Busting feminist myths

[Punk Hazard]

I'll start with the old "they aren't real feminists" myth. It has deeply permeated society now that feminists say and do these things. The definition has clearly changed, so maybe you aren't the real feminist.

There is a difference between helping the inferiir, and intentionally hindering the success of others. Providing special advantages to certain people in the name of equality of results does nothing but weaken society. Men have proven time and again that they are superior in the fields of math and science than women. Trying to see equal representation only takes a spot from the gender with the better track record. Earn what you get.


And for gods sake stop treating equality like a zero sum game. It's not, it never will be

Equality doesn't take away from the success of people with advantages. Equality is ensuring that men and women can get the same educational opportunities. You still need to properly and adequately learn the material. If, in general, men do better at science and mathematics and therefore are more likely to get careers when competing against women in general, then so be it. There's nothing you can do about that. If a man and woman are competing for the same job, and he is more qualified because he did better in school due to men having a tendency to be better in the field, then he gets the job. And if the woman is more qualified, she gets the job. What's important is that they are both able to get the education needed provided to them, and are both taken into consideration by the employer. No one is asking for hand outs.

Another example, tying in with the public transport, having seats reserved for disabled, pregnant or elderly doesn't mean people who don't fall into these disadvantages don't get seats.

Blind people having an audio mechanism that lets them know what train and stop it is because they can't see the signs doesn't mean people who can see are disadvantaged in some way.

I will but let me buy those anti rape pants first. Someone might claim "lack of it" meant consent.

Don't forget that doesn't stop your partner from having *** with you whenever they want, however they want.

 

[Avani]

Great way to take the things I say and generalize them. Go ahead disprove the actual points i've made on these topics and not an oversimplified caricature. I get the point you are trying to make, but instead of arguing with facts and figures, you got all allegorical. That's the wrong way to go about it.

Been there done that and noticed your T-shirt of denial.

If someone is not changing their stand on something in first few posts in a serious discussion they are not going to change it with exchange of 300 next. It's not like you are posting something new which you haven't already posted two dozen times at least. Nor my stand is any different than before.

And no I am not generalizing. Mostly you only complain that others complain while your solutions go back to old American way of life. Let us know if you have something new to offer.

 

[slimreaper]

I never said you did. Nothing in my comment referred to anything about you specifically. Chill




No. You have to remember this is a comparison of men to women globally. For starters, the majority of global wealth is owned by a very small number of countries, US being among the wealthiest, which inflates the income of US women compared to the majority of the world, and not just the majority of women in other countries.

In addition to a vastly disproportionate income in other countries compared to the US, with income level of women in these countries is not only lower in comparison due to their country's income level, but there are culture differences that keep women from being able to earn nearly as much as women in the US, let alone men in their own countries. And again, this is still a comparison to men who do in fact outnumber women globally almost 2 to 1, which lowers that number even further. I'm curious as to what you based your rough guess on.



I don't have any grievances. I'm simply intelligent enough to access statistical data due to our country's wonderful education system, something I feel you're intelligent enough to do as well. So I do not wish to do the footwork for you if you don't mind, but if present something specific about the link (something I haven't seen you do yet) I will be more than happy to respond to it from as best of an unbiased standpoint as I can

With the majority of womens heavy lifting done by american women, we still haven't taken into consideration countries like Russia or China, the vastly liberal Europe, or Japan, Australia who've seen their birth rate decine dangerously due to female career chasing. It isn't hard to imagine with the hundreds of other nations that women could muster up at least another 5 percent.

 

[Avani]

With the majority of womens heavy lifting done by american women, we still haven't taken into consideration countries like Russia or China, the vastly liberal Europe, or Japan, Australia who've seen their birth rate decine dangerously due to female career chasing. It isn't hard to imagine with the hundreds of other nations that women could muster up at least another 5 percent.

Well you know it's not just extremists feminists who look down upon housewives. Those who advocate aggressive canvassing for men's right also mock the stay at home mom and are not very happy if they are told to pay them.

Women started taking their career more sincerely because men too started them leaving high and dry too often. It's practically very difficult to survive and get back on one's foot after staying out of work force due to marriage. As we all know if nothing else that will be the biggest factor in making such women disabled to bargain better for the pay if they get work of their liking at all. It reduces one's confidence, experience and skill level - all three needed to get back to work.

