The state of Feminism, the good the bad

[Elerond]

 

What I would call double standard is to accuse person taking things out of context and even lying and then do that itself in efforts to make that person look bad.

Not really, both had a premise based on the fact that  games are violent/sexist and both ended up with the conclusion that games make people violent/sexist.

 

 

Only if you make simplified their issues in such state that it isn't anymore issue that they have and way they represent things. But it is good make accusation that are full of fallacies and lies because it makes argumentation much more easier than trying using arguments that take more comprehensive perspective to issue.

[TMZuk]

>All feminism means is the belief that the genders are equal

Yeah, right. If genders are equal, then why do you call your doctrine FEMINism? Call it MANism, then I'll believe you.

 

>As most of you know I consider myself a committed feminist.

Nice one xD I had a short burst of uncontrollable laughter when I saw this xD

 

Alright, one more time. Here's what feminism actually is.

 

Feminist theory on sex consists of three distinct theories:

 

1. If you're not gay or lesbian, then you're mentally ill (See "Feminism and the connection to homosexuality").

2. Any sex with a man is rape, and even married women who consent are just plain too stupid to know they've been raped, even if it was a pleasant experience.

3. That all forms of pornography and sex are fine, so long as it is not connected to any type of traditional values or morals, such as marriage and family.

 

 

 

This piece outlines most of the material from section 2:

 

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

 

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" (quoted again in People Magazine)

 

 

 

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR" [emphasis added] -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

 

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin.

 

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

 

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks." Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..

 

"Under patriarchy, no woman is safe to live her life, or to love, or to mother children. Under patriarchy, every woman is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's daughter is a victim, past, present, and future. Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman," Andrea Dworkin, Liberty, p.58..

 

"One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible." Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

 

"In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them."--Gloria Steinem

 

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The All-American Crime"

 

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)

 

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..." -- Sheila Jeffrys

 

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, "Theory and Practice: Pornography and Rape" in "Going to Far," 1974.

 

"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck - and if you get in my way I'll run you down." -- Letter to the Editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate" -- Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia -- Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia - 9 February 1996

 

 

 

Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991) [a legal treatise comparing and contrasting feminism with COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM]

 

"It is not only men convicted of rape who believe that the only thing they did that was different from what men do all the time is get caught."

 

"If sexuality is central to women's definition and forced sex is central to sexuality, rape is indigenous, not exceptional, to women's social condition."

 

"Under law, rape is a sex crime that is not regarded as a crime when it looks like sex. The law, speaking generally, defines rape as intercourse with force or coercion and without consent., Like sexuality under male supremacy, this definition assumes the sadomasochistic definition of sex: intercourse with force or coercion can be or become consensual."

 

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

 

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129..

 

"[Acquaintance rape] is more common than left-handedness, alcoholism and heart attacks." Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth (in the feminist attempt to build a case that "one in four" women have been raped in America.)

 

"Rape is a violent expression of a pattern of male supremacy, an outgrowth of age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men." From a pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth" by Betty Millard published in 1948 by CPUSA (the Communist Party of USA.)

 

"[R]ape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture." Prof. Mary Koss of Kent State University (1982)

 

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52..

 

As cited in Andrea Dworkin's "Right-Wing Women" "...I submit that any sexual intercourse between a free man and a human being he owns or controls is rape." -- Alice Walker in "Embracing the Dark and the Light," Essence, July 1982. (Feminists believe that marriage = ownership).

 

"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it." Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, "Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation," Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

 

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, (editor of MS magazine)

 

A young woman at the University of Pennsylvania who wore a short skirt complained of a "mini-rape" because a young man walked past her and said, "Nice legs." (Camille Paglia and Christine Hoff Sommers, "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?" Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg, Produced by New River Media, Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.)

 

At the University of Maryland, some female students posted the names of male students selected at random, young men about whom they knew nothing, under the heading "Potential Rapists." The message was that all men are potential rapists, though the men actually named probably did not find much comfort in that... Far more serious are the accusations of actual rape when nothing of the sort occurred. A female student came to a male student's quarters with her toothbrush, planning to stay the night. The next morning she was seen having a peaceable breakfast with the man. Later she charged him with rape and he was briefly held in jail. (John Leo, "De-escalating the gender war" U.S. News and World Report, April 18,1994, p.24.)

