isnt feminism pointless now women are basicaly equal?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mia1001
It's very sexist to say a woman does not strive for the same goals as men. There is no evidence for that. There are however high profile legal cases against employers who have been found guilty of prejudice.
As for the guardian, it isn't just newspapers that have reported on this. They don't just pluck information out of nowhere. The ONS has research on employment and pay.
And many articles do specify that same occupations have wildly different wages. On an overall view, it is clear that one major factor affecting pay is employment sector. But within each sector, there are differences in pay based on gender and race.
In regards to a firefighter, maybe you wouldn't want a woman. If you really needed saving I don't think you'd protest any assistance in that situation from someone with the skills. Firefighting does not have a huge impact on the economy and society. I understand that men may choose to steer towards a career that is more physical. That wasn't my argument. I am strictly sticking to high profile roles such as finance and banking, law etc which are predominantly male. These sectors have huge effects on the economy and society and women and ethnic minorities can feel "empowered". There is no need for strength in this. It is mainly academia which does not vary much between the genders, so each group should feel accurately represented, or at least have the opportunity to excel in
As for the guardian, it isn't just newspapers that have reported on this. They don't just pluck information out of nowhere. The ONS has research on employment and pay.
And many articles do specify that same occupations have wildly different wages. On an overall view, it is clear that one major factor affecting pay is employment sector. But within each sector, there are differences in pay based on gender and race.
In regards to a firefighter, maybe you wouldn't want a woman. If you really needed saving I don't think you'd protest any assistance in that situation from someone with the skills. Firefighting does not have a huge impact on the economy and society. I understand that men may choose to steer towards a career that is more physical. That wasn't my argument. I am strictly sticking to high profile roles such as finance and banking, law etc which are predominantly male. These sectors have huge effects on the economy and society and women and ethnic minorities can feel "empowered". There is no need for strength in this. It is mainly academia which does not vary much between the genders, so each group should feel accurately represented, or at least have the opportunity to excel in
The bolded is neither sexist nor incorrect. There are numerous studies showing that men and women have different preferences, on average, in what they want out of promotion. Generally men choose to ask for a higher raw salary and income; women tend to value flexible working hours and working from home more.
Fundamentally, men and women have different priorities in life. It is not a great mystery or evidence of discrimination, therefore, that they do have different outcomes in life.
As regards your last point, academia does vary quite a bit between the genders - particularly the science/arts divide. As an example, take working for an investment bank. Working in HR and working as a quantitative analyst are both professions one can do in a bank. However, the former has no restrictions on degree subject and pays less; the latter requires masters or PhD level mathematics and pays more. Unsurprisingly, the latter is dominated by men as a result of the fact that a much smaller ratio of women complete PhDs in maths from top universities; therefore even though both sets of people are 'working for an investment bank', they are doing completely different roles; and hence men will likely outearn women within the bank.
Original post by Olie
Truly knows? So I assume you've been to plenty of feminist meetings and read a vast array of feminist literature to come to be so familiar with the entire feminist movement have you? Or are you just doing the classic thing of making wild generalisations based on a few wacky , misguided radical feminist ideas that are unlikely to represent the views of the movement as a whole?
Sure, western feminism isn't anywhere near as relevant as it is in other parts of the world, but like said on the first page, it still holds some relevance in western society, as the attitudes of some guys on here who still seem to hold the belief that women are inferior (and not to mention the misogyny that goes on on here as well) perhaps illustrates.
Sure, western feminism isn't anywhere near as relevant as it is in other parts of the world, but like said on the first page, it still holds some relevance in western society, as the attitudes of some guys on here who still seem to hold the belief that women are inferior (and not to mention the misogyny that goes on on here as well) perhaps illustrates.
radical feminisists are not a fringe, they are the majority. you should be ashamed of yourself for defending feminism, especially as your a male. Maybe your trying to impress women, but your just a stooge and pawn for them.
Original post by EatAndRevise
He does not deserve more, he is not working harder, and is not lifting more boxes than the other man. Trade unions are a load of crap anyway.
You are using the term 'deserve', rather loosely. If the business hits bad times, it must make sacrifices to ensure it survives, if this involves cutting wages, so be it. He may deserve his old pay, but his employer must make a sacrifice, he the worker does not like this, he must find a new job. Anyway, we do not know what he deserves, and what he does not deserve.
This is all completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
You are using the term 'deserve', rather loosely. If the business hits bad times, it must make sacrifices to ensure it survives, if this involves cutting wages, so be it. He may deserve his old pay, but his employer must make a sacrifice, he the worker does not like this, he must find a new job. Anyway, we do not know what he deserves, and what he does not deserve.
