Debate a patriarchy supporter/ anti feminist.
Scroll to see replies
OP:
Without being disrespectful, I think you should focus on your own life rather than trying to control the lives of others.
I could pick out any number of things, but your argument that we should stop women having certain jobs is amongst the most crazy. Why should it be up to you what jobs anyone else could or should do?
This is horseshoe theory in action. You believe women shouldn't be able to get certain jobs, the ultra woke believe white men shouldn't be able to get certain jobs.
Without being disrespectful, I think you should focus on your own life rather than trying to control the lives of others.
I could pick out any number of things, but your argument that we should stop women having certain jobs is amongst the most crazy. Why should it be up to you what jobs anyone else could or should do?
This is horseshoe theory in action. You believe women shouldn't be able to get certain jobs, the ultra woke believe white men shouldn't be able to get certain jobs.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by DSilva
I could pick out any number of things, but your argument that we should stop women having certain jobs is amongst the most crazy. Why should it be up to you what jobs anyone else could or should do?
This. No doubt OP would hate it if people wanted to control them in the same way, to strip them of their ambition and independence.
Original post by SHallowvale
2. If it's not necessarily a bad thing then why bring it up? Why say 'feminism is bad because maternity pay' if you yourself aren't against maternity pay?
3. It's totally relevant. The argument is that feminism creates broken homes. Over the last 10-20 years we've seen increasing amounts of feminism yet stable or even declining divorce rates. Ergo, feminism isn't relevant to broken homes. What caused the spike in divorce during the 70s was the Divorce Reform Act. Calling no-fault divorce laws from the 70s "feminist" would be a bit foolish given how the same rules can be found in non-feminist countries.
I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to with your follow up replies here, but the long story short is that the data you've presented doesn't support your overall argument.
4. For someone who decries women as emotional people who make rash and unwise decisions, you sure are keen to base your arguments on emotion and end up with rash and unwise beliefs.
5. Yes, it demonstrates that you're a hypocrite. Why hold women to a standard that you don't want to be held to yourself? In the case of alcohol, our laws are hypocritical but that's at least somewhat acceptable because they exist to deter children from alcohol and keep them safe. Ultimately those children will grow up and gain the right to choose for themself. In your case, however, you want to limit the rights of women altogether (regardless of age) and not even for the sake of their safety.
3. It's totally relevant. The argument is that feminism creates broken homes. Over the last 10-20 years we've seen increasing amounts of feminism yet stable or even declining divorce rates. Ergo, feminism isn't relevant to broken homes. What caused the spike in divorce during the 70s was the Divorce Reform Act. Calling no-fault divorce laws from the 70s "feminist" would be a bit foolish given how the same rules can be found in non-feminist countries.
I'm not exactly sure what you're responding to with your follow up replies here, but the long story short is that the data you've presented doesn't support your overall argument.
4. For someone who decries women as emotional people who make rash and unwise decisions, you sure are keen to base your arguments on emotion and end up with rash and unwise beliefs.
5. Yes, it demonstrates that you're a hypocrite. Why hold women to a standard that you don't want to be held to yourself? In the case of alcohol, our laws are hypocritical but that's at least somewhat acceptable because they exist to deter children from alcohol and keep them safe. Ultimately those children will grow up and gain the right to choose for themself. In your case, however, you want to limit the rights of women altogether (regardless of age) and not even for the sake of their safety.
1: I did not say that lol. I said it's bad because it requires high levels if government involvement. Such as discrimation laws, child tax credits etc which I am against. Also I do not believe buisnesses should be required to pay maternity leave.
2: it's totally accurate. That things may have gotten mildly better doesn't take away from the fact they're far worse than previously.
What non feminist countries have these same laws?
It does lol, you've even said as much
3. Sure pal
4: so you agree in theory it's justified to be s hypocrite to achieve a greater end. Correct. And actually I do think women will be safer under my system.
Obviously I reject this hyper rationalist worldview you propose as just absurd nonsense...
Original post by SHallowvale
This. No doubt OP would hate it if people wanted to control them in the same way, to strip them of their ambition and independence.
@DSilva
Ah yes the old "If you want to fight your opposing ideology then that makes you the same as them" schtick
Possibly the dumbest, non sequitur and fallacious argument in existence.
It's like me saying why are you happy when your team scores but dad when the other team does? Isn't that hypocritical? Lmao
Honestly you two are much smarter than that retar... Argument
Original post by Starship Trooper
@DSilva
Ah yes the old "If you want to fight your opposing ideology then that makes you the same as them" schtick
Possibly the dumbest, non sequitur and fallacious argument in existence.