If there weren't so many destitute women suffering due to husbands getting in to extra martial affairs and asking them to suck it up or leave - or often leave them anyway they may not need to to give more importance to their jobs than the dear hubby. It has become a case of which is more reliable for one's own stability.

So you cannot ask for freedom of sexual adventure and so much emphasis on individual liberties and freedoms to do whatever you like and then come back and ask women to be more sacrificing. There is a cost to be paid for everything, in one way or another.

Men today want to keep the new freedoms and chances they get with feminism- more open and easy chances of sexual encounters. Less responsibilities on financial account due to marriages, improved life styles, wives today end up doubling as chauffeurs for husband and kids and more actively responsible for discipline and education of the kids while the hubby is away. they still are primary care takers at home so it's not like they are taking an easy way out.

 

[slimreaper]

Equality doesn't take away from the success of people with advantages. Equality is ensuring that men and women can get the same educational opportunities. You still need to properly and adequately learn the material. If, in general, men do better at science and mathematics and therefore are more likely to get careers when competing against women in general, then so be it. There's nothing you can do about that. If a man and woman are competing for the same job, and he is more qualified because he did better in school due to men having a tendency to be better in the field, then he gets the job. And if the woman is more qualified, she gets the job. What's important is that they are both able to get the education needed provided to them, and are both taken into consideration by the employer. No one is asking for hand outs.

Another example, tying in with the public transport, having seats reserved for disabled, pregnant or elderly doesn't mean people who don't fall into these disadvantages don't get seats.

Blind people having an audio mechanism that lets them know what train and stop it is because they can't see the signs doesn't mean people who can see are disadvantaged in some way.



Don't forget that doesn't stop your partner from having *** with you whenever they want, however they want.

You must be registered for see links

What you're describing aren't actual examples of how feminists rhetoric is applied. They see a gap in result and make up a fake cause to employ sexist ideals. The proof is in american colleges.

 

[Troyg39]

With the majority of womens heavy lifting done by american women, we still haven't taken into consideration countries like Russia or China, the vastly liberal Europe, or Japan, Australia who've seen their birth rate decine dangerously due to female career chasing.

Actually we did take that into consideration. The fact that men globally, which includes these countries along with the rest, already have nearly a 2 to 1 advantage over men addresses this. Also, the birth rate doesn't mean that more women are now suddenly being born in comparison to men, so that has nothing to do with the topic you presented. 40% of the global income is owned by less than 1% of US millionaires, and US millionaires make up only about 1% of the entire world's population. That leaves 60% in global income, most of which is dominated by the other few wealthy countries. It is statistically impossible for men or women in poorer countries to earn enough to affect this data much.

Next, there really isn't a place where women earn more than men, which means that the average will skew towards men in almost every country, which lowers women's income levels compared to men globally.

Third, as I said in the last post, a majority of income is owned by a few countries, which means there are hundreds of other countries who don't even have the income in their own countries to compare to these select few, which further lowers the capability of the women in these countries to make enough income to be comparative to women in the richest countries, let alone the men who already statistically make more than they do both in rich and poor countries.

And last, the US is far more progressive in women's rights and economic freedom for women compared to even some of the other wealthy nations, and this trends downward among the hundreds of poorer nations, which means that realistically that not only do women globally have less freedom to make as much money, women in poorer countries that don't even have the income to compare to richer countries would have a harder time contributing in a meaningful way that would increase the ratio of global women's income to men.

If you understand how statistics work, this shouldn't be hard to grasp.

It isn't hard to imagine with the hundreds of other nations that women could muster up at least another 5 percent.

Honestly sir, it might be best if you refrain from these types of topics if you are going to base your views on imagination rather than knowledge and facts. The top portion of my comment explains in detail why "mustering" up another 5% is unrealistic in fact when you consider all the factors that affect women's income globally. Ironically that is the same thing the article you posted attempted to do, yet it isn't what you are doing.

I'm not going to be like everyone else and bash you for your opinion or question your intelligence, but you seem to be more interested in preserving your opinion despite not having much to offer in support of it. Which is fine, we're all entitled to our opinion. But there are some issues that are too complex to be broken down by just opinion and personal feelings alone

 

[slimreaper]

Actually we did take that into consideration. The fact that men globally, which includes these countries along with the rest, already have nearly a 2 to 1 advantage over men addresses this. Also, the birth rate doesn't mean that more women are now suddenly being born in comparison to men, so that has nothing to do with the topic you presented. 40% of the global income is owned by less than 1% of US millionaires, and US millionaires make up only about 1% of the entire world's population. That leaves 60% in global income, most of which is dominated by the other few wealthy countries. It is statistically impossible for men or women in poorer countries to earn enough to affect this data much.

