|
On April 27 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 02:54 xM(Z wrote:On April 27 2016 02:41 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 02:34 xM(Z wrote:
it doesn't matter if you agree with a pure theoretical point of view; irl, nothing changes if you believe in it or not and nobody cares.
the two dudes woman+man waiting at that door for someone to open it first, do not care.
they do care if one of them will be an asshole to the other and your definition doesn't mention any rules of conduct.
How insulted someone is has zero to do with feminism. Much like how dark skinned someone is has nothing to do with the civil rights movement. If you think opening doors for people is good, do it. If people get insulted because you and them have different ideas about how human interaction should work--that's fine. But expecting a woman to thank you because you took the time to treat her nice is just plain fucking weird. Treat them nice because you want to treat people nice--it really shouldn't matter what they or others think. i understand what you're saying but you're barking at the wrong tree. you're supposed to say that to the woman who considers herself a feminist and gets offended by being stud up at the door; she will then decide whether to agree with you or not. gl there. What does it matter what she says? If you are honestly doing it because you want to be polite and you believe doing that is polite--then you shouldn't care what she says. If she does get offended and you would like to be better, then you should engage in dialogue with her about what is a better way to do it, and what options are available that she thinks is suitable. You then use your own agency using the new information provided to produce your own conclusions on what parts of her ideas are good and what parts are not, and hope that the new paradigm you reached is one step closer to "getting it right." She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right. And you could either try to change to be closer to what she thinks is right, or not. But how offended she is does not matter, nor should it matter, in your decision to hold open doors for people.
I think it's more a point as how different people can consider themselves feminists in different ways. The person who says that they can open a door themselves might consider themselves a feminist and take everything the opposite sex does as an affront, while the person who thanks you for opening a door can also be a feminist but can see opening a door as a kind thing to do.
|
On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid.
If you don't think this has been a discussion about sexism, then I'm not sure you know what feminism means :/
And feminism is *about* fixing "stupid" (whether it's willful ignorance/ bigotry or a sincere lack of knowledge/ experience), through education and dialogue and action and even policy if need be. That's how civil rights movements work.
|
On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid.
A.) Its not mutually exclusive. Feminists are people who see things wrong in society that is targeting the female identity. This does not mean they don't care for blacks or the poor. This means that, amongst their many opinions, one of them is an awareness that the female identity is mistreated in society (By "stupid people" in your words), and hence they want to "fix stupid" (your words).
B.) A woman who is a feminist that beats up a man because he is not treating her the way she wants him to treat her, is still a feminist even if the actions she is projecting is not relevant to feminism. People have many layers and many different ways they act and respond to stimuli. Someone who is or perceives themselves to be feminists will, at times, do stupid things.
Take you for example, you feel that you somehow are a decent human being despite evidence to the contrary. Its evident by little things such as your inability to see the actions of a man opening a door as simply the actions of that individual, but the actions of a woman responding to that man are the actions of all women or a subset of women. Your inability to see the hypocrisy and overly limited way you see the world does not hinder your ability to think of yourself as a good person. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't think yourself a decent human being--how you perceive yourself to be is your own business. How you are perceived by others is the business of others.
|
|
|
On April 27 2016 02:13 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 01:54 OtherWorld wrote:On April 27 2016 01:43 xM(Z wrote:
or, feminism as a term always means nothing. problem solved; 'cause if you let it up to the (feminist)individual, there's no way you can pull a meaningful, generalized definition out of your ass. Feminism has many, many different iterations over time, thus feminism - like all "-isms", by the way - needs to be seen in light of history (I remember someone doing a pretty good job at explaining the different iterations of feminism in this thread, was it WhiteDog?). And yes, you can't let the definition up to an individual. Or rather, you can if you're discussing with that individual about what they think is feminism, but you can't use an individual's definition as if it was the one and only correct definition. i want a definition that would be like an applicable law. if there is none, then i can't be arsed to care. i'll take people at face value and define them based on their actions; if i call someone a feminist, i don't care if i, my definition, manages to squeeze in one of those iterations because guess what, i might just define the new meta-ism!.
Well if you want words (especially words with a complex history like all -isms) with one strict definition that stays the same independently of the time, place, and people involved, as if these words were mathematical rules, I wish you good luck with language.
|
On April 27 2016 03:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid. A.) Its not mutually exclusive. Feminists are people who see things wrong in society that is targeting the female identity. This does not mean they don't care for blacks or the poor. This means that, amongst their many opinions, one of them is an awareness that the female identity is mistreated in society (By "stupid people" in your words), and hence they want to "fix stupid" (your words). B.) A woman who is a feminist that beats up a man because he is not treating her the way she wants him to treat her, is still a feminist even if the actions she is projecting is not relevant to feminism. People have many layers and many different ways they act and respond to stimuli. Someone who is or perceives themselves to be feminists will, at times, do stupid things. Take you for example, you feel that you somehow are a decent human being despite evidence to the contrary. Its evident by little things such as your inability to see the actions of a man opening a door as simply the actions of that individual, but the actions of a woman responding to that man are the actions of all women or a subset of women. Your inability to see the hypocrisy and overly limited way you see the world does not hinder your ability to think of yourself as a good person. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't think yourself a decent human being--how you perceive yourself to be is your own business. How you are perceived by others is the business of others.
for god sake man, you're not getting it. what the man feels or doesn't feel, what happens to him or doesn't happen to him is and always will be a secondary/tangential point here.
the main point is that the same gesture, opening a door(you can have the door opened by a robot for all i care), triggers two totally different responses from two feminist women based on their (own)different definitions of feminism.
unless your whole point is that feminism means different things to different feminists and i should respect that because <ihavenoideawhy> then all i can say is ... "lol?" (i'd rather accept the biblical definition of God).
feminism caring about racism/other causes for the less privileged ones is a different discussion/topic. i never said they don't care about others but implied that if the root of all evil is stupid, then why do you need churches and cults and sects?.
+ Show Spoiler +else - what is female identity?, what is society?(whom does it include?, aliens?, the amazonian tribes?), why fixing stupid doesn't fix everything?; delimitate current discussions, create different ones if you want but don't mix them
if you give me generalizations i'll stop replaying because i do not see them useful. what i want from you is an applied form of feminism(e.g. - theoretical physics vs applied physics); if you don't have one, then gl with life and stuff; i will not back up feminism, ever.
@OtherWorld - yes, it's what i want and i wish luck to whomever invented the word or to whomever needs to define it because all i want is to have something to apply irl.
|
She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right.
Let's expand on this.
Why should being offended, a reaction that completely counteracts an action without any kind of constructive aspect to it, be considered a right? Maybe this is worded wrongly, I don't think free speech is a bad thing for example, but I think the way it's utilized is wrong.
Why is it so difficult to just put up with what other people do when it's not an active impediment on this person?
I absolutely hate the feminist debate by the way, because it's beating a dead horse.
Sexism goes both ways, maybe more skewed towards female I could see that, but what about this: maybe the world, since a certain time, just puts the female body as the epitome of beauty. Oh no, what a shame!
|
He's not denying her right to feel insulted. he's saying that the proposed definition of feminism is useless because it's too broad
|
On April 27 2016 04:45 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid. A.) Its not mutually exclusive. Feminists are people who see things wrong in society that is targeting the female identity. This does not mean they don't care for blacks or the poor. This means that, amongst their many opinions, one of them is an awareness that the female identity is mistreated in society (By "stupid people" in your words), and hence they want to "fix stupid" (your words). B.) A woman who is a feminist that beats up a man because he is not treating her the way she wants him to treat her, is still a feminist even if the actions she is projecting is not relevant to feminism. People have many layers and many different ways they act and respond to stimuli. Someone who is or perceives themselves to be feminists will, at times, do stupid things. Take you for example, you feel that you somehow are a decent human being despite evidence to the contrary. Its evident by little things such as your inability to see the actions of a man opening a door as simply the actions of that individual, but the actions of a woman responding to that man are the actions of all women or a subset of women. Your inability to see the hypocrisy and overly limited way you see the world does not hinder your ability to think of yourself as a good person. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't think yourself a decent human being--how you perceive yourself to be is your own business. How you are perceived by others is the business of others. for god sake man, you're not getting it. what the man feels or doesn't feel, what happens to him or doesn't happen to him is and always will be a secondary/tangential point here. the main point is that the same gesture, opening a door(you can have the door opened by a robot for all i care), triggers two totally different responses from two feminist women based on their (own)different definitions of feminism. unless your whole point is that feminism means different things to different feminists and i should respect that because <ihavenoideawhy> then all i can say is ... "lol?" (i'd rather accept the biblical definition of God). feminism caring about racism/other causes for the less privileged ones is a different discussion/topic. i never said they don't care about others but implied that if the root of all evil is stupid, then why do you need churches and cults and sects?. + Show Spoiler +else - what is female identity?, what is society?(whom does it include?, aliens?, the amazonian tribes?), why fixing stupid doesn't fix everything?; delimitate current discussions, create different ones if you want but don't mix them if you give me generalizations i'll stop replaying because i do not see them useful. what i want from you is an applied form of feminism(e.g. - theoretical physics vs applied physics); if you don't have one, then gl with life and stuff; i will not back up feminism, ever. @OtherWorld - yes, it's what i want and i wish luck to whomever invented the word or to whomever needs to define it because all i want is to have something to apply irl.