 

Accusations of date rape are flung freely by women who consented and later changed their minds about what they did. -- From: Robert H. Bork (1996): Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Regan Books/HarperCollins, NY (pp.193-225)

 

"Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual women's erotic attraction or attachment to another human animal which happens to be male. Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices... Those definitions... are about the oppression and exploitation of women [by men]." Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 ( Freedom: Crossing Press,1992) p.132

To take the stance that the very few women who are advocating the viewpoint you present, are representing feminism as a whole, that's the same as saying that KKK represents the majority of white people in the USA. In short, it is sheer and utter nonsense.

 

I live in one of the countries in the world, where emancipation has come the furthest. Within the last century, women has gone from not being able to vote, to where we are now, where women are able to hold just about any position in society. However, a century isn't very long, which should be obvious to anyone. The oppression of women that has taken place for the last thousand years here in Denmark, isn't something you just leave behind.

 

As an archeologist, with my specialty being Scandinavian archeology, there's a number of interesting facts I'd like to put forward:

 

One of the most "masculine" cultures of the past, in how we perceive it, is the Viking Age. (approx. 793 to 1066). However, is spite of the popular picture of big men with big axes and big beards, a large number of the richest burials excavated, contains women. The Oseberg Ship, excavated in Norway, contains more goods that any other burial from that period. A large ship, a wagon, fifteen horses, cattle, pigs, sheep and dogs. All manners of goods and utensils. A fortune. And who is buried there? Two women!

 

Another interesting fact is that with the improved Osteology we have available, it has become clear that there's several women buried with weapons. With this being an accepted fact, we must redefine our entire outlook on the Viking Age. Because everything found before 1950 is gender determined from the grave goods alone. The osteology was very primitive and by and large not used. The first certain discovery of a female warrior grave dates from 1964, found in Southwestern Finland. Since then several more has surfaced.

 

So how is that possible? We all know that men are bigger, stronger, faster etc. etc. than women, don't we? No, we don't. Not in Northern Europe at any rate, The further back we go, the harder it is to see the difference in build between men and women. They are about the same height and the same build. Only when we find the pelvis bone, can we easily determine the gender.

 

So, as it becomes clear that in the Viking Age, women held power and influence to a far higher degree than in all the centuries between then and now, one must ask what happened? Christianity happened. With the introduction of religion in a modern sense, we get terms as God's Will and Sin. With those tools, the Church transformed the old tribal society into feudal medieval states. With all that implies in form of oppression of women in Scandinavia from 1000 to 1915 (in Denmark) where women are allowed to vote.

 

This has become a long rant, but there's a point to be made. It will take more than a hundred years to find a new balance between the genders, where the differences are celebrated, but the opportunities are equal. But simply stating that feminism sucks and women should stop fighting for their rights, solves nothing. That is regression of the worst kind.

Edited August 31, 2014 by TMZuk

[Fighter]

So how is that possible? We all know that men are bigger, stronger, faster etc. etc. than women, don't we? No, we don't. Not in Northern Europe at any rate, The further back we go, the harder it is to see the difference in build between men and women. They are about the same height and the same build. Only when we find the pelvis bone, can we easily determine the gender.

 

You had me until this. The time between then and now is pitifully small in evolutionary terms for the kind of changes you speak of.  Men are bigger, stronger, faster etc, etc.

[kgambit]

>All feminism means is the belief that the genders are equal

Yeah, right. If genders are equal, then why do you call your doctrine FEMINism? Call it MANism, then I'll believe you.

 

>As most of you know I consider myself a committed feminist.

Nice one xD I had a short burst of uncontrollable laughter when I saw this xD

 

Alright, one more time. Here's what feminism actually is.

 

Feminist theory on sex consists of three distinct theories:

 

1. If you're not gay or lesbian, then you're mentally ill (See "Feminism and the connection to homosexuality").

2. Any sex with a man is rape, and even married women who consent are just plain too stupid to know they've been raped, even if it was a pleasant experience.

