On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
Given a distribution with known mean μ and s.d. δ, this final formula defines the expectation of the kth highest value within a sample of size n, valid provided n is large and k is relatively small. As such, it affords us a method for estimating the expected rating of a range of top players from the German chess data for each gender; indeed, we use the formula to calculate the expected ratings of the top 100 male and female players using the mean and s.d. of the population (the German chess data), in turn allowing us to determine the expected difference in rating between those players.
This doesn't control for population. If you calculate mean and variation in a sample, and then use the sample's mean and variation to calculate the expected best performances and see that they match the original sample, you have done literally nothing but confirm that your population is normally distributed. This is about as meaningful as running text through English->German->English in Google Translate.
Is the each a typo'ed both?
No, it's not a typo. I genuinely don't know how to explain the methodology better than what is in the article - did you read the entire appendix? They do not "see that they match the original sample". They use the formula and the data concerning the playing population to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 male players, and then to calculate the statistically expected performances of the top 100 female players. They then calculate the actual differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players, and the statistically expected differences in ratings between the top 100 male and female players. Finally, they compare these two differences, and see how well they match. Again, contrary to what you were saying earlier, at no point in the operation do they project any value on a non-playing female population.
If they are going to attribute the difference in ratings to the population sizes - which they do - they need to assume that the women who are not in the sample, because they are not chess players, are equally talented. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship between the smaller female population and their lower ratings - merely a coincidental one.
No, they do not need to assume that. Their statistical analysis, which does NOT take/need to take into account women who are not in the sample, proves the differences in ratings among the population under study can be attributed to population size because the actual differences in ratings match at 96% the expected differences in ratings based on the differences in population size. That's how statistics work. They're not making a statement about people which are not in the population under study.
If it helps you, let's perform a thought experiment: 85 random people (or, if you want, chess players) play chess among each other. 80 have brown hair, 5 have blond hair (that is the actual M:F ratio of the population under study in the article). Men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess. Do you think it is statistically likely that a man with blond hair will be top 1? That there will be as many men with blond hair in the top 10 as there will be men with brown hair? No, obviously. That's why to look at whether the final ranking accurately reflects the premise "men with brown hair have no biological or cultural advantage whatsoever over men with blond hair when it comes to playing chess", you have to do the type of statistical analysis done by the authors of the article and check to what extent the actual performances and the performances you would statistically expect match.
For example, if the five men with blond hair outperform the top five men with brown hair, statistically there is a problem - either the premise is false or the initial selection resulted in having a spectacular difference in skill between these blond men and the brown men. If, however, the actual performances match the expected performances [as they do in our case], it means that the performances do not show in any way that there seems to be a problem with the initial premise. It doesn't mean that that the premise is necessarily true: it could be that all of the other blond men in the world [not part of the population that was studied] would score worse than any brown man in the world. But again, what it does mean is that the results obtained for the population under study do not show that there is anything wrong with the premise of equality between the two.
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
On April 13 2014 10:12 Darkwhite wrote: I'm beginning to see why they chose their very roundabout methodology of comparing the top 100.
The methodology of comparing the top 100 is based on the fact that they need the same number of people following an equivalent placement order to be able to measure differences. It's like you don't have a clue of what they're doing in the study.
On April 13 2014 10:55 Jumperer wrote: Darkwhite already neutralized Kwizach's argument. I thought kwizach was right but then darkwhite came a long. He has a better explanation.
Darkwhite has no explanation. He clearly failed to understand what was in the study and provided no actual evidence whatsoever to support his own idea that men are better at chess. How can you possibly fail to see this? 96% of differences in ratings were explained by men being overwhelmingly more numerous than women. Is it surprising to you that if two groups compete to see who jumps farther, for example, a group of 16 competitors is statistically more likely to have one of its members get the first place than a group of 1 competitor? And the remaining 4% can be explained by sociocultural and psychological factors of the type presented in the papers I submitted to you earlier and in the other one you found yourself about chess. I'm not interested in antagonizing you, but I just don't get how you can possibly go back to your initial position if you're honest when you say you're willing to take into account contradictory evidence and arguments.
This logic alone is insufficient to explain why men in general tend to have higher ELO's than women. Surely we can explain why the outliers in the larger sample lie farther out than the outliers in the smaller sample through this - it's just statistically to be expected. But obviously this applies to the other end of the spectrum too. We are going to expect to find more men at utterly terrible ELO's.
And this property of having more numerous and more extreme extremes on both ends (ought to) just weigh itself out; that is, there's no reason to think the average would be different for the larger sample and the smaller one, just based on the fact that one sample is larger. This makes obvious sense: if we take a certain group of players (say, men) and we add more and more men to the sample whose ELO we are averaging, we should just expect the ELO to eventually reach the real average for men, not steadily climb higher as you add more and more men. But this, weirdly enough, would happen if our initial sample was women, and then we started adding more and more men into the sample we were averaging.
This isn't the target of the article (for good reason), and maybe some sort of other statistical finagling will show that the difference in average ELO can't be attributed to (say) biological differences. But, in any case, this article only displays that a very specific phenomenon can be explained away by statistics, not that the notion of innate inequality is in itself untenable or unnecessary to account for differences.
IS there a difference between the average Elo of men and women in the ranked german chess population?
Kid? You call me "kid"? Grow up, but more importantly, learn to read.
This is what I said, to describe your position: "In order to be equal, they need to become WORLD CHAMPION at things which are actually completely fucking useless?" I didn't put words in your mouth, you illiterate child. I said that your standards are based on useless bullshit. You said that to consider women our equals they would need to perform equally well at some bullshit games that I consider to be useless. Are we clear?
ok kid, I judge them based on those "bullshit games" because these activities don't discriminate against women. In real jobs, women can claim that society is holding her back. She didn't get her promotion because she's a "woman." In bullshit games such as dart, chess and starcraft, there is no excuse. If a girl wants to be good and go for the top and be a pro, there isn't anything preventing her from doing so. Furthermore, these games can determine people's ability. The person who is better than the other person is going to outperform the other person. Why are women still not performing? oh right it's the culture again. because women can't hide their gender in video games online. Ever wonder why there isn't a super good top ranked hidden talent female gamer in anything?
There was a belief that black baseball players are inferior to white baseball players. That was proven wrong when blacks were allowed into the MLB and everyone could see their ability. If women are truly equal to men in term of ability. They should be able to compete with men in bullshit games. That's the theory. Why are they still coming up short?
To me the answer lies in biology.
Just a few things you fedorable bigot. No hidden top girls in gaming, what about scarlet or hafu in wow? Tossgirl was a low tier pro in bw, which means she was better than 99.9^100 percent of everyone to ever play the game. And Jenny Finch struck out something like 23 major leaguers, but shes clearly useless at baseball. Or that 9 year old girl who is the youngest chess player to reach expert rank ever?
easy there with the name calling.
replace all your example with a male doing it....then realize how worthless those accomplishments are in the grand scale. It doesn't matter if these people are 99.9% better than everyone else.
scarlett doesn't count tossgirl's TLPD record = 3-19 (13.64%). doesn't know anything about hafu. so i will not make judgement. Seems like a legit gamer.
insert more coin and try again.
How many games would you win against korean pros? Tossgirl counts becuase she was better than 99.9x10^100, but because she isn't better than 99.9x`10^101 percent of bw players she doesn't count? I bet she'd still stomp you. And you completely dodged Jenny Finch striking out 23 of the best baseball players in the world and a 9 year old girl being the fastest to expert in chess fucking ever, so your post means nothing bigot.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 12:30 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:35 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:48 Djzapz wrote: [quote] I like your point. The noble men pick up their weapons and defend their women + Show Spoiler +
and systematically rape the women on the losing side.
They owe us, we protect them and shit. The white ones. Sometimes.
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Basically you can continue to maintain that my support of feminism means I'm trying to oppress men but I, in turn, will continue to maintain that your opposition to feminism means you're a Death Eater and trying to help Voldemort. Now you might think this is a fucking stupid argument, and I would agree, but unfortunately it's your argument and you've refused to drop it so here we are.
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:39 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
All the power to her. She wants to make reparations. The only thing left is if she will bitch about it later. You can talk the talk but can you walk it? That's the million dollar question.
I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:51 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
As an addendum: the losing side's men were the first one to sacrifice for themselves in time of war to at least give some survival chances of their women (and most importantly, time to flee).
And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
Quick! We need to hire an eulogist! For KwarK's sanity!
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:50 Shiragaku wrote: [quote] I was making an allusion. Of course I do not use Medea as a role model, she did kill her two kids out of revenge for her husbands betrayal, but many women these days would much rather have jobs and be financially secure than to have someone else earn all that money for their security while they pump out babies, even if it has been jobs that have put their lives at risk. Women were protesting like hell to keep their jobs after World War I and World War II for a reason.
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
On April 13 2014 13:54 Djzapz wrote: [quote] And none of this is relevant because the notions of social justice and equality have nothing to do with settling old mysterious debts. Like I said, I didn't fight for women, and I didn't see you in the trenches. Nobody owes us anything, nor should they. Women don't ask us to settle a debt. I don't owe anybody anything nor do they. Debt is not the point.
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote:
On April 13 2014 13:59 Xiphos wrote: [quote]
Only problem being that their jobs are not NEARLY as dangerous as the jobs performed by men, that's why they want to maintain that status.
[quote]
It totally is the point for feminism, their core ideology is based upon how oppressed they were in history. Feminist want to settle the debt and if they want to settle the debt, they better accept the entire portion of it.
Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
You're a Death Eater.
Sorry I don't compute to horrible movie franchises.
On April 13 2014 14:39 KwarK wrote: [quote] No historical basis for this. For example people like to think that it was always "women and children first" but literally the only time that happened was the Titanic and every other time their casualty rates were as high or higher than men.
Relative to men women still had a shitty deal throughout history.
Absolutely false.
Men mostly became soldiers, farmers, miners, and fishermen (a reason why it was called fishermen instead of fisherwomen due to precedence of predominant men in the field) in the past while women did housework and childcaring.
On April 13 2014 14:41 KwarK wrote: [quote] Feminists don't want to settle a debt, they want equality now. What happened in the past isn't relevant, no feminists are trying to enact policies to make things better for women already dead.
No, the entire notion of feminism is how oppressed they were and because of that, that's why they wanted.
And if they want "equality" now, they better be willing to fully accept all the portion of it w/o complaints:
No instead they want to have their cake and eat it too!
This isn't even remotely true but if you genuinely believe that feminism wish to replace one oppressed sex with another then I can see why you object to it. I, as a feminist, would also be very against gender based oppression.
What you're doing in this topic is basically the same as someone who went "how can you support feminism when they were responsible for the Holocaust" and then whenever anyone pointed out that that's not actually what feminism is just stuck your head in the sand and insisted that feminist and Nazi are synonyms. Get a working knowledge of feminism then come back because right now you're wasting the time of everyone who reads your post and making yourself look like a complete and utter moron.
Mandatory youtube video because apparently you think all youtube videos are excellent sources for things.
>Totally change the definition of the subject at the very last minute (https://www.google.ca/#q=what+is+feminism&safe=off Read: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men."). >Cite a totally extraneous example that have no correlation w/ the topic at hand and nonsensical bad analogy (It was due to German National Pride that started it all. Check your history please). >Ends post with ad hominem (A symptom of severe anger due to lack of points).
Quality post bro.
How can you possibly be against feminism when feminism defeated Voldemort? What are you, a Death Eater!?!? Not according to any conventional definition of the word but according to my own special snowflake version it's true and I'm going to attack you on those grounds even though it's been perfectly clear throughout this entire exchange that you don't agree with that definition.
Literally you.
What can I say? I follow the truth and the truth only. At end of the day: Anti-terrorists"feminists"(KwarK's own special snowflake version of it™) wins.
You've redefined feminism as an organisation devoted to trying to achieve oppression on the basis of sex and then are trying to argue against anyone who approves of feminism based upon your definition. Furthermore you then try and prove that your definition is the only valid definition using youtube videos.
If feminism was about that then I would absolutely agree with you and I would massively disagree with any organisation trying to oppress men, or women. But I do this as a feminist because as a feminist I believe in equality of the sexes. You don't have a working knowledge of the terms involved which means that you waste the time of everyone trying to engage you by refusing to use the same language. You also seem to be unable to recognise that nobody else (except youtube videos which, as demonstrated earlier, think the moon is a conspiracy) is using your definition.
Nobody else is using my definition except for the majority of the Internetizens that goes on to Wikipedia for quick edits.
You're a Death Eater.
Sorry I don't compute to horrible movie franchises.
If you're against feminism then according to my made up definition that makes you a Death Eater by the exact same logic that you use to argue I'm trying to oppress men by being a feminist. Any time you'd like to agree upon common language for a debate just let me know and we'll work out a deal because we both disagree with oppressing men. But until that time I'm sorry but you're always going to be in the wrong because wtf how can you support Voldemort?
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
that, my friend, was not what you were arguing for the past few pages. but I'm not going to join this circle any more, so carry on
On April 13 2014 12:23 KwarK wrote: Of course women were oppressed in the past. They were denied freedom of employment, control of their own body (marital rape anyone?), education and the vote. How is this even debatable? Society has a lot of fucked up gender baggage and much of that hurts men and pointing out that men get to die for their country more than women is a good example of that but the idea that women weren't oppressed is laughably ignorant of history.
What part of "I'm all for gender equality but however don't say that women were "oppressed" during the past relative to men." this word don't you not understand?
They were oppressed w/o relativity, yes. But in relative to, the oppression put on to both side were more or less equally traded. Women were always protected first and foremost (along w/ children) while men handled all the dirty, risky, and intense jobs.
When Jordan said that women were protected when men went to war and all that, Medea responded by saying that she would rather go to war four times than to give birth once for a reason.
Giving birth doesn't seem so bad.
I guess you could go out and break both legs. The effects would be somewhat similar.
Xiphos, feminism is not about making everything artificially equal, it's about providing equal opportunities, just like that video you linked advocates. Here's Merriam-Webster: It is "the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities."
One point that is sometimes argued about is whether feminism represents advocacy for men's equal opportunities or solely women's equal opportunities. But the fact is that although men are prevented from doing certain things due to their gender, this doesn't mean that this justifies women having unequal opportunities due to their gender.
That's what feminism is. It's not about settling scores or lowering men's status or whatever. It's about equal opportunity to do things for women / both sexes. That does NOT mean we need exactly equal numbers of male and female CEOs, but it does mean that women should not have a harder time getting a job due to their gender than a man who is just as good a candidate.
This logically goes both ways, even if feminism doesn't cover both sides. If a man was restricted from becoming a flight attendant just because an airline didn't like having male flight attendants, this would also be unjust. Why? Because there is no difference applying the logic of feminism to males as there is applying the logic to females. There is nothing in feminism preventing men from also gaining equal opportunities The reason we focus on females is there has historically been more limitation to how females could behave than how males could behave, and we are trying to change that.
So what's your point? Do you think women should have equal opportunities as men when their gender doesn't inherently prevent them from doing their job effectively? If that is not what you think feminism is, you are not criticizing feminism, you are criticizing something else. Just because some people who call themselves feminists have weird ideas, doesn't mean this represents what feminism actually IS. That's a logical fallacy. Whatever feminism is in the dictionary, is what it is in reality.
TL; DR: If you support equal opportunities for men and women when gender doesn't inherently inhibit someone from doing something, you are a feminist.
On April 13 2014 12:04 Hryul wrote: You guys are arguing in circles. Both of you have a fair point about the assumptions in the paper. One states a self selecting process among good chess players while the other blames society for it.
You cannot decide this problem through the discussion of the paper itself, but would have to test in other environments. (possibly impossible)
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
that, my friend, was not what you were arguing for the past few pages. but I'm not going to join this circle any more, so carry on
Seriously? Reading comprehension is that hard? It is exactly what he said. Over, and over, and fucking over again.
They show, through a statistical analysis, that the crushing differences in number of players between men and women account for 96% of the observed difference in results between the two.
...
The article does not make any assumption on why the men and women who play chess do so. It looks at the respective chess performances of men and women in chess and demonstrates that 96% of the difference in representation in rankings can be attributed to the respective numbers of players of the two population
...
Again, before I address the rehash of your previous posts that you just posted, let me insist on something that you keep on dodging: chess rankings & performance simply do not support the idea of greater abilities for males. Differences in ranking are virtually entirely explained by the overwhelming advantage men have in numbers, and the rest can be explained by the cultural factors I evoked earlier
...
Of course, this doesn't prevent you from claiming that men do still have greater abilities, but the point is that you cannot base your point on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way.
...
Unfortunately for you, chess results show the two perform virtually equally well statistically, as the study demonstrated. As I wrote earlier, you therefore simply cannot base your idea of greater male competence on chess rankings since they simply do not support that idea in any way. The findings of the article do not rest on any assumption pertaining to the non-playing population.
...
Likewise, in our case, the actual performances of women are virtually entirely consistent with their statistically expected performances. Their performances therefore simply cannot be used to support the idea that they are worse than men at chess. Their performances simply do not support that idea. They do not show anything wrong with a premise that the two are equally good. If you want to look for evidence that the two are not equal, therefore, you have to look somewhere else than chess ratings.
...
The paper does not make assumptions with regards to why there are less women playing. All the paper says and demonstrates is that ratings cannot be used to argue that men are better than women at chess, because the ratings do not indicate that. That's it.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/lindy-west.png)