Not all women act the same, hence why some act one way and others act another way. I know its hard for you to think that women are not simply a hive mind--but it is possible that they have individual thoughts and feelings.
As for your questions, let me try to explain it using small words so that you can better grasp it.
Female Identity - Society has roles that it determines as female and male. As an example, in modern day america, it is understood that women wear dresses, and that men wearing dresses is not normal. There are other roles of course (things like Husband/Bride dichotomies, or Dating Scene Etiquette, etc... Women are not the only gender that follows these tropes, men do it as well. Feminism places focus on predefined expectations of what women should or shouldn't do, or what women should or shouldn't feel.
Returning back to your example: The reason some feminists are okay with doors being opened and some feminists are not okay with doors being opened is the whole goal of feminism. That women not be predetermined automatons that all respond the same exact way to stimulus. I know this is hard for someone like you to understand, so let me repeat it. You do not get to decide whether someone is upset or not about something. And just because you would personally not be upset about it, does not mean others are not allowed to. This is called treating other human beings as human beings, and more importantly, to remember that women are also human beings.
"Applied Form of Feminism": People act differently from one another and you shouldn't expect all people to react or act the same way to the same stimulus. Some men/women will be slutty, some will be prude, some will like having doors opened, some will not. Treat them all as equals despite they're reactions.
This is really not hard, I don't understand why its so difficult for you.
|
On April 27 2016 04:45 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 03:42 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 27 2016 03:30 xM(Z wrote:
i said nothing about sex(ism). i can do a discussion about that but it'll end the same:
- what drives sexism?
- stupid people.
then fix stupid. A.) Its not mutually exclusive. Feminists are people who see things wrong in society that is targeting the female identity. This does not mean they don't care for blacks or the poor. This means that, amongst their many opinions, one of them is an awareness that the female identity is mistreated in society (By "stupid people" in your words), and hence they want to "fix stupid" (your words). B.) A woman who is a feminist that beats up a man because he is not treating her the way she wants him to treat her, is still a feminist even if the actions she is projecting is not relevant to feminism. People have many layers and many different ways they act and respond to stimuli. Someone who is or perceives themselves to be feminists will, at times, do stupid things. Take you for example, you feel that you somehow are a decent human being despite evidence to the contrary. Its evident by little things such as your inability to see the actions of a man opening a door as simply the actions of that individual, but the actions of a woman responding to that man are the actions of all women or a subset of women. Your inability to see the hypocrisy and overly limited way you see the world does not hinder your ability to think of yourself as a good person. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't think yourself a decent human being--how you perceive yourself to be is your own business. How you are perceived by others is the business of others. for god sake man, you're not getting it. what the man feels or doesn't feel, what happens to him or doesn't happen to him is and always will be a secondary/tangential point here. the main point is that the same gesture, opening a door(you can have the door opened by a robot for all i care), triggers two totally different responses from two feminist women based on their (own)different definitions of feminism. unless your whole point is that feminism means different things to different feminists and i should respect that because <ihavenoideawhy> then all i can say is ... "lol?" (i'd rather accept the biblical definition of God). feminism caring about racism/other causes for the less privileged ones is a different discussion/topic. i never said they don't care about others but implied that if the root of all evil is stupid, then why do you need churches and cults and sects?. + Show Spoiler +else - what is female identity?, what is society?(whom does it include?, aliens?, the amazonian tribes?), why fixing stupid doesn't fix everything?; delimitate current discussions, create different ones if you want but don't mix them if you give me generalizations i'll stop replaying because i do not see them useful. what i want from you is an applied form of feminism(e.g. - theoretical physics vs applied physics); if you don't have one, then gl with life and stuff; i will not back up feminism, ever. @OtherWorld - yes, it's what i want and i wish luck to whomever invented the word or to whomever needs to define it because all i want is to have something to apply irl.