It's like me saying why are you happy when your team scores but dad when the other team does? Isn't that hypocritical? Lmao
Honestly you two are much smarter than that retar... Argument
Ah yes the old "If you want to fight your opposing ideology then that makes you the same as them" schtick
Possibly the dumbest, non sequitur and fallacious argument in existence.
It's like me saying why are you happy when your team scores but dad when the other team does? Isn't that hypocritical? Lmao
Honestly you two are much smarter than that retar... Argument
I don't think so.
Both you and the woke left seem to want to control what people can and can't say, where they can and can't work, what they can and can't wear etc.
Whereas I want to live and let and live, and basically stay out of other peoples' business.
Original post by Starship Trooper
1: I did not say that lol. I said it's bad because it requires high levels if government involvement. Such as discrimation laws, child tax credits etc which I am against. Also I do not believe buisnesses should be required to pay maternity leave.
2: it's totally accurate. That things may have gotten mildly better doesn't take away from the fact they're far worse than previously.
What non feminist countries have these same laws?
It does lol, you've even said as much
3. Sure pal
4: so you agree in theory it's justified to be s hypocrite to achieve a greater end. Correct. And actually I do think women will be safer under my system.
Obviously I reject this hyper rationalist worldview you propose as just absurd nonsense...
2: it's totally accurate. That things may have gotten mildly better doesn't take away from the fact they're far worse than previously.
What non feminist countries have these same laws?
It does lol, you've even said as much
3. Sure pal
4: so you agree in theory it's justified to be s hypocrite to achieve a greater end. Correct. And actually I do think women will be safer under my system.
Obviously I reject this hyper rationalist worldview you propose as just absurd nonsense...
1. Right, but again what does this have to do with feminism? When you've got both feminist and non-feminist countries with these government subsidies then it's no longer a matter of feminism.
2. Again, not relevant to your overall argument. More feminism =/= more divorce. Numerous muslim countries have no-fault divorce, either through mutual agreement from both parties or from the husband literally just declaring the marriage void (which is far more generous than what the UK allows).
2.1.The data does not support your argument because it does not present a causal link between feminism and divorce / marital happiness. All it presents is a correlation, and a pretty weak one at that. The idea that more promiscuity leads to more divorce and less marital happiness is also false, and the articles you cited even say that. That is, of course, unless you think that having merely one sexual partner before marriage makes someone promiscuous?
4. It's justifiable to have hypocritical laws that apply only to children because... they're children. We're talking about a subset of the population that are vulnerable and need to be protected. Once they grow up the laws no longer apply. The same doesn't, and shouldn't, be the case for women. Or... do you think that women have the same mental capacity as children?
---
I'm pretty sure you once told me that your entire world view basically stems from your belief in a magical sky God. Hate to be disrespectful, but talk about "absurd nonsense". I'd rather we live in a world based on rational thinking and data driven decision making. You know, the kind of "wise" thinking that you claim women are less capable of making.
Original post by DSilva
OP:
Without being disrespectful, I think you should focus on your own life rather than trying to control the lives of others.
I could pick out any number of things, but your argument that we should stop women having certain jobs is amongst the most crazy. Why should it be up to you what jobs anyone else could or should do?
This is horseshoe theory in action. You believe women shouldn't be able to get certain jobs, the ultra woke believe white men shouldn't be able to get certain jobs.
Without being disrespectful, I think you should focus on your own life rather than trying to control the lives of others.
I could pick out any number of things, but your argument that we should stop women having certain jobs is amongst the most crazy. Why should it be up to you what jobs anyone else could or should do?
This is horseshoe theory in action. You believe women shouldn't be able to get certain jobs, the ultra woke believe white men shouldn't be able to get certain jobs.
I am lol. I'm just chatting on the internet whilst I have a break.
Uh .. it isn't? That would be the power of a ruling power to decide. This is like when crazy libertarians say to you "hey how dare you think that you have any right to my money!"
The woke left don't really have a problem with white men doing certain jobs so long as they promote their talking points and know their place. Also I dont think you can really compare what was the norm throughout modern western history to modern political labels.
William the conqueror and Antifa are the same! LMAO
Original post by Starship Trooper
@DSilva
Ah yes the old "If you want to fight your opposing ideology then that makes you the same as them" schtick
Possibly the dumbest, non sequitur and fallacious argument in existence.
It's like me saying why are you happy when your team scores but dad when the other team does? Isn't that hypocritical? Lmao
Honestly you two are much smarter than that retar... Argument
Ah yes the old "If you want to fight your opposing ideology then that makes you the same as them" schtick
Possibly the dumbest, non sequitur and fallacious argument in existence.
It's like me saying why are you happy when your team scores but dad when the other team does? Isn't that hypocritical? Lmao
Honestly you two are much smarter than that retar... Argument
You aren't the same as them just because you want to fight their ideology. You are the same as them because you want to fight their ideology with the same ideology. The specifics might be different but the ultimate goal is the same: to control what people can do with their life.
And, of course, there is massive hypocrisy in that because you wouldn't like someone to apply the same rules to you.
Original post by DSilva
I don't think so.
Both you and the woke left seem to want to control what people can and can't say, where they can and can't work, what they can and can't wear etc.
Whereas I want to live and let and live, and basically stay out of other peoples' business.
Both you and the woke left seem to want to control what people can and can't say, where they can and can't work, what they can and can't wear etc.
Whereas I want to live and let and live, and basically stay out of other peoples' business.
Sure but saying that makes us the same is still dumb seeing as it's usually for different means and for totally different ends. There is far more that divides us. We just both understand how power works
Ah so you're a "libertarian" then (just one that supports widespread government intervention.
Original post by SHallowvale
You aren't the same as them just because you want to fight their ideology. You are the same as them because you want to fight their ideology with the same ideology. The specifics might be different but the ultimate goal is the same: to control what people can do with their life.
And, of course, there is massive hypocrisy in that because you wouldn't like someone to apply the same rules to you.
And, of course, there is massive hypocrisy in that because you wouldn't like someone to apply the same rules to you.
But for what purpose? I assure you, the type if society I want to see is very different from what Antifa etc want! And it is absurd to not take that into account.
If you're in a war soldiers want to beat the enemy and not be defeated. It's really very simple. This is how politics has always worked.
Original post by Starship Trooper
But for what purpose? I assure you, the type if society I want to see is very different from what Antifa etc want! And it is absurd to not take that into account.
If you're in a war soldiers want to beat the enemy and not be defeated. It's really very simple. This is how politics has always worked.
If you're in a war soldiers want to beat the enemy and not be defeated. It's really very simple. This is how politics has always worked.
It'll be different because the populations involved would be reversed, but that doesn't change the fact that what you want to do to people is essentially the same. And I'm sure people from the opposite end could justify their beliefs with the same arguments you've used to justify yours.
'I want to subjugate them because they want to subjugate me' isn't a good argument. It's playground reasoning. The better, and far superior option, is to not subjugate anyone.
Original post by SHallowvale
'I want to subjugate them because they want to subjugate me' isn't a good argument.
It's playground reasoning. The better, and far superior option, is to not subjugate anyone.
It's playground reasoning. The better, and far superior option, is to not subjugate anyone.
I disagree I think it's a very good argument that understands human nature. And funnily enough I think children are actually in some ways far smarter in intuitively understanding how power relations work.
The whole world works through subjugation. This is why we have armies, laws and a police force. Societies that don't try and subjugate anyone such as anarchist societies usually end up getting destroyed by those that do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyhfHQ_7Skg
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Starship Trooper
I disagree I think it's a very good argument that understands human nature. And funnily enough I think children are actually in some ways far smarter in intuitively understanding how power relations work.
The whole world works through subjugation. This is why we have armies, laws and a police force. Societies that don't try and subjugate anyone such as anarchist societies usually end up getting destroyed by those that do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyhfHQ_7Skg
The whole world works through subjugation. This is why we have armies, laws and a police force. Societies that don't try and subjugate anyone such as anarchist societies usually end up getting destroyed by those that do.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyhfHQ_7Skg
I'm not talking about subjugation with respect to things like murder, theft, rape, etc. I'm talking about subjugation to the point of essentially stripping someone of their independence and making them subservient to their husband.
The answer to 'they want to be a control freak over me' isn't 'I should be a control freak over them'. The answer is that neither party should be a control freak over the other.
Original post by SHallowvale
I'm not talking about subjugation with respect to things like murder, theft, rape, etc. I'm talking about subjugation to the point of essentially stripping someone of their independence and making them subservient to their husband.
The answer to 'they want to be a control freak over me' isn't 'I should be a control freak over them'. The answer is that neither party should be a control freak over the other.
The answer to 'they want to be a control freak over me' isn't 'I should be a control freak over them'. The answer is that neither party should be a control freak over the other.
I disagree that what I am proposing is as drastic as you are making out unless you think women in 1900 were stripped of their independence.
That is just emotive language. Hierarchy is normal and part of life. Chains of command / authority exist in our day to day lives. The husband being the head of the family is perfectly normal indeed healthy.
