from the necessity of practice. Feminism is dead since black feminism, since the moment we actually understood that being a woman everything equal doesn t mean shit.
|
United States43609 Posts
On December 18 2013 20:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Modern feminism is pure shit. The idea that men are "obsolete" is so retarded to me...
Feminism today is like occidental marxism since the eighties, a discussion between bourgeois, far away from the necessity of practice. Feminism is dead since black feminism, since the moment we actually understood that being a woman everything equal doesn t mean shit.
I don't think you have a working understanding of what modern feminism is.
|
On December 18 2013 21:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 20:40 WhiteDog wrote:
Modern feminism is pure shit. The idea that men are "obsolete" is so retarded to me...
Feminism today is like occidental marxism since the eighties, a discussion between bourgeois, far away from the necessity of practice. Feminism is dead since black feminism, since the moment we actually understood that being a woman everything equal doesn t mean shit. I don't think you have a working understanding of what modern feminism is.
I don't think there exists a universal ideology of feminism. I saw a debate between women both proclaiming to be feminists. It was almost a catfight when discussing preferential treatment. One found that the best way to improve equality was giving men a bigger incentive to take parental leave, while being far more skeptical about women only scientific funding and quota on women in higher up jobs. The other claimed the first was a fake feminist and demanded legal punishment for companies not reaching women quotas, widespread preferential funding and despiced the incentive for parental leave of men.
The real difference was that the first had an international view on womens right and saw how advantageous they were here compared to elsewhere. The other was a national feminist and only cared about domestic equality.
|
Feminism today suffers from the same problem that the black civil rights movement suffers from: it has degenerated into a rather vulgar special interest group. What's worse, and what Paglia and other posters around here have touched upon, too many modern feminists are pursuing an incredibly retarded and unrealistic definition of equality between men and women.
|
On December 18 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century
Well then there's no reason for these straw man arguments all the time. Yeah obviously every feminist believes men are obsolete and every feminist hates men. That's how she makes it sound. She tries to dismantle feminism in the way environmentalists are criticized here in Europe. Everyone who cares a bit about the environment is obviously a total nut-bag who lives in the woods, and wants to forbid everything that's fun. That leads to a misperception of the actual movement, and with quite a lot of success.
Feminism today suffers from the same problem that the black civil rights movement suffers from: it has degenerated into a rather vulgar special interest group.
No, they don't suffer from anything. The world is far from being an equal place. (Even if we're just talking about equality of opportunity). It's just that white heterosexual males will need to accept that they're not superior to anybody else.
If you're thinking that we're even remotely close to living in a fair society you are completely deluded. Take a look at what kind of role racial segregation even plays today :
http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-racial-segregation-america-2011-12
|
United States43609 Posts
The feminist intellectual movement has a lot to offer people wishing to attack injustices against people other women. Modern feminism is larger than the fight for the vote and employment and any intellectually honest feminist will accept that women are not uniquely victims of outmoded gender models. That's the stupidest thing about Reddit MRA's, if they had any sense they'd recognise feminism for the huge foundational work in the field and build it.
|
On December 19 2013 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century Well then there's no reason for these straw man arguments all the time. Yeah obviously every feminist believes men are obsolete and every feminist hates men. That's how she makes it sound. She tries to dismantle feminism in the way environmentalists are criticized here in Europe. Everyone who cares a bit about the environment is obviously a total nut-bag who lives in the woods, and wants to forbid everything that's fun. That leads to a misperception of the actual movement, and with quite a lot of success.
You know that Paglia's comments were her opening salvo in a debate where the resolution was: "Men are obsolete" right? It's not a straw man argument. That was the argument. Her opponents were Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd.
Rosin and Dowd "won" the debate.
|
On December 19 2013 03:41 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2013 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 18 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century Well then there's no reason for these straw man arguments all the time. Yeah obviously every feminist believes men are obsolete and every feminist hates men. That's how she makes it sound. She tries to dismantle feminism in the way environmentalists are criticized here in Europe. Everyone who cares a bit about the environment is obviously a total nut-bag who lives in the woods, and wants to forbid everything that's fun. That leads to a misperception of the actual movement, and with quite a lot of success. You know that Paglia's comments were her opening salvo in a debate where the resolution was: "Men are obsolete" right? It's not a straw man argument. That was the argument. Her opponents were Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Rosin and Dowd "won" the debate.
I assume they all took biology classes in high school and the title was chosen provocatively. Also two feminists being stupid doesn't mean all feminists are stupid. (Relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/385/ )
|
On December 19 2013 03:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2013 03:41 IgnE wrote:On December 19 2013 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 18 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century Well then there's no reason for these straw man arguments all the time. Yeah obviously every feminist believes men are obsolete and every feminist hates men. That's how she makes it sound. She tries to dismantle feminism in the way environmentalists are criticized here in Europe. Everyone who cares a bit about the environment is obviously a total nut-bag who lives in the woods, and wants to forbid everything that's fun. That leads to a misperception of the actual movement, and with quite a lot of success. You know that Paglia's comments were her opening salvo in a debate where the resolution was: "Men are obsolete" right? It's not a straw man argument. That was the argument. Her opponents were Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Rosin and Dowd "won" the debate. I assume they all took biology classes in high school and the title was chosen provocatively. Also two feminists being stupid doesn't mean all feminists are stupid. (Relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/385/ )
What does a biology class in high school mean? You know that a small part of the argument is that women don't actually need men to reproduce anymore right?
Who is throwing up straw man arguments now? I don't think anyone is saying that all feminists are stupid.
|
On December 19 2013 03:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2013 03:48 Nyxisto wrote:On December 19 2013 03:41 IgnE wrote:On December 19 2013 01:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 18 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha nyx buddy I'm quite sure that camille paglia is familiar with the changes that gender roles have undergone in the last century Well then there's no reason for these straw man arguments all the time. Yeah obviously every feminist believes men are obsolete and every feminist hates men. That's how she makes it sound. She tries to dismantle feminism in the way environmentalists are criticized here in Europe. Everyone who cares a bit about the environment is obviously a total nut-bag who lives in the woods, and wants to forbid everything that's fun. That leads to a misperception of the actual movement, and with quite a lot of success. You know that Paglia's comments were her opening salvo in a debate where the resolution was: "Men are obsolete" right? It's not a straw man argument. That was the argument. Her opponents were Hanna Rosin and Maureen Dowd. Rosin and Dowd "won" the debate. I assume they all took biology classes in high school and the title was chosen provocatively. Also two feminists being stupid doesn't mean all feminists are stupid. (Relevant xkcd http://xkcd.com/385/ ) What does a biology class in high school mean? You know that a small part of the argument is that women don't actually need men to reproduce anymore right? Who is throwing up straw man arguments now? I don't think anyone is saying that all feminists are stupid.
If we're both agreeing that the majority of feminists and the movement as a whole has nothing to do with these people than i don't know what we are arguing about right now.
My whole point was that people take these silly "hardcore feminists" as a straw man to discredit the feminist movement as a whole and than act like all feminists are weirdos, the same way people actively pick violent/radical environmentalists to ridicule the whole movement.
|
Whelp, the Fed decided to taper (-$5B treasuries, -$5B mortgages), largely on the back of improving economic figures.
And so begins the yelling over wtf tapering actually does 
edit: also dovish on forward rate guidance (e.g. don't expect a rate hike soon tyvm).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