No. Naracs' excellently debated point is that your entire point is non-sensical. Feminism does not suddenly become ill-defined because two feminist people react differently. The specific acts of people have very little to do with the meaning of the -ism, because such complex concepts do manifest themselves differently in different people/cultures/societies.
As for applied feminism: look around you! Do you see something in day-to-day life that culturally/institutionally/otherwise consistently disadvantages women in some situation? If the answer is "no", then congratulations, you are not a feminist! If yes, then if you try to do something to address that inequality then congratulations, you are trying to apply feminism! Whether it works or not, and whether it is a good idea to even implement whatever solution you came up with, are largely irrelevant. So to come back to your door example: the woman snubbing you for acting galantly is applying feminism. In a rather destructive and silly manner, but she perceives you holding the door open for her as a signal that you are treating her as somehow less than an equal (whether that is because she feels objectified, or because she feels you think she's weaker and needs protecting, or some other stereotype that she may or may not think you are applying to her that she does not want; regardless of whether that is true or not).
|
On April 27 2016 05:05 Sent. wrote:
He's not denying her right to feel insulted. he's saying that the proposed definition of feminism is useless because it's too broad
How is it broad?
Feminists and non-Feminists want there to be gender equality.
Feminists believes there are things inherent in society preventing gender equality.
Non-feminists don't believe there are inherent things in society preventing gender equality.
You can be a feminists and act one way, and someone else can be a feminists and act a different way--because they both have different ideas on how to solve that core problem of gender equality.
|
@xM(Z : I feel like you expect two different persons to react identically to something on the sole basis that they share one common point : they're feminists (well, two common points in your door-holding example : feminists and women). Now ask yourself : would two communists always react the same in any situation? Would two ecologists always react the same in any situation? Would two nationalists always react the same? Would two transhumanists react the same? Etc? If you answered yes to these questions, then you should stop to put people in boxes. People are individuals, individuals who define themselves as [insert opinion group here]. They're not officially given by a godlike entity the title of [insert same opinion group here]. Yes, every feminist will have a different definition of "feminism", because it's their own definition. Individuals appropriate concepts and make these concepts their own. That's a fact, and that's beautiful.
On April 27 2016 05:01 Uldridge wrote:
She, as a human being, has the right to be insulted by the things you do. Whether you agree with her being insulted is irrelevant. Its her right.
Let's expand on this.
Why should being offended, a reaction that completely counteracts an action without any kind of contrsuctive aspect to it, be considered a right?
Why is it so difficult to just put up with what other people do when it's not an active impediment on this person?
I absolutely hate the feminist debate by the way, because it's beating a dead horse.
Sexism goes both ways, maybe more skewed towards female I could see that, but what about this: maybe the world, since a certain time, just puts the female body as the epitome of beauty. Oh no, what a shame!
Tbh that's an pretty useless remark, because you can see everything in a different light depending on your own sensibility. You can consider the fact that female beauty is considered "true beauty" as "sexism" towards men because they're not in the spotlight, or you can consider it as "sexism" towards women because it puts more social pressure on them to conform to that ideal beauty (ie an ugly girl will be worse off in life than an ugly guy). Just like you can consider the fact that men in heterosexual couples are usually the ones who bring the more money home as "sexism" towards women because they're not in the spotlight/have less independence/etc, or you can consider it as "sexism" towards men because it puts more social pressure on them to conform to that ideal of moneybringer (ie a guy with a badly payed job with low social recognition will be considered worse off than a woman with the same job).