Next, there really isn't a place where women earn more than men, which means that the average will skew towards men in almost every country, which lowers women's income levels compared to men globally.

Third, as I said in the last post, a majority of income is owned by a few countries, which means there are hundreds of other countries who don't even have the income in their own countries to compare to these select few, which further lowers the capability of the women in these countries to make enough income to be comparative to women in the richest countries, let alone the men who already statistically make more than they do both in rich and poor countries.

And last, the US is far more progressive in women's rights and economic freedom for women compared to even some of the other wealthy nations, and this trends downward among the hundreds of poorer nations, which means that realistically that not only do women globally have less freedom to make as much money, women in poorer countries that don't even have the income to compare to richer countries would have a harder time contributing in a meaningful way that would increase the ratio of global women's income to men.

If you understand how statistics work, this shouldn't be hard to grasp.



Honestly sir, it might be best if you refrain from these types of topics if you are going to base your views on imagination rather than knowledge and facts. The top portion of my comment explains in detail why "mustering" up another 5% is unrealistic in fact when you consider all the factors that affect women's income globally. Ironically that is the same thing the article you posted attempted to do, yet it isn't what you are doing.

I'm not going to be like everyone else and bash you for your opinion or question your intelligence, but you seem to be more interested in preserving your opinion despite not having much to offer in support of it. Which is fine, we're all entitled to our opinion. But there are some issues that are too complex to be broken down by just opinion and personal feelings alone

Honestly of this globes 241 trillion estimated dollars, America is worth about 23 trillion. There is a lot if dough out there. Im not suggesting financial parity but in more advanced places like europe where women are treated pretty much the same as american women ( in most places) there is a lot of capital to be held by them.

 

[Troyg39]

Honestly of this globes 241 trillion estimated dollars, America is worth about 23 trillion. There is a lot if dough out there.

There is a lot of dough out there, most of which is controlled by a small number of countries, and mostly controlled by men globally. The topic is about women's wealth globally. Context.

Im not suggesting financial parity but in more advanced places like europe where women are treated pretty much the same as american women ( in most places) there is a lot of capital to be held by them.

Yes this is true, but you narrowed the scaled down to Europe, just as you did in the previous post to only the few richest countries, leaving out 100s of countries with vastly inferior income levels and laws that do not favor women as these few countries do. Thus the reason why numbers for a specific region can not begin to account for global numbers. Is there enough money for women to make more than 10% of global income? Yes, there's enough for them to make far more than that. Is it realistically possible given the context that affect women's income levels across the globe? No.

I've already broken down the global aspect of it, which was the topic we entered into discussion. I'm not interested in changing your opinion on things, as honestly I don't see much wrong with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your original point was more so geared towards US politics affairs rather than global trends. US women are doing a lot better than other women on a global scale, and things aren't as bad as they appear for them domestically either. Since I pointed out earlier that in our politics, the numbers and data is often skewed, mixed, and blurred to fit political agendas, there isn't anything left to discuss.

 

[slimreaper]

There is a lot of dough out there, most of which is controlled by a small number of countries, and mostly controlled by men globally. The topic is about women's wealth globally. Context.



Yes this is true, but you narrowed the scaled down to Europe, just as you did in the previous post to only the few richest countries, leaving out 100s of countries with vastly inferior income levels and laws that do not favor women as these few countries do. Thus the reason why numbers for a specific region can not begin to account for global numbers. Is there enough money for women to make more than 10% of global income? Yes, there's enough for them to make far more than that. Is it realistically possible given the context that affect women's income levels across the globe? No.

I've already broken down the global aspect of it, which was the topic we entered into discussion. I'm not interested in changing your opinion on things, as honestly I don't see much wrong with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe your original point was more so geared towards US politics affairs rather than global trends. US women are doing a lot better than other women on a global scale, and things aren't as bad as they appear for them domestically either. Since I pointed out earlier that in our politics, the numbers and data is often skewed, mixed, and blurred to fit political agendas, there isn't anything left to discuss.

