Debate a patriarchy supporter/ anti feminist.

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.

@SHallowvale @TCA2b

Basically the entire system we have has been purposefully designed for ideological reasons to promote women into working. I probably wouldn't have to do anything as Draconian as say X can't work in this field. All I would probably do is tweak the system a bit as governments have been doing for decades to get their preferred outcomes.

Eg improve physical fitness standards in the police and army, remove discrimination laws for private buisnesses, remove it being a legal obligation for maternity pay for private buisnesses, incentive more men to get into jobs like teaching, end tax credits and give large tax breaks to married couples, remove quotas....

.....

I mean unless you're an anarchist or a libertarian so do you. Afaik you do not believe people should be able to walk naked to the supermarket saying the N word and injecting themselves with heroin and handing out pamphlets with "offensive" material on it. You also do not buisnesses should be able to hire whoever they want (eg "discriminate") or various other things. I hate to break it to you, but you're a statist

But you could reasonably sat that you are more libertarian than me I guess.

"Basically the entire system we have has been purposefully designed for ideological reasons to promote women into working" - No ****, because such ideological reasons are... women themselves wanting equality and the right to enter the workforce. The feminism we see today is the result of decades worth of campaigning and social progress, which we've had because women themselves (along with men) wanted more freedom.

In an earlier post you said that you wanted to limit the number of hours women can work and limit the number of fields then can work in to traditionally female fields (e.g. care, hospitality, etc). You've now said that you wouldn't do something so Draconian. Have you changed your mind?

.....

The difference, which both DSilva and I have explained already, is the extent to which these controls apply. Sure, I don't think people should be allowed to walk naked to the supermarket. Is this going to have a massive impact on their life, though? No. Meanwhile, you are suggesting that women should basically be stripped of their independence and ambitions and just be mothers dependent on their husbands. That's going to have a massive impact on people, especially those who don't want to live that lifestyle.

Not really. Social progress gets driven along by a vocal minority. Most people just go along with the status quo. Iirc most women today don't even identify as feminists.

Not really, i wouldn't put it off the table completely I'm just saying I suspect I wouldn't have to.

......

Both those things are entirely subjective though. Your only argument is that they are not part of the status quo. Well guess what, the status quo changes. 100 years ago my views on women would be the mainstream position.

@SHallowvale @TCA2b

Basically the entire system we have has been purposefully designed for ideological reasons to promote women into working. I probably wouldn't have to do anything as Draconian as say X can't work in this field. All I would probably do is tweak the system a bit as governments have been doing for decades to get their preferred outcomes.

Eg improve physical fitness standards in the police and army, remove discrimination laws for private buisnesses, remove it being a legal obligation for maternity pay for private buisnesses, incentive more men to get into jobs like teaching, end tax credits and give large tax breaks to married couples, remove quotas....

.....

I mean unless you're an anarchist or a libertarian so do you. Afaik you do not believe people should be able to walk naked to the supermarket saying the N word and injecting themselves with heroin and handing out pamphlets with "offensive" material on it. You also do not buisnesses should be able to hire whoever they want (eg "discriminate") or various other things. I hate to break it to you, but you're a statist

But you could reasonably sat that you are more libertarian than me I guess.

As for me and antifa who knows maybe one day neo Nazis, Ancaps, Zionists, BLM, tankies, islamists, Antifa, TERFs, Trump supporters, The Christian Right etc will put aside all our differences and come together and defeat our real enemy: normie centrists

Be them the vocal minority or not, we wouldn't have seen this social progress if women didn't want things to change. Otherwise we'd have stuck with the status quo of 100~ years ago. Most women today may not identity as feminists, but an overwhelming majority support the feminist ideas that you disagree with. The same applies to men.

......

Are you really suggesting that the effect of banning public nudity and banning women from the workforce, on the individual, are comparable? Jesus Christ. The two are not the same just because they involve some level of control.

My argument isn't 'it's just part of the status quo'. My argument is that one has a very little effect on people's lives while the other would have a considerable effect. This is not subjective either, we can measure this objectively. Income is probably the measure we can use. Banning public nudity isn't going to stop people from having an income or being financially independent. Banning women from the workforce, or otherwise strictly limiting their hours and the types of jobs they can have, will absolutely affect their income and ability to be financially independent.

If women are skilled enough to do a job on merit, why would you try and stop them from doing it? Either by stealth or by dictat? What's it to you?

Why are you seeing to control what people can and can't do when it has no impact on you and doesn't cause any harm to anyone?

Because I think their talents are almost entirely better used elsewhere.

I disagree, it impacts everyone and I think it has caused a lot of harm actually. See again the cost of single motherhood. I think children particularly boys being brought up by single mothers is basically psychological child abuse. This is why they are far more likely to become criminals, drug addicts etc. I can give other examples but this the most egregious to me.( And yes deadbeat dad's should be punished too).

I think you can draw a direct parralel with giving women the vote and the decline of our society from a Conservative perspective.

You're not a woman so why do you care if they're not allowed to work? Presumably because you think they should and because as part of this society you believe you have a say in how it should be run.

Why should it be up to you where their talents are best used rather than them?

How would you feel about someone dictating you couldn't work a certain job that you wanted to even though you had the skills to?

Because I think I'm right and they're not lmao.

The same way you would feel if people you didn't agree with came into power. This is ultimately how politics works. It's a zero sum game of power relations where one group wins and another loses.

But it has nothing to do with you, at all.
There's no reason why you should be able to dictate which professions other people are and aren't allowed to work in.

Would it be reasonable for people to dictate to you that you can't work in certain professions that you wee perfectly qualified and skilled to work in?

Your views here are almost dictatorial. I know you probably won't take that as an insult, mind.

Sure. But again opinions and people can change. Yet again there is no iron law of progress. Consider women's rights in Iran.

....

Well it depends on what people want which is subjective. If for whatever reason militant nudism became a thing then actually yes it would be. People may choose to value certain things more. Eg consider I paid women 50k per year to be stay at home house wives, I'm sure you'd be thrilled if some woman chose not to do that and become a cleaner or something for 15k per year even though technically she's making a poor economic decision.

I simply value what I view as an orderly traditional Society more than I value individual liberty at the end of the day.

You're not a woman so why do you care if they're not allowed to work?

Countries like Iran maintain patriarchy and social conservatism through extremely strict laws, including things like torture and capital punishment. Is this what you would like in this country, for the sake of promoting patriarchy?

......

If a woman is happy to accept £50k a year to be a stay at home wife for you then all power to her. I've said it before, I have no objection to women adopting traditional roles if this is what they want out of life. The issue I have is that you want to force this lifestyle on all women.

I wouldn't go that far personally. But again I don't think I would need to.
...
Again I'm probably not going to force women to do anything I will just gradually make it harder for them to do certain things to the point where it's not worth the hassle for most of them other than the most determined.

In addition to that I will also put out incentives and propoganda encouraging women to pursue traditional gender roles.

Again I'm probably not going to force women to do anything I will just gradually make it harder for them to do certain things to the point where it's not worth the hassle for most of them other than the most determined.

In addition to that I will also put out incentives and propoganda encouraging women to pursue traditional gender roles.

Because we ourselves wouldn't want to be treated like that if we were women.

It's called having empathy and being able to relate to other people. How is this even a question?

You called the Covid measures tyranny. Presumably because they significantly impinge on your freedoms, they decide what you can and can't do, where you can and can't go, who you can't and can't see. They take away your individual choices.

Yet you seem to proposing much the same for women, on a permanent basis. It's the same concept. Either individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions, or they shouldn't.

You shouldn't do any of this to begin with. There is no reason to make it harder for women to persue the career they want, the family they want, etc. There is no reason to impose traditional gender roles on the entire population.

Yes but

A) it still happened. Funny that.
B) yes and I think it was dumb and ineffective and Covid wasn't even that big of a deal.

But in any case it's not a binary choice. You and I both believe there are things that individuals should not be allowed to do. My list is just bigger than yours.