The truth is that gender equality, or whatever you want to call it, is, like all equalities, about equal rights and equal opportunities, not about equal outcomes.
edit : and of course you have the "right" to be offended, don't act as if you weren't offended by these people being offended. Like, what's next? People don't have the "right" be sad, because they should just put up with life? People don't have the "right" to be in love, because they should spend their time on something productive instead? People don't have the "right" to have emotions anymore?
|
Because treating human beings like humans beings is being offended by someone opening a door because it conforms to the preconceived notion of there being a patriarchy, am I doing it right?
Dating scene? Generalization
Marriage? Generalization
These are things that apply on general but if you break them down case by case, this starts to fall apart as there is a significant amount of people that don't follow the general rules of thumb.
The entire modern feminist and SJW movement is people being anal about people NOT being treated as a special snowflake. For example, a person should be given the position because this person is the most qualified, NOT because there's another percentage deficit that needs to be filled up so the company can look like it's an unbiased one. If there are multiple people as qualified, sure, fill it up so an equality (in whatever way that is) can be met. Stop being entitled to things you don't have any claim on while never having shown any kind of authority on any subject. All it is you're doing is whining with a big megaphone, while everyone else (man AND woman) are just trying to live their lives, trying to get by.
Now I'm not saying certain things in society are horribly fucked up, but for the whole female equality thing, I don't feel like the Western woman has less rights or is less equal in any a significant way in comparison with the Western man.
On April 27 2016 05:16 OtherWorld wrote:
Tbh that's an pretty useless remark, because you can see everything in a different light depending on your own sensibility.
It's a useless remark in the sense that, indeed there are so many different ways to view this, that it can be so nuanced and layered, that no party ever is going to either get the thing they are fighting for or getting the other party to acknowledge their wrong (also, what are discussions on the internet?)
It's not a useless remark in the sense that people only try to view things from their own narrative and are most of the time unable to see the views from both parties. So in that way I see feminism as an ineptitude to view things in relation to society as a whole, because alot of the things I've seen and heard over the years of what all the different aspects of this movement do, have mostly been completely ridiculous.
On April 27 2016 05:16 OtherWorld wrote:
edit : and of course you have the "right" to be offended, don't act as if you weren't offended by these people being offended. Like, what's next? People don't have the "right" be sad, because they should just put up with life? People don't have the "right" to be in love, because they should spend their time on something productive instead? People don't have the "right" to have emotions anymore?
Oh yes, because being sad or in love is such a trivial matter as being offended.
Life can be very fucking tough already and it's not getting any better when the motherfucker next to you starts shouting at you because you didn't act the right way according to them.
|
What in hell are you talking about?
=> Someone can very much be offended by someone opening the door because it isn't okay in their own personal frame of thought. That's a fact. People get offended over stupid things, that's a fact. Would it be better if people were always reasonable? Yes, sure. It would also be better if diseases didn't exist and we all lived in a gold-filled paradise where we can bath in pleasure permanently.
=> As a consequence, someone can very much go mad on twitter/make a vlog/whatever shit is trending nowadays to express the fact that they've been offended. I mean, like, no law prevents that, no modern and widely recognized moral code prevents that. Yes, they can even yell in a megaphone, I'm actually pretty sure that's a right guaranteed by law (not yelling in the megaphone, but having a demonstration in the streets).
=> Yes, a person should be given the position because they're the most qualified?... That's actually what gender equality is about.
=> You also have the right to not give a shit about people yelling everywhere that they've been offended. Like, I don't know, but unless you've done something that can be legally punished, you have every right to not give a single fuck. That's actually what you advise to those whiny people - the "shut up and man up" attitude -, so why not start by applying it to yourself?
=> Once again, the way you describe feminism makes me think that you're in fact talking about a very little part - though very vocal - of the feminist movement : the extremists. Most feminist people want equal rights and equal opportunities. Only extremists have an ineptitude to view things in relation to society as a whole. And yes, extremists will be more vocal than reasonable people, that's the only thing they have to be visible. Why bother with extremists? You're actually helping them when you're listening to them, getting mad over them, and talking about them to complain about them. And why assimilate everyone to those extremists?
=> So, to conclude the whole thing, what I see here in your post is you being terribly offended by extremists being offended (because let's be honest, if the "SJWs" you talk about - who are in fact extremists among feminists/other minorities' rights movements), and telling us that they don't have the right to be offended (for a still unexplained reason) while you're being visibly offended.
|
On April 27 2016 05:19 Uldridge wrote:Because treating human beings like humans beings is being offended by someone opening a door because it conforms to the preconceived notion of there being a patriarchy, am I doing it right? Dating scene? Generalization Marriage? Generalization These are things that apply on general but if you break them down case by case, this starts to fall apart as there is a significant amount of people that don't follow the general rules of thumb. The entire modern feminist and SJW movement is people being anal about people NOT being treated as a special snowflake. For example, a person should be given the position because this person is the most qualified, NOT because there's another percentage deficit that needs to be filled up so the company can look like it's an unbiased one. If there are multiple people as qualified, sure, fill it up so an equality (in whatever way that is) can be met. Stop being entitled to things you don't have any claim on while never having shown any kind of authority on any subject. All it is you're doing is whining with a big megaphone, while everyone else (man AND woman) are just trying to live their lives, trying to get by. Now I'm not saying certain things in society are horribly fucked up, but for the whole female equality thing, I don't feel like the Western woman has less rights or is less equal in any a significant way in comparison with the Western man. Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 05:16 OtherWorld wrote:
Tbh that's an pretty useless remark, because you can see everything in a different light depending on your own sensibility. It's a useless remark in the sense that, indeed there are so many different ways to view this, that it can be so nuanced and layered, that no party ever is going to either get the thing they are fighting for or getting the other party to acknowledge their wrong (also, what are discussions on the internet?) It's not a useless remark in the sense that people only try to view things from their own narrative and are most of the time unable to see the views from both parties. So in that way I see feminism as an ineptitude to view things in relation to society as a whole, because alot of the things I've seen and heard over the years of what all the different aspects of this movement do, have mostly been completely ridiculous. Show nested quote +On April 27 2016 05:16 OtherWorld wrote:
edit : and of course you have the "right" to be offended, don't act as if you weren't offended by these people being offended. Like, what's next? People don't have the "right" be sad, because they should just put up with life? People don't have the "right" to be in love, because they should spend their time on something productive instead? People don't have the "right" to have emotions anymore? Oh yes, because being sad or in love is such a trivial matter as being offended. Life can be very fucking tough already and it's not getting any better when the motherfucker next to you starts shouting at you because you didn't act the right way according to them.
If you do not think there is a problem, then you are not a feminist. If you think there is a problem, you are feminist. Much like if you sided with MLK's ideas, you were an activist, and if you did not side with MLK's idea, you weren't an activist. It is possible that both opinions exists at the same time, and its possible that different people will have different interpretations and ideas of those opinions at the same time.
|
On April 27 2016 05:19 Uldridge wrote:
The entire modern feminist and SJW movement is people being anal about people NOT being treated as a special snowflake.
...aaaaand that's how we know you've never been discriminated against. Holy privilege, Batman. Feminism is a civil rights movement that's necessary, whether you like it or not. Women wanting to be treated fairly and equally is pretty much the *opposite* of them wanting to be treated like special snowflakes.
For example, a person should be given the position because this person is the most qualified, NOT because there's another percentage deficit that needs to be filled up so the company can look like it's an unbiased one. If there are multiple people as qualified, sure, fill it up so an equality (in whatever way that is) can be met. Stop being entitled to things you don't have any claim on while never having shown any kind of authority on any subject. All it is you're doing is whining with a big megaphone, while everyone else (man AND woman) are just trying to live their lives, trying to get by.
Not sure why you think affirmative action = feminism, but you're mistaken. Your overall idea of looking past certain traits and caring only for who's most qualified is *exactly* what feminists want. They're not trying to steal men's jobs; they just want to be taken as seriously as men are if they have the same qualifications.
With references to affirmative action and SJW, it sounds like you don't really understand feminism... But based on the rest of your comments, it sounds like you agree with actual feminism even though you're strawmanning what it is.
|
Has this question been asked before?
|
Canada11355 Posts
On April 06 2016 10:27 Cascade wrote:Yes. Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 08:31 farvacola wrote:
More importantly: has it been answered? Yes. We can move on now. 
|
Can Epishade's questions work as a perfect segway to discuss new subjects and if so, why isn't it widely monetized yet?
Is he the question asking guru we all seek?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