Also our of curiosity, by your logic is the UK as bad as Isis because the UK wanted to subjugate Isis?
If I ever get arrested I must remember to say to the officer "hay stop being a hypocrite, you wouldn't like it if I arrested you would you?"
Reminds me of when I had to deal with an irate employee who was upset that his line manager had access to his personnel file but he didn't have access to hers....
Reminds me of when I had to deal with an irate employee who was upset that his line manager had access to his personnel file but he didn't have access to hers....
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Starship Trooper
I disagree that what I am proposing is as drastic as you are making out unless you think women in 1900 were stripped of their independence.
That is just emotive language. Hierarchy is normal and part of life. Chains of command / authority exist in our day to day lives. The husband being the head of the family is perfectly normal indeed healthy.
Also our of curiosity, by your logic is the UK as bad as Isis because the UK wanted to subjugate Isis?
That is just emotive language. Hierarchy is normal and part of life. Chains of command / authority exist in our day to day lives. The husband being the head of the family is perfectly normal indeed healthy.
Also our of curiosity, by your logic is the UK as bad as Isis because the UK wanted to subjugate Isis?
If women in the 1900s weren't allowed to get jobs or had strict limitations in what jobs / income they could earn, were pressured or forced into being wives and mothers and were locked into marriages unless their spouse raped or cheated on them then... yeah, women did not have independence. This isn't a world we should return to.
The day to day situations where I encounter hierarchy and authority, namely my job, do not involve control freaks. If they did then I would quit my job. Also, there is no reason why the husband has to be the head of the household.
Original post by Starship Trooper
If I ever get arrested I must remember to say to the officer "hay stop being a hypocrite, you wouldn't like it if I arrested you would you?"
And you'd be right if the law was being applied only to yourself and nobody else. Funny that.
Original post by SHallowvale
The day to day situations where I encounter hierarchy and authority, namely my job, do not involve control freaks.
If they did then I would quit my job. Also, there is no reason why the husband has to be the head of the household.
If they did then I would quit my job. Also, there is no reason why the husband has to be the head of the household.
I think that's pretty subjective. What you call being a control freak I call bringing order and stability.
A business where everyone did whatever they wanted wouldn't last very long.
Original post by SHallowvale
And you'd be right if the law was being applied only to yourself and nobody else. Funny that.
I am sure that will bring me much solace in prison
Also you didn't answer my Isis question: is the UK as bad as Isis for wanting to subjugate them,?
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by Starship Trooper
I think that's pretty subjective. What you call being a control freak I call bringing order and stability.
A business where everyone did whatever they wanted wouldn't last very long.
I am sure that will bring me much solace in prison
Also you didn't answer my Isis question: is the UK as bad as Isis for wanting to subjugate them,?
A business where everyone did whatever they wanted wouldn't last very long.
I am sure that will bring me much solace in prison
Also you didn't answer my Isis question: is the UK as bad as Isis for wanting to subjugate them,?
Imagine if your manager told you that they were going to cut your hours and pay significantly, to the point where having the job was no longer financially viable, and that their justification for this is that they wanted to "bring order and stability" to your department. Would you accept that, being the hierarchy loving individual that you are, or would you rightfully just quit your job and look elsewhere?
This is basically what you think women should be put through. Ridiculous, isn't it?
---
I'm not going to bother getting into a discussion about foreign affairs, as it's well beyond the scope of this discussion and I generally don't care much for it.
Original post by Starship Trooper
I am lol. I'm just chatting on the internet whilst I have a break.
Uh .. it isn't? That would be the power of a ruling power to decide. This is like when crazy libertarians say to you "hey how dare you think that you have any right to my money!"
The woke left don't really have a problem with white men doing certain jobs so long as they promote their talking points and know their place. Also I dont think you can really compare what was the norm throughout modern western history to modern political labels.
William the conqueror and Antifa are the same! LMAO
Uh .. it isn't? That would be the power of a ruling power to decide. This is like when crazy libertarians say to you "hey how dare you think that you have any right to my money!"
The woke left don't really have a problem with white men doing certain jobs so long as they promote their talking points and know their place. Also I dont think you can really compare what was the norm throughout modern western history to modern political labels.
William the conqueror and Antifa are the same! LMAO
There's a clear differnece between saying:
A. People can do whatever jobs they want, they just have to pay the tax they owe; and
B. People should be banned by law from doing lots of jobs because of what sex they are.
That's why the alt right and Antifa etc are so similar. Both want to control what people can do, say, think, wear. Whereas the rest of us by and large want people to be able to make their own choices when it comes to themselves.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