But just as me you can't provide data on the subject. I've narrowed the criteria to the wealthies countries in this global topic, because they have the most capital. Now I could go and look individuallt at the wealth of each individual country and the wealth it's women accrue, and divide it into 241 trillion seeing if I get close to 10%. Im not gonna do that though. I'm content with disagreeing and leaving it there

 

[slimreaper]

Well you know it's not just extremists feminists who look down upon housewives. Those who advocate aggressive canvassing for men's right also mock the stay at home mom and are not very happy if they are told to pay them.

Women started taking their career more sincerely because men too started them leaving high and dry too often. It's practically very difficult to survive and get back on one's foot after staying out of work force due to marriage. As we all know if nothing else that will be the biggest factor in making such women disabled to bargain better for the pay if they get work of their liking at all. It reduces one's confidence, experience and skill level - all three needed to get back to work.

If there weren't so many destitute women suffering due to husbands getting in to extra martial affairs and asking them to suck it up or leave - or often leave them anyway they may not need to to give more importance to their jobs than the dear hubby. It has become a case of which is more reliable for one's own stability.

So you cannot ask for freedom of sexual adventure and so much emphasis on individual liberties and freedoms to do whatever you like and then come back and ask women to be more sacrificing. There is a cost to be paid for everything, in one way or another.

Men today want to keep the new freedoms and chances they get with feminism- more open and easy chances of sexual encounters. Less responsibilities on financial account due to marriages, improved life styles, wives today end up doubling as chauffeurs for husband and kids and more actively responsible for discipline and education of the kids while the hubby is away. they still are primary care takers at home so it's not like they are taking an easy way out.

Let me go into this

Firstly it was feminists who pushed for no cost divorces because they get the benefit of taking a man to the cleaners in the name of a child. But blaming men for divorce ( which has literally no advantage to them) is ludicrous.

Noone says not to let women have a career. No one is saying you have to be a stay at home mom. That battle ( in America) was fought 50yrs ago. I will nit pay for women to be a drain on society, so by all means get a good job. My gripe is women claiming they are paid less for the same jobs, but they take longer leaves, work less hours, and are less likely to demand a raise(and still make the same)

Who is asking for freedom of sexual adventure? I'm saying if I bang a girl and dhe regrets it next day but never said no to me, it isn't rape. Women are responsible for drunken actions the same as a drunk driver.

There is no argument here. Don't say dumb false things and I won't bash feminismm

 

[Avani]

Let me go into this

Firstly it was feminists who pushed for no cost divorces because they get the benefit of taking a man to the cleaners in the name of a child. But blaming men for divorce ( which has literally no advantage to them) is ludicrous.

I don't know what that is but seeing that you only repeat what some other person said at some Men's right page on internet or elsewhere I doubt you understand the law yourself or bothered to check out the details properly and must be missing something there. And yeah sure- men are never responsible for divorce. No extra marital affairs ever, no issues with money ever, no ego clashes from their side ever... Sure.

Noone says not to let women have a career. No one is saying you have to be a stay at home mom. That battle ( in America) was fought 50yrs ago. I will nit pay for women to be a drain on society, so by all means get a good job. My gripe is women claiming they are paid less for the same jobs, but they take longer leaves, work less hours, and are less likely to demand a raise(and still make the same)

No the post you are replying to was in response to your gripe with women chasing career more while neglecting their child bearing duties. Here is a direct quote re-posted for you:

Spoiler

With the majority of womens heavy lifting done by american women, we still haven't taken into consideration countries like Russia or China, the vastly liberal Europe, or Japan, Australia who've seen their birth rate decine dangerously due to female career chasing. It isn't hard to imagine with the hundreds of other nations that women could muster up at least another 5 percent.

- Exactly how short your memory is to deny it?

Who is asking for freedom of sexual adventure? I'm saying if I bang a girl and dhe regrets it next day but never said no to me, it isn't rape. Women are responsible for drunken actions the same as a drunk driver.

Yeah that kind of behaviour itself is a sexual adventure. Why jump in with a random drunken girl who may start questioning her own and your actions in the morning?

Besides - A woman is responsible for drunken action if she is the one driving. In cases of rape, it's the rapist doing the driving steering things to get a certain end result. And as you said a drunk driver is responsible for his/her actions. Vitim being a drunk pedestrian doesn't excuse drunken driving.

There is no argument here. Don't say dumb false things and I won't bash feminismm

If you say so - after all you are a 'man' , 'the white one, with all the burdens of the world on your shoulders" at that, kind. Not just a normal guy. ( clarification to make sure it's a unique brand of male and not all males of any colour necessarily fill this bill)

 

[slimreaper]

I don't know what that is but seeing that you only repeat what some other person said at some Men's right page on internet or elsewhere I doubt you understand the law yourself or bothered to check out the details properly and must be missing something there. And yeah sure- men are never responsible for divorce. No extra marital affairs ever, no issues with money ever, no ego clashes from their side ever... Sure.



No the post you are replying to was in response to your gripe with women chasing career more while neglecting their child bearing duties. Here is a direct quote re-posted for you:

- Exactly how short your memory is to deny it?



Yeah that kind of behaviour itself is a sexual adventure. Why jump in with a random drunken girl who may start questioning her own and your actions in the morning?

Besides - A woman is responsible for drunken action if she is the one driving. In cases of rape, it's the rapist doing the driving steering things to get a certain end result. And as you said a drunk driver is responsible for his/her actions. Vitim being a drunk pedestrian doesn't excuse drunken driving.



If you say so - after all you are a 'man' , 'the white one, with all the burdens of the world on your shoulders" at that, kind. Not just a normal guy. ( clarification to make sure it's a unique brand of male and not all males of any colour necessarily fill this bill)

Again over generalizing. Where did I say nen were never responsible for divorce? I blamed no fault divorce that feminists pushed for. That fact that men sign up for a monogamous relationship where women aren't required to provide ***, but men are required to remain faithful shows who's getting screwed in that deal.

I have no gripe with women chasing careers to sn extent. But if you look at the japanese birthrate decline, you can see my point illustrated. Even so if you both have "careers" day care is easily affordable. No excuse for women.

I agree a rapist is in control if it's forceful rape or if the girl is unconscious. In any other scenario she's the driver.

You are correct, being a white male I am held to a higher standard while simultaneously being hated, and silenced. Your condescension show you can't fathom that I may have problem too. Again taken for granted is the white male.

 

[Avani]

Again over generalizing. Where did I say nen were never responsible for divorce? I blamed no fault divorce that feminists pushed for. That fact that men sign up for a monogamous relationship where women aren't required to provide ***, but men are required to remain faithful shows who's getting screwed in that deal.

You are switching the statements faster than a cat jumping on the hot tin roof. Women too sign up for that monogamous relationship and are supposed to remain faithful no matter how sexually inept their husband maybe.

I have no gripe with women chasing careers to sn extent. But if you look at the japanese birthrate decline, you can see my point illustrated. Even so if you both have "careers" day care is easily affordable. No excuse for women.

And then people complain that Sakura and Hinata are shown as housewives. Exactly what made you think career chasing women are the only one responsible for Japanese lower birth rate?

I agree a rapist is in control if it's forceful rape or if the girl is unconscious. In any other scenario she's the driver.

Yeah.. right...

You are correct, being a white male I am held to a higher standard while simultaneously being hated, and silenced. Your condescension show you can't fathom that I may have problem too. Again taken for granted is the white male.

Lol @ high standards.

You don't have to worry about that at all. You are deluding yourself on that one. You get hated not because of your self assumed high standards but because of this pompous self serving attitude and resultant actions.

I wonder if you realize you are no busting any myths here but your own.

 

[slimreaper]

You are switching the statements faster than a cat jumping on the hot tin roof. Women too sign up for that monogamous relationship and are supposed to remain faithful no matter how sexually inept their husband maybe.



And then people complain that Sakura and Hinata are shown as housewives. Exactly what made you think career chasing women are the only one responsible for Japanese lower birth rate?



Yeah.. right...



Lol @ high standards.

You don't have to worry about that at all. You are deluding yourself on that one. You get hated not because of your self assumed high standards but because of this pompous self serving attitude and resultant actions.

I wonder if you realize you are no busting any myths here but your own.

Yes but women get the better end of divorce laws no matter how inept their husband was. Women win divorce, get over it.

Why do you think suicide is the leading killer of Japanese men 18-44?

Yeah that is right. Women control their conscious bodies.

Im not saying I get hated as an individual, but the ideas presented by straight white men are presumed false and deceitful. That's why a gay man named Milo Yiannopolous is destroying feminists everywhere. They can't just dismiss what he says as privilege.

And how do you explain white male privilege if i'm not held to a higher standard? I'm expected to have natural advantages over others. So naturally i'm supposed to succeed at a higher level.

 

[Power Bottom]

This thread is a hot mess :|

Jean and riker said what I was going to say.

 

[Yubel]

Why are feminists bigoted to anyone who doesn't share their views?

 

[Avani]

Yes but women get the better end of divorce laws no matter how inept their husband was. Women win divorce, get over it.

That's the best argument you could come with it?

Why do you think suicide is the leading killer of Japanese men 18-44?

They probably read your posts and couldn't handle the logical leaps you take.

Yeah that is right. Women control their conscious bodies.

Hmm.. I wonder what should I think of the people who were so strongly supporting you on the issue last time you raised this issue or something similar to it. It was kind of an eye opener in a way now I think. But I digress...

Im not saying I get hated as an individual, but the ideas presented by straight white men are presumed false and deceitful. That's why a gay man named Milo Yiannopolous is destroying feminists everywhere. They can't just dismiss what he says as privilege.

Who was talking about you personally? It's certain white men who prefer to propagate the idea that they are some kind of greater culture and have high standards and also believe that others see them in the same way.

Again did you just mixed issue of racism with feminism? And playing 'gay' card on top of it?

And how do you explain white male privilege if i'm not held to a higher standard? I'm expected to have natural advantages over others. So naturally i'm supposed to succeed at a higher level.

Natural advantage in higher number of opportunities in the society in terms of economical and social standing and better connections to improve upon it. Not higher standards of morals or ethics.

As for success- Yes you succeeded. But it came though colonization of others and plundering their wealth and enslaving their people, so it isn't going to make you dear to the people you squeezed dry.

 

[slimreaper]

That's the best argument you could come with it?



They probably read your posts couldn't handle the logical leaps you take.



Hmm.. I wonder what should I think of the people who were so strongly supporting you on the issue last time you raised this issue or something similar to it. It was kind of an eye opener in a way now I think. But I digress...



Who was talking about you personally? It's certain white men who prefer to propagate the idea that they are some kind of greater culture and have high standards and also believe that others see them in the same way.

Again did you just mixed issue of racism with feminism? And playing 'gay' card on top of it?




Natural advantage in higher number of opportunities in the society in terms of economical and social standing and better connections to improve upon it. Not higher standards of morals or ethics.

As for success- Yes you succeeded. But it came though colonization of others and plundering their wealth and enslaving their people, so it isn't going to make you dear to the people you squeezed dry.

I don't need to make any different argument. You had no counter for no fault divorce other than to say her husband might have been bad in bed. Thats a shit argument. Not to mention you are ignoring the relative hypersexuality of men that puts them at a need for ***. Withholding ***(totally legal) gives any wife leverage. What leverage does a man have?

You must be registered for see links

You were saying?

I expected more from you on this. Instead of attacking the idea with logic, you attempt to discredit the source. Typical liberal handbook (ex: attacking fox news instead of discrediting)

I care nothing about the people "squeezed dry". Survival of the fittest. If not us it would've been someone else. Hesitancy is weakness.

 

[Avani]

I don't need to make any different argument. You had no counter for no fault divorce other than to say her husband might have been bad in bed. Thats a shit argument. Not to mention you are ignoring the relative hypersexuality of men that puts them at a need for ***. Withholding ***(totally legal) gives any wife leverage. What leverage does a man have

Counter what? The empty air you are providing? You can't even read the posts coherently and keep mixing the responses. Nor you bothered to provide what this no fault divorce is in the legal terms.

Well you have gays speaking for you. That's one solution for you. You wouldn't have to deal with females at all. After all it's onle female who get raped or divorce in your book.

You must be registered for see links

You were saying?

I was saying you have severe reading comprehension issue at this point:

A quote from that link you just provided:

Japanese men aren't sure how to find wives — and many are shying away from the hunt, because they simply can't afford it. Wages have stagnated since the 1990s, while housing prices have shot up. A young Japanese man has good reason to believe that his standard of living would drop immensely if he had to house and support a wife and children — especially considering that his wife likely wouldn't be working.

Why make that assumption?
In Japan, marriage usually ends a woman's working career, even though most women are well educated.

They are not crying that women are running after career- they are crying that they can't afford to marry seeing they won't be able to provide for raising costs and the wife probably won't be contributing economically. These the the men who cannot afford to have a non working wife.

Seriously.. do you even read the link before posting? It didn't even mention the related suicides if any. You just zigzagged.

I expected more from you on this. Instead of attacking the idea with logic, you attempt to discredit the source. Typical liberal handbook (ex: attacking fox news instead of discrediting)

You are reading your own source wrong .. at this point I cannot even understand if you are trolling or really ignorant...

I care nothing about the people "squeezed dry". Survival of the fittest. If not us it would've been someone else. Hesitancy is weakness.

Lol typical. These are the guys who preach human right, animal rights, and what not to other countries and were crying over how Japanese hunt their dolphins in their waters.

 

[Apêx1]

That's because there are multiple forms of equality. There is equality in the sense that people are treated equally, and equality like the shorter guy getting a stool. Like I said, there are some advantages you can account for, and some you can't. On the train to University, I always wondered they constantly called out every stop when people there are this time are people who frequent the train route, and it hit me because of blind people. They can't see the stop names or read the signs, so they call it out and the train color and route so blind people can use the train just as much as people who can see. Then there are seats on trains and buses that are reserved for old, disabled or pregnant people. That's another form of disadvantage being lessened because it's needed. There was a time when human beings said "Well, you have that disadvantage, sucks for you, you'll fall behind." We have passed that. We don't live as "survival of the fittest" and that's not a bad thing because that view is highly antiquated. People have genetic, physical and mental disadvantages, and it's a good thing that we try our best to ensure these people get the same out of life and the same opportunities as people who don't have these disadvantages as much as possible.

I'm not denying that, but that's not what I am arguing when I said there are differing connotations of feminism/equality. What you are talking about is assistance of people who can't possibly do something without said assistance.

You're also intensely generalizing. Are there people who smudge the name of feminism? Yes, but these people aren't actually feminists. Anyone who only points that men shouldn't hit women without pointing out that no one should be hitting anyone isn't actually a feminist, they are mislabeling themselves. You have a responsibility, when you start discussing the topic, to see that this person isn't actually a part of the group they claim to be in, and to know that they do not represent the group.

Which once again, goes back to what I said, differing connotations of feminism. But those people are still considered feminists, the only public speakers that call themselves 'feminists' are the ones who advocate privilege instead of equality. Now you're going to say well "it doesn't matter if they're widely regarded as feminists, they're not," but that's not how it works. Islam considers itself a peaceful religion and any suicidal person goes straight to hell according to their holy book, does that mean despite all the terroristic attacks that have occurred in the past, despite the decapitations and random attacks they carry out, we shall consider Islam a 'religion of peace' and disregard all those things that happened? No, because they are the consistent public exemplifications of the religion that exist.

Soccer, or any professional sport, is a horrible example to debunk wage gap arguments. Sports are a revenue based income system; you get paid for what you bring in. Are the people who complain about female soccer players getting paid less wrong? Yeah, that's not how their income worked. But you're insinuating that women always provide less, which just isn't the case.

It isn't supposed to be talking about the gender pay gap as it's known, because that tends to refer to jobs in which 'people work the same ours and provide the same value'. Football is nothing like that, women's football has barely any fans compared to men's football, there's a completely different value and thus men's football provides a lot more in terms of entertainment. Sportsmen get payed by their club which gets payed by sponsors and other endorsements which all stem from the quantity of people who enjoy the sport. If I am a cricket player and play 2 days straight on streamed television and train 20 hours a day, I'll still be making much less then a football player just because there's that many more people who watch and support football. There's no female footballer who has large scale influence like say, Cristiano Ronaldo, where every 20th person has bought Nike Mercurials ONLY because of him, and every 20th person has got an IDENTICAL haircut. That's what makes the money, people who bring in the fans, and female sportsmen don't have that kind of influence. Pretty sure I saw one statistic which showed John Cena's clothes line alone was brining in half a billion for WWE, ANNUALLY. The income of clubs, and in turn sportsmen tends to be correlated to the amount of support the sport has, and female sports just don't have the kind of luxury to make comparable amounts of money to male footballers.