This is all completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
It is relevant. Since you made the moral claim that the man should be paid more, I'm trying to find out if you actually have a standard for judging this.
The reason why you don't see as many women in high-paying jobs, especially those that require high intelligence levels is the standard deviation of male IQ is higher than females. Essentially, you get more extremes in males than females, so that explains why there are more male geniuses.
Also, it seems in many traits, males are more varied than females.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is
Also, it seems in many traits, males are more varied than females.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is
Original post by slade p
radical feminisists are not a fringe, they are the majority. you should be ashamed of yourself for defending feminism, especially as your a male. Maybe your trying to impress women, but your just a stooge and pawn for them.
"Radical feminism" isn't just a snarl word for whatever feminists you happen to dislike, you know? It has a specific meaning - it refers to feminists who believe that patriarchy and gender oppression are the most basic form of power and oppression, and that all other forms of oppression - class, race, religion, etc - all stem from gender oppression.
It doesn't necessarily refer to extremism or militancy. For example, Marxist feminists and anarcha-feminists can often be very militant and extreme - yet neither are radical feminists, as Marxists see class oppression as more important, and anarchism considers all forms of oppression as inherently intertwined.
Original post by ClickItBack
The bolded is neither sexist nor incorrect. There are numerous studies showing that men and women have different preferences, on average, in what they want out of promotion. Generally men choose to ask for a higher raw salary and income; women tend to value flexible working hours and working from home more.
Fundamentally, men and women have different priorities in life. It is not a great mystery or evidence of discrimination, therefore, that they do have different outcomes in life.
As regards your last point, academia does vary quite a bit between the genders - particularly the science/arts divide. As an example, take working for an investment bank. Working in HR and working as a quantitative analyst are both professions one can do in a bank. However, the former has no restrictions on degree subject and pays less; the latter requires masters or PhD level mathematics and pays more. Unsurprisingly, the latter is dominated by men as a result of the fact that a much smaller ratio of women complete PhDs in maths from top universities; therefore even though both sets of people are 'working for an investment bank', they are doing completely different roles; and hence men will likely outearn women within the bank.
Fundamentally, men and women have different priorities in life. It is not a great mystery or evidence of discrimination, therefore, that they do have different outcomes in life.
As regards your last point, academia does vary quite a bit between the genders - particularly the science/arts divide. As an example, take working for an investment bank. Working in HR and working as a quantitative analyst are both professions one can do in a bank. However, the former has no restrictions on degree subject and pays less; the latter requires masters or PhD level mathematics and pays more. Unsurprisingly, the latter is dominated by men as a result of the fact that a much smaller ratio of women complete PhDs in maths from top universities; therefore even though both sets of people are 'working for an investment bank', they are doing completely different roles; and hence men will likely outearn women within the bank.
Well if women "don't strive" then we should understand why. It's not about a family life, necessarily, many women have children quite late in life or choose not to have children at all, both are now socially accepted. Also women didn't choose to be capable of child bearing, why should they be penalised for it. Women don't choose to be women. Women can't choose if they're biologically born "weaker".
What EatandRevise was also mentioning was a rewards based system upon acheivement. Whilst I agree it is a good idea (though relatively unachievable in practice) it cannot simply state that a woman woul be definitely be weaker or less able for a job.
Also EatandRevise was referring how specially men should earn more, regardless of other factors. Maybe a man is stronger than a woman, but maybe the woman works harder. You just can't tell a person's capability by their sex. I could say that female teachers should be paid more because women are more caring by nature. That just simply isn't the case. Many make teachers are fantastic and by openly paying one sex more will deter those of the opposite sex.
Women are also less likely to be chosen by employers. I have several studies, but I will choose the Yale University study which gave professors identical résumés, one named "John" and one named "Jennifer". On average, the male candidate was rated more favourably and was offered on average $4000 more than the female candidate.
One could also argue that the fact you refuse to accept there is a problem, is a problem in itself. If you were to swap "feminism" for "civil rights" and "women" for "black and ethnic minorities" you would be outrageous to suggest that civil rights is not essential in today's society.
Lewis' law, the eponymous law taken from her justification that comments on any article about feminism justify feminism. Read about it, very interesting topic.
I tend to not like women who happen to be feminist. I already know their mission stems from being an outcast as children so now as adults they want to have a "purpose" and they basically seem to enjoy being rebellious mavericks in the name of equality 
First off: There's nothing wrong with wanting equitable hiring practices and equal pay; affirmative action and Equal Opportunity Employment was created with single women in mind anyhow, originally. But if people want certain rights exclusively for women that negates the same equality they shout for, no?
And on a different note, when women get their own category in a certain discipline (women's athletics for example; women having their own category for awards in media) it continues the myth that women cannot perform alongside men, so "let's give them their own section."
Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood
. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense.
If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures
. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? As far as equal pay on the job, women normally don't get paid as much as men when you look at a rough chart, but the overlooked details is that they're normally for different jobs . Men and women commonly do not work the same jobs. Now let's remember 90's babies' and even 80's babies' parents are from troubled times, the 70s and decades before, so equality is really still oiling its wheels anyway. Feminists are just annoying.
In the East where women are-granted-treated like dirt, we shouldn't be having a conversation for them on TSR, because we are not in the East
Their issues are deep rooted in the curry of Islam. It's not our conversation to have 
.
If you really want to "support" women, shut up and bite the bullet and do your best work in your field of competence; you could even "subvert the patriarchy," if that's their mission. If you're a woman working in seclusion with only or mostly women all "Girl Power" segregated from men for example or working in a field that is designated for women exclusively, how are you making a difference? Wonder why no one cares about women's sports, for starters?
In all, no one should be deprived of professional or proper education, a standard, decent life, health care and equal pay. But back to title of OP, yes women are equal in general and I agree feminism is so long
.
First off: There's nothing wrong with wanting equitable hiring practices and equal pay; affirmative action and Equal Opportunity Employment was created with single women in mind anyhow, originally. But if people want certain rights exclusively for women that negates the same equality they shout for, no?
And on a different note, when women get their own category in a certain discipline (women's athletics for example; women having their own category for awards in media) it continues the myth that women cannot perform alongside men, so "let's give them their own section." Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood
. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense. If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures
. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? As far as equal pay on the job, women normally don't get paid as much as men when you look at a rough chart, but the overlooked details is that they're normally for different jobs . Men and women commonly do not work the same jobs. Now let's remember 90's babies' and even 80's babies' parents are from troubled times, the 70s and decades before, so equality is really still oiling its wheels anyway. Feminists are just annoying. In the East where women are-granted-treated like dirt, we shouldn't be having a conversation for them on TSR, because we are not in the East
Their issues are deep rooted in the curry of Islam. It's not our conversation to have . If you really want to "support" women, shut up and bite the bullet and do your best work in your field of competence
; you could even "subvert the patriarchy," if that's their mission. If you're a woman working in seclusion with only or mostly women all "Girl Power" segregated from men for example or working in a field that is designated for women exclusively, how are you making a difference? Wonder why no one cares about women's sports, for starters? In all, no one should be deprived of professional or proper education, a standard, decent life, health care and equal pay. But back to title of OP, yes women are equal in general and I agree feminism is so long
.
. How sexist-but ironically, I bet it was a woman's idea.Original post by andrew2209
The reason why you don't see as many women in high-paying jobs, especially those that require high intelligence levels is the standard deviation of male IQ is higher than females. Essentially, you get more extremes in males than females, so that explains why there are more male geniuses.
Also, it seems in many traits, males are more varied than females.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is
Also, it seems in many traits, males are more varied than females.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201101/how-can-there-still-be-sex-difference-even-when-there-is
Actually, women have recently scored higher than men on average in IQ tests. To be brutally honest, IQ does not test intelligence, but problem solving ability. This is much different to the usual standards of academia which are assessed through exams, such as GCSEs and A levels.
Your post is a bit out of date. i have found one that contradicts your post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9401241/IQ-tests-women-score-higher-than-men.html
In regards to higher education, the supposed test for academic capability, females have generally been more successful than males.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10260163/GCSE-results-2013-girls-stretch-to-record-lead-over-boys.html
(There are other sites too I'm sorry if you hate the telegraph, but I don't want to list all the papers when the facts are always the same).
2014 has seen the highest difference between the 5 a*-c rate between boys and girls for GCSEs. They have just been released so I cant quote the specific numbers, but they should be on the BBC news as they were this morning.
Also, unlike what society would like you to believe, the most academic people are not all geniuses. Looking at Forbes Rich List, it is apparent most of the top CEOs have a medium standard of higher education. Granted some go to Havard, Yale etc but many go to their local state college. An excellent education does help in the search for high paid jobs, but it does not guarantee it.
Original post by ApeMob
I tend to not like women who happen to be feminist. I already know their mission stems from being an outcast as children so now as adults they want to have a "purpose" and they basically seem to enjoy being rebellious mavericks in the name of equality
First off: There's nothing wrong with wanting equitable hiring practices and equal pay; affirmative action and Equal Opportunity Employment was created with single women in mind anyhow, originally. But if people want certain rights exclusively for women that negates the same equality they shout for, no? And on a different note, when women get their own category in a certain discipline (women's athletics for example; women having their own category for awards in media) it continues the myth that women cannot perform alongside men, so "let's give them their own section."
Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense.
If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? As far as equal pay on the job, women normally don't get paid as much as men when you look at a rough chart, but the overlooked details is that they're normally for different jobs . Men and women commonly do not work the same jobs. Now let's remember 90's babies' and even 80's babies' parents are from troubled times, the 70s and decades before, so equality is really still oiling its wheels anyway. Feminists are just annoying.
In the East where women are-granted-treated like dirt, we shouldn't be having a conversation for them on TSR, because we are not in the East Their issues are deep rooted in the curry of Islam. It's not our conversation to have .
If you really want to "support" women, shut up and bite the bullet and do your best work in your field of competence; you could even "subvert the patriarchy," if that's their mission. If you're a woman working in seclusion with only or mostly women all "Girl Power" segregated from men for example or working in a field that is designated for women exclusively, how are you making a difference? Wonder why no one cares about women's sports, for starters?
In all, no one should be deprived of professional or proper education, a standard, decent life, health care and equal pay. But back to title of OP, yes women are equal in general and I agree feminism is so long.
First off: There's nothing wrong with wanting equitable hiring practices and equal pay; affirmative action and Equal Opportunity Employment was created with single women in mind anyhow, originally. But if people want certain rights exclusively for women that negates the same equality they shout for, no?
And on a different note, when women get their own category in a certain discipline (women's athletics for example; women having their own category for awards in media) it continues the myth that women cannot perform alongside men, so "let's give them their own section." Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood
. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense. If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures
. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? As far as equal pay on the job, women normally don't get paid as much as men when you look at a rough chart, but the overlooked details is that they're normally for different jobs . Men and women commonly do not work the same jobs. Now let's remember 90's babies' and even 80's babies' parents are from troubled times, the 70s and decades before, so equality is really still oiling its wheels anyway. Feminists are just annoying. In the East where women are-granted-treated like dirt, we shouldn't be having a conversation for them on TSR, because we are not in the East
Their issues are deep rooted in the curry of Islam. It's not our conversation to have . If you really want to "support" women, shut up and bite the bullet and do your best work in your field of competence
; you could even "subvert the patriarchy," if that's their mission. If you're a woman working in seclusion with only or mostly women all "Girl Power" segregated from men for example or working in a field that is designated for women exclusively, how are you making a difference? Wonder why no one cares about women's sports, for starters? In all, no one should be deprived of professional or proper education, a standard, decent life, health care and equal pay. But back to title of OP, yes women are equal in general and I agree feminism is so long
.It isn't possible for the want for equality to make more lesbians. You clearly don't understand anything.
Also you shouldn't shame single mothers. They shouldn't be forced to stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship just because of society.
Ah yes, voting is just a frivolous pleasure. I wonder why black people in America campaigned so hard for something that is just unnecessary. Voting shows you are an equal member of society. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but it shows you are a member of society and your opinion matters.
Original post by Mia1001
It isn't possible for the want for equality to make more lesbians. You clearly don't understand anything.
Also you shouldn't shame single mothers. They shouldn't be forced to stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship just because of society.
Ah yes, voting is just a frivolous pleasure. I wonder why black people in America campaigned so hard for something that is just unnecessary. Voting shows you are an equal member of society. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but it shows you are a member of society and your opinion matters.
Also you shouldn't shame single mothers. They shouldn't be forced to stay in an unhappy or abusive relationship just because of society.
Ah yes, voting is just a frivolous pleasure. I wonder why black people in America campaigned so hard for something that is just unnecessary. Voting shows you are an equal member of society. You don't have to vote if you don't want to, but it shows you are a member of society and your opinion matters.
I never said voting was a frivolous pleasure? Girl, move.
Original post by ApeMob
I never said voting was a frivolous pleasure? Girl, move.
Women didn't always have the right to vote, hun. You said the activists fighting for rights were frivolous. If it weren't for the suffragettes women would have waited a lot longer for that right than 1918.
Original post by Mia1001
Women didn't always have the right to vote, hun. You said the activists fighting for rights were frivolous. If it weren't for the suffragettes women would have waited a lot longer for that right than 1918.
Trick I know about suffrage, stop bringing the voting up. If you're critiquing my post, voting is irrelevant because I never even MENTIONED it?
&I never said that. If my post is too long for you take a break, drink some water, and come back. I never said that, quote me, "hun!"
Here's my copypaste:
"Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood
. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's 
Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense. If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures
. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? I NEVER SAID: ACTIVISTS FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS ARE FRIVOLOUS. I SAID HALF the things I do now are frivolous pleasures (able to dress how I want, talk how I want, get on the computer and talk to your lovely ass), who in their right mind would deduce VOTