American feminism is about superiority, not equality

[minamoto 👑]

according to vitalyzdtv vids it shows that amierican girls are so easy

 

[slimreaper]

Stop making issues a competition.

I've explained so much in this thread already the importance feminism has in the western world. Feminism isn't to get things from horrible to good, it's keep things from going from good to horrible.

it's baseless. If it goes horrible again, feminists will re-appear. Until then it's a cause to promote superiority.

But by all means give an example of feminists "coasting" and just preventing it from getting worse for women. They will always find some reason to say men and women are un-equal.

 

[Punk Hazard]

It's not a competition,it's called having some damn perspective.

Your perspective is one the world doesn't need.

it's baseless. If it goes horrible again, feminists will re-appear. Until then it's a cause to promote superiority.

But by all means give an example of feminists "coasting" and just preventing it from getting worse for women. They will always find some reason to say men and women are un-equal.

*points back to house analogy*

 

[slimreaper]

Your perspective is one the world doesn't need.



*points back to house analogy*

feminism isn't a house. There is nothing destroying women's rights the second they shut the **** up. Give me evidence of a policy or action feminists do to "maintain" that isn't pushing for superiority

 

[Shadow Phantasm]

Your perspective is one the world doesn't need.



*points back to house analogy*

Yes,because preferring to focus on the real issues is somehow bad now.

Western feminists are too wrapped up in their privileged issues to give a damn about the atrocities women still face in other countries.

What the world doesn't need is perspectives like yours.

 

[Sennin of Logic]

Stop making issues a competition.

I've explained so much in this thread already the importance feminism has in the western world. Feminism isn't to get things from horrible to good, it's keep things from going from good to horrible.

No it isn't. Feminists keep parroting the gender wage gap as if it still exists. Saying that the wage gap shouldn't exist is not an action with the intent to make it not reappear. It's an action to fight against something that does not exist. What happens if the Feminists that believe in the gender pay gap actually have the influence to have more laws around it? You don't get "more equal." If there's an already equal playing field, the only action that will be taken is an advantage, aka supremacy as "evening out" what they perceive as an uneven playing field (when it actually is even). What you're talking about could also be considered paranoia. It's an attitude as if there's a bunch of men sitting and waiting to bring the wage gap back.

 

[slimreaper]

No it isn't. Feminists keep parroting the gender wage gap as if it still exists. Saying that the wage gap shouldn't exist is not an action with the intent to make it reappear. It's an action to fight against something that does not exist. What happens if the Feminists that believe in the gender pay gap actually the influence to have more laws around it? You don't get "more equal." If there's an already equal playing field, the only action that will be taken is an advantage, aka supremacy as "evening out" what they perceive as an uneven playing field (when it actually is even). What you're talking about could also be considered paranoia. It's an attitude as if there's a bunch of men sitting and waiting to bring the wage gap back.

he'll try to argue that it's a "small percentage" of the overall feminist population which we both know is BS

 

[Conspirator.]

No it isn't. Feminists keep parroting the gender wage gap as if it still exists. Saying that the wage gap shouldn't exist is not an action with the intent to make it reappear. It's an action to fight against something that does not exist. What happens if the Feminists that believe in the gender pay gap actually the influence to have more laws around it? You don't get "more equal." If there's an already equal playing field, the only action that will be taken is an advantage, aka supremacy as "evening out" what they perceive as an uneven playing field (when it actually is even). What you're talking about could also be considered paranoia. It's an attitude as if there's a bunch of men sitting and waiting to bring the wage gap back.

This is very true, especially the bold.

 

[Punk Hazard]

No it isn't. Feminists keep parroting the gender wage gap as if it still exists. Saying that the wage gap shouldn't exist is not an action with the intent to make it reappear. It's an action to fight against something that does not exist. What happens if the Feminists that believe in the gender pay gap actually the influence to have more laws around it? You don't get "more equal." If there's an already equal playing field, the only action that will be taken is an advantage, aka supremacy as "evening out" what they perceive as an uneven playing field (when it actually is even). What you're talking about could also be considered paranoia. It's an attitude as if there's a bunch of men sitting and waiting to bring the wage gap back.

Yes because the only thing feminists talk about is wage gap like a Pokemon called Wage Gap.

 

[Sennin of Logic]

Yes because the only thing feminists talk about is wage gap like a Pokemon called Wage Gap.

I didn't say it's the only thing they talk about, but you can't deny that it's one of the biggest things they talk about. I'm addressing that their attitudes aren't about prevention, but change.

 

[slimreaper]

the biggest problem with feminists is they fight for equality of results and not just equality of opportunity

 

[Punk Hazard]

the biggest problem with feminists is they fight for equality of results and not just equality of opportunity

The problem with you is you makes vague generalized assumptions about an entire population based on a small sample and you pass it off as fact.

 

[slimreaper]

The problem with you is you makes vague generalized assumptions about an entire population based on a small sample and you pass it off as fact.

No, I look at policies put in place and make generalized assumptions based on real life hard data, not just your word. I'm a big fan of evidence not just your word.

All the evidence suggest that socialists(99.999% of feminists are socialists,they go hand in hand) put into place policies that target equality of results not equality of opportunity.

EX. Welfare, "free" healthcare

 

[Shadow Phantasm]

The problem with you is you makes vague generalized assumptions about an entire population based on a small sample and you pass it off as fact.

There's a reason for that:

You must be registered for see links

Suffice to say,going after innocent people and attacking scientists who contributed to society is not a good way to get someone to sympathize with your cause.

The radicals call the shots now,whether you like it or not.

 

[V h o]

What's wrong with the yes means yes law in Cali?

 

[Shadow Phantasm]

What's wrong with the yes means yes law in Cali?

It basically means that if you want to have *** with a woman then you better get some legal protection beforehand,because she can accuse you of raping her even if the *** was completely consensual.

 

[V h o]

It basically means that if you want to have *** with a woman then you better get some legal protection beforehand,because she can accuse you of raping her even if the *** was completely consensual.

Thought it got rid of the vagueness of the no means no standard, so if they say yes then rape is out of the question.

 

[Shadow Phantasm]

Thought it got rid of the vagueness of the no means no law, so if they say yes then rape is out of the question.

Not really,it makes it easier for certain groups(radical feminists) to string up some innocent shmuck for f*cking a woman that was perfecting willing.

The Yes Means Yes law is basically their redefinition of rape put in legal writing,eventually consensual *** would require legal documents,just in case a woman regrets the night before.

Personally I'm a little apprehensive of such laws,especially with the rise of rape hoaxes like UVA.

It's all too easy to start witch hunts nowadays,especially with social media.

 

[Songbird Supreme]

eventually consensual *** would require legal documents, just in case a woman regrets the night before.

 

[V h o]

Not really,it makes it easier for certain groups(radical feminists) to string up some innocent shmuck for f*cking a woman that was perfecting willing.

The Yes Means Yes law is basically their redefinition of rape put in legal writing,eventually consensual *** would require legal documents,just in case a woman regrets the night before.

Personally I'm a little apprehensive of such laws,especially with the rise of rape hoaxes like UVA.

It's all too easy to start witch hunts nowadays,especially with social media.

How? After "affirmative consent" the notion of rape should be gone, no?