3. That all forms of pornography and sex are fine, so long as it is not connected to any type of traditional values or morals, such as marriage and family.

 

 

 

This piece outlines most of the material from section 2:

 

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." Catherine MacKinnon

 

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room" (quoted again in People Magazine)

 

 

 

"[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which ALL MEN KEEP ALL WOMEN IN A STATE OF FEAR" [emphasis added] -- Susan Brownmiller (Against Our Will p. 6)

 

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership." -- Andrea Dworkin.

 

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

 

<snip>

 

That looks a dump of a anti-feminist blog(s) Bester.  I wonder which one it was.

 

 

 

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."  Catherine [sic] MacKinnon

 

Nope.  She never said that.

 

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

 

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French Author, "The Women's Room"

 

The Women's Room is a work of fiction and the quoted statement isn't made by the author but by a fictional mother, Val in response to the rape of her daughter, Chris.  (p. 433).  In an interview with the New York Times in 1977, French stated, '"The Women's Room" is not about the women's movement'.

 

"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies, p. 129.

 

Nope.  Professing Feminism which actually criticizes the views of Catharine McKinnon and other feminists was written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge.   The alleged quote was misattributed to MacKinnon by conservative commentator Cal Thomas in The [baton Rouge] Advocate March 1, 1999 pg B8 and he was forced to issue a retraction which appeared in the same newspaper on March 27, 1999 pg B10. 

 

That fact is verified on page 191 of What Price Utopia?: Essays on Ideological Policing, Feminism, and Academic ... by none other than Daphne Patai.

 

Do a goggle search on "Cal Thomas retraction MacKinnon"

 

Those three obvious errors make me wonder how many of those quotes are accurate.   Apparently I'm not the only one who has wondered that.  Check out the following link:

 

http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2011/02/15/factchecking-a-list-of-hateful-quotes-from-feminists/

Edited August 31, 2014 by kgambit

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So how is that possible? We all know that men are bigger, stronger, faster etc. etc. than women, don't we? No, we don't. Not in Northern Europe at any rate, The further back we go, the harder it is to see the difference in build between men and women. They are about the same height and the same build. Only when we find the pelvis bone, can we easily determine the gender.

 

You had me until this. The time between then and now is pitifully small in evolutionary terms for the kind of changes you speak of.  Men are bigger, stronger, faster etc, etc.

 

 

Except... not really. A woman who devotes her life fully to becoming good at killing people will be better at killing people than 95% of her less devoted male peers.

[TMZuk]

 

So how is that possible? We all know that men are bigger, stronger, faster etc. etc. than women, don't we? No, we don't. Not in Northern Europe at any rate, The further back we go, the harder it is to see the difference in build between men and women. They are about the same height and the same build. Only when we find the pelvis bone, can we easily determine the gender.

 

You had me until this. The time between then and now is pitifully small in evolutionary terms for the kind of changes you speak of.  Men are bigger, stronger, faster etc, etc.

 

Facts are against you. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with equal (ly lack of) food and equally hard work.

[Nonek]

Isn't this a part of the Riggsthula? The Thralls, Carls, Hersir and Jarls are all buried according to their status in that Saga poem. Even a woman who never went to war, or lifted a weapon would be given the armed burial of a daughter of Odin, because she was of the warrrior aristocracy. There were warrior women though such as Hairy Breeches commander Lagertha, and was it Aud the Red or the Deep Minded who fled to Iceland? They also seemed to have many rights that Christian women did not, freedom to divorce, to claim the home and all they put in it, to rule and command men in the absence of their husbands, and even attend the Thing (Assembly) so that they might have a say in governance.

 

From the Sagas we certainly do not see many shrinking violets amongst them, and it was hardly a surprise to find out that Margaret Thatcher (Hammer of the Miners) was descended from Viking stock. Even now northern English women are a fiery breed, which I know all too well.

 

Edit: That said there have been some very big and strong Viking male skeletons excavated, and one suspects that with manhood and its responsibilities beginning at the age of twelve (lest they be called a coal chewer,) that these lads grew strong and hard pulling an oar over the North sea, hauling goods and cargo, practising their warcraft and bearing their warriors panoply. Certainly the amount of pre death wear and tear on the skeletons found suggests that they were very adventurous and warlike, with some horrible wound sustained and yet survived.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Nonek

[HoonDing]

Nothing compared to Mercian women.

[Fighter]

Except... not really. A woman who devotes her life fully to becoming good at killing people will be better at killing people than 95% of her less devoted male peers.

 

I'm talking about the average. I really did not think I would have to say it. The strongest and fastest of women never were and never will be (unless we evolve somehow) as strong or as fast as the strongest and fastest of men. On average this will always show.

 

 

Facts are against you. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with equal (ly lack of) food and equally hard work.

 

No they are not. Equal food and equal work will produce a stronger male. This is a scientific fact unless you are going to tell me women in the past had the same amounts of testosterone as men.

 

If what you say were true women and men could compete in physical sports without the division. But they can't.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Women are superior to men in every way. We must accept our status as Sub-Human Atrocious Males.

[TMZuk]

 

Except... not really. A woman who devotes her life fully to becoming good at killing people will be better at killing people than 95% of her less devoted male peers.

 

I'm talking about the average. I really did not think I would have to say it. The strongest and fastest of women never were and never will be (unless we evolve somehow) as strong or as fast as the strongest and fastest of men. On average this will always show.

 

 

Facts are against you. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with equal (ly lack of) food and equally hard work.

 

No they are not. Equal food and equal work will produce a stronger male. This is a scientific fact unless you are going to tell me women in the past had the same amounts of testosterone as men.

 

If what you say were true women and men could compete in physical sports without the division. But they can't.

 

You will have to ask a biologist why it is.

 

I am just a poor archeologist. And when I say that facts are against you, it's because that men and women were much more alike in the Viking Age, than they are to day. That is a fact. You can claim it is not, but I'm the one standing with the bones. They were shorter than Scandinavians are today, but taller than people were in the Middle Ages.

 

Average height for Danish men to day is about 182 cm, women averages 169 cm. A thousand years ago, we estimate that Danish men averaged about 173 cm and Danish women about 168 cm. They were probably stronger than today, not surprisingly, but in a sinewy rather than a bulky way. This is true in Scandinavia. As already mentioned, I have not looked into how it is in the rest of Europe, let alone the rest of the world.

 

I can send you some sources, but they are in Danish. But if you want to discuss this particular subject further, I suggest we do it in pm's or in a separate thread, in order to not derail the thread.

[TMZuk]

Isn't this a part of the Riggsthula? The Thralls, Carls, Hersir and Jarls are all buried according to their status in that Saga poem. Even a woman who never went to war, or lifted a weapon would be given the armed burial of a daughter of Odin, because she was of the warrrior aristocracy. There were warrior women though such as Hairy Breeches commander Lagertha, and was it Aud the Red or the Deep Minded who fled to Iceland? They also seemed to have many rights that Christian women did not, freedom to divorce, to claim the home and all they put in it, to rule and command men in the absence of their husbands, and even attend the Thing (Assembly) so that they might have a say in governance.

 

From the Sagas we certainly do not see many shrinking violets amongst them, and it was hardly a surprise to find out that Margaret Thatcher (Hammer of the Miners) was descended from Viking stock. Even now northern English women are a fiery breed, which I know all too well.

 

Edit: That said there have been some very big and strong Viking male skeletons excavated, and one suspects that with manhood and its responsibilities beginning at the age of twelve (lest they be called a coal chewer,) that these lads grew strong and hard pulling an oar over the North sea, hauling goods and cargo, practising their warcraft and bearing their warriors panoply. Certainly the amount of pre death wear and tear on the skeletons found suggests that they were very adventurous and warlike, with some horrible wound sustained and yet survived.

This is another interesting discussion that could derail the thread. However, you have to take extreme care using the sagas as source material. The historical sagas are written 300 - 400 years later than the events they describe and while there's most likely a core of truth in them, the change in society and the fact that they are written down by monks, distorts the view they give of the time where they take place.

[BruceVC]

Women are superior to men in every way. We must accept our status as Sub-Human Atrocious Males.

 KP this is an unhelpful comment, no one is suggesting anything even remotely similar to what you are saying.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Except... not really. A woman who devotes her life fully to becoming good at killing people will be better at killing people than 95% of her less devoted male peers.

 

I'm talking about the average. I really did not think I would have to say it. The strongest and fastest of women never were and never will be (unless we evolve somehow) as strong or as fast as the strongest and fastest of men. On average this will always show.

 

 

Facts are against you. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with equal (ly lack of) food and equally hard work.

 

No they are not. Equal food and equal work will produce a stronger male. This is a scientific fact unless you are going to tell me women in the past had the same amounts of testosterone as men.

 

If what you say were true women and men could compete in physical sports without the division. But they can't.

 

 

 

I can send you some sources, but they are in Danish.

 

 

Please translate these sources to English and then share them with us, don't be lazy

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Women are superior to men in every way. We must accept our status as Sub-Human Atrocious Males.

 KP this is an unhelpful comment, no one is suggesting anything even remotely similar to what you are saying.

 

Radical Feminists do, in fact a pillar of their ideology is that women should govern men.

 

On-Topic because the Rad-Fems are part of the current state of feminism.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Women are superior to men in every way. We must accept our status as Sub-Human Atrocious Males.

 KP this is an unhelpful comment, no one is suggesting anything even remotely similar to what you are saying.

 

Radical Feminists do, in fact a pillar of their ideology is that women should govern men.

 

On-Topic because the Rad-Fems are part of the current state of feminism.

 

 

But why would  you focus on the negative or radical element of a particular movement? There is a reason we call them radical.

 

I would imagine most people prefer to align with the more reasonable groups in an organisation?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

But why would  you focus on the negative or radical element of a particular movement? There is a reason we call them radical.

Look at the thread title.

 

The state of Feminism, the good the bad

If you only wanted to discuss the positive aspects of feminism, then perhaps you should have gone with something else, like "Positive Aspects of Feminism".

 

I would imagine most people prefer to align with the more reasonable groups in an organisation?

Sure, but feminism will always be associated with all groups of feminists, even the insane ones.

 

Furthermore, feminism is flawed in that it seeks to address gender equality by focusing only on the problems faced by one gender.

[BruceVC]

 

But why would  you focus on the negative or radical element of a particular movement? There is a reason we call them radical.

Look at the thread title.

 

The state of Feminism, the good the bad

If you only wanted to discuss the positive aspects of feminism, then perhaps you should have gone with something else, like "Positive Aspects of Feminism".

 

I would imagine most people prefer to align with the more reasonable groups in an organisation?

Sure, but feminism will always be associated with all groups of feminists, even the insane ones.

 

Furthermore, feminism is flawed in that it seeks to address gender equality by focusing only on the problems faced by one gender.

 

 

Yes you are correct, we should be discussing the good and bad about feminism as the title indicates, my bad.

 

 So what in your opinion are the issues that men  face in modern society. I have always believed that white, heterosexual males are the  least discriminated  group throughout the world. In fact I would argue we don't know really understand the definition of the words " bigotry " and  " discrimination" because we generally aren't on the receiving end of these views

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So what in your opinion are the issues that men  face in modern society.

Unfavored in custody agreements, harsher sentences for crimes, more likely to be physically assaulted or robbed. Note that men are much more likely to be executed than women in the US.

 

 

I have always believed that white, heterosexual males are the  least discriminated  group throughout the world. In fact I would argue we don't know really understand the definition of the words " bigotry " and  " discrimination" because we generally aren't on the receiving end of these views

You would be very wrong.

 

The idea that bigotry and discrimination only applies to race, sex, and sexual orientation is wrong, as is the assumption that there is no bigotry or discrimination against whites, heterosexuals, and males. You have discrimination based solely around education, economic situation, religion, and pretty much anything you could think of. Point is, discrimination and bigotry apply to a whole lot more than just three things, and trying to designate a privileged group with just those three factors will not result n a universally privileged group.

Edited September 1, 2014 by KaineParker

[BruceVC]

 

So what in your opinion are the issues that men  face in modern society.

Unfavored in custody agreements, harsher sentences for crimes, more likely to be physically assaulted or robbed. Note that men are much more likely to be executed than women in the US.

