Feminist

Do you still think the world is still a feminist place towards women.

This makes no sense.

I think they are even though some do it scarcely and secretly

What? Who does what scarcely and secretly?

some women and men still think the woman's job is at home.

If "some" is defined as more than one, yeah, sure. But you, I think, are trying to make a significant societal claim that you can't even try to justify or quantify.

Women today are degrading themselves by being unmarked and sexually involved in Menander

So sex degrades women? I thought it liberated women? So, now female "liberation" = not allowed to have sex? Let me get this straight, women are sexually active = men objectifying them, women not allowed to have sex = men subjugating women? Or, is not allowing women to have sex somehow making them more equal?

that makes men think women are like dolls and dumb and that we can be taken advantage of.

Prove men think like this.

Women today are degrading themselves by being unmarked and sexually involved in Menander that makes men think women are like dolls and dumb and that we can be taken advantage of.

Do you still think the world is still a feminist place towards women.

I think they are even though some do it scarcely and secretly some women and men still think the woman's job is at home. Women today are degrading themselves by being unmarked and sexually involved in Menander that makes men think women are like dolls and dumb and that we can be taken advantage of.

Do you still think the world is still a feminist place towards women.

I think they are even though some do it scarcely and secretly some women and men still think the woman's job is at home. Women today are degrading themselves by being unmarked and sexually involved in Menander that makes men think women are like dolls and dumb and that we can be taken advantage of.

You can't be feminist towards women. You can be a feminist, which the current gender equality movement, there's some debate about why we can't just change that to equalist/humanist/egalitarian, seeing as modern feminism relates to equality for men as well. Personally I think a non gender-centric word would be more effective but I do identify as a feminist. So basically being a feminist means you believe in gender equality. I know quite a few male feminists as well. I think you mean sexist. But anyway, if men are allowed to be "sexually involved" women should be allowed to as well, considering the wealth of contraception available nowadays there is less (emphasis on the less) danger of women getting pregnant, allowing them more sexual freedom. It's hypocritical to say men can be promiscuous and women can't. To be honest, I don't get why anyone in their senses would be against gender equality. It benefits everyone if we're all equal.

Can you tell me how it benefits us all if we are all equal?

By trying to be equal are we not foregoing out individuality and genuine nature and risking being something false?

Feminism is vital in aiding the progress towards a national socialist state, thus it should be accommodated within Britain in it's entirety.

How does it not benefit people to be treated equally regardless of appearance, gender, level of intelligence, level of education, etc, etc. Everyone should be afforded basic respect and living/working conditions.

Are you suggesting that equality is going to eliminate individuality? Surely if anything, equality promotes it? If we treat males and females equally, without double standards, then men can act in a feminine way if they wish to, and express their individuality in that way, and women can express masculine traits if they wish. It allows more freedom throughout society if we're equal. One of the major things that gender equality groups want to work on is actually dissolving the gender binary system we've got going altogether, so we can include pansexual people, transgender people, intersex people, people who are genderfluid, things like that. Making sure that nobody is disadvantaged in society or advantaged because of their gender rather than their other merits can only be a good thing, surely.

Your not answering his question. You have to demonstrate how everybody being equal is better FOR EVERYBODY. If, say, 20% of people were better off than everybody else, then how would that said percentile being equal benefit them more than them being elevated?

I'm talking about equality of opportunity for the sexes. So men and women will receive equal pay, which doesn't disadvantage men, simply makes women equal. Men receiving equal paternity leave isn't going to disadvantage women unless you take away maternity leave. Not really sure how making sure that people receive equal pay and equal respect and equal opportunities is going to disadvantage people, you're giving those opportunities to people who lack them, not taking them off the people who already have them. It's like saying educating people who are currently denied an education is going to reverse the education of those more privileged.

And no, perhaps every single individual isn't going to be affected by equality, because some people have already got a stack of advantages in life. But if you're objecting to equality on the grounds that people who are already fortunate aren't going to benefit, then you're not a very kind person. Not directly this at you specifically, I mean "you" in the general sense.

You didn't initially specify. Now you have, there are still problems:

Firstly, a privilege group of people might not lose anything if another group becomes equal, but that in no way entails them having benefited.

Losing the position of being higher up than others IS losing benefit. If group one can get a job just from being in group 1, and then suddenly group 2 gets equal opportunities, then group 1 lose out. That's just economics, we have scarce resources, one group gaining more entails another losing out.

You're saying that women getting equal pay wouldn't penalise men. This is not the same has men benefiting.

You're saying women getting paid more than men would not penalise men. However, your post seems to suggest that this chnage would be "ceteras parabus"-- all other things being the same. That would mean men working longer hours with more difficult and dangerous jobs, but having no monetary reward for this. Furthermore no change in human nature to suggest that despite equal wages, men would would still predominantly pay women's way. It would be better to say that women should have the same job market situation as men.

However, in making that statement, you have to prove that that job market situation is objectively better than women's for it to be consistent with the notion that it would "benefit everyone".


Apart from the last one, which I have no objection to being true (I'm agnostic about it), I simply don't see how your argument can reconcile itself in its current form with those problems.

The post was focussed on gender equality so it wasn't explicit, but I didn't feel it needed to be given the post was talking about gender equality and gender roles.

Ok, so perhaps it won't directly benefit everyone. However, if you look at it on balance, I just don't see how you can consciously allow the disadvantage of certain groups of society based on a particular attribute. And if you're not aware of it, once you are then you should take steps to try and even the field. I think the widespread benefits of equal opportunities are greater than the disadvantages. If everyone has access to the level of education we have, then more of society would be able to contribute to fields such as engineering or medicine. Why would women being given equal pay for the same job disadvantage people in different jobs? Pay should be determined by the job, not the gender of the person performing it. If a man performs a job that is more dangerous than the job of a woman, he should be paid more because it's dangerous. If a man and a woman are working in an office for the same hours, and the woman is receiving lesser pay, how is it disadvantageous to the man for the woman to receive the same pay, especially if they're both in the position of being the breadwinners?

Not necessarily. If we dealt with the gender roles people have been assigned then no, men wouldn't have to be the primary breadwinners. It's starting to get that way in society, both my uncle and great-uncle are the ones who stay at home and raise the children, and their wives work. Equality wouldn't just encompass equal pay, the job markets would have to become equal as well. All I mean is that a person's role in society and how they are treated or perceived shouldn't be determined by gender. The only exception being when there is obvious danger due to physical reasons, so a woman who is potentially pregnant couldn't be exposed to teratogenic drugs because of the risk to the foetus. But that's a point of her being pregnant, not because she's a woman. Like not sending someone with a peanut allergy into a peanut factory.

I'm talking about equality of opportunity for the sexes. So men and women will receive equal pay, which doesn't disadvantage men, simply makes women equal.