 

 

I have always believed that white, heterosexual males are the  least discriminated  group throughout the world. In fact I would argue we don't know really understand the definition of the words " bigotry " and  " discrimination" because we generally aren't on the receiving end of these views

You would be very wrong.

 

The idea that bigotry and discrimination only applies to race, sex, and sexual orientation is wrong, as is the assumption that there is no bigotry or discrimination against whites, heterosexuals, and males. You have discrimination based solely around education, economic situation, religion, and pretty much anything you could think of. Point is, discrimination and bigotry apply to a whole lot more than just three things, and trying to designate a privileged group with just those three factors will not result n a universally privileged group.

 

 

Okay you make some good points. I just battle with this whole "white, heterosexual males " are really victims of the same types of  systemic discrimination that gay people,  black people  or women have been subjected to through the years

 

Yes there are types of discrimination we are faced with like you mentioned but its not in the same degree that other groups have suffered under?

[Volourn]

"I have always believed that white, heterosexual males are the  least discriminated  group throughout the world."

 

L0L

[Shallow]

 

 

Okay you make some good points. I just battle with this whole "white, heterosexual males " are really victims of the same types of  systemic discrimination that gay people,  black people  or women have been subjected to through the years

 

Yes there are types of discrimination we are faced with like you mentioned but its not in the same degree that other groups have suffered under?

 

Like all things it depends on who, when, what, and where, I'm not gonna claim white men are being opressed by the evil lesbian black matriarchy, but just like with every other group, there is discrimination. In the western world (besides some ****ty law enforcement policies in the US) nearly all such descrimination is already illegal, assuming we can all agree that we shouldn't be punished for the crimes of our ancestors, it's important that various rights activist groups don't overdo it, there comes a time when, whilst arguing for giving one side benifits you're no longer leveling the playing field but tilting it in their favor.

 

Rights groups are inherently bad (unless there are massive issues in how things are) in that they solely focus on giving one group of people as big an advantage as they possibly can, which is why feminism, like all the other rights movements, is inherently bad, people should generally strive for equality or balance, which is why a unified movement for equality trying to ensure the law is just would be far superior to all these scattered little selfinterest groups who would gladly bulldoze over all other groups, along with creative and general freedom, to advance their agenda.

[Walsingham]

I kind of agree with both KP and Bruce.

 

On the one hand, Bruce you have to see that if bigotry is wrong it's not wrong in a sense of restitution. It's wrong conceptually and intellectually. It's wrong because it diminishes the perpetrator as well as the victim.

 

On the other hand, KP you need to understand that Bruce is a white South African, and that's made him a bit more conscious of real bigotry happening all the time all around him. White on black, asian on gay, black on HIV, HIV on gnomes etc.

 

Bruce takes the angle he does because he wants to fix the bigotry he can see. KP takes the angle he does because he wants to fix the bigotry that he can see.

 

In the end I have to side with KP, because I'm afraid that Brice's angle merely exchanges one form of bigotry for another. No offence meant, Bruce.

[HoonDing]

White is the new black.

[Fighter]

You will have to ask a biologist why it is.

 

I am just a poor archeologist. And when I say that facts are against you, it's because that men and women were much more alike in the Viking Age, than they are to day. That is a fact. You can claim it is not, but I'm the one standing with the bones. They were shorter than Scandinavians are today, but taller than people were in the Middle Ages.

 

Average height for Danish men to day is about 182 cm, women averages 169 cm. A thousand years ago, we estimate that Danish men averaged about 173 cm and Danish women about 168 cm. They were probably stronger than today, not surprisingly, but in a sinewy rather than a bulky way. This is true in Scandinavia. As already mentioned, I have not looked into how it is in the rest of Europe, let alone the rest of the world.

 

I can send you some sources, but they are in Danish. But if you want to discuss this particular subject further, I suggest we do it in pm's or in a separate thread, in order to not derail the thread.

 

 

You say, "You will have to ask a biologist." But you're the archaeologists who are making these interpretations it is you who should ask a biologist before making these conclusions. You've found out that men and women were closer in size back then and you've made a whole bunch of assumptions that go against basic biology.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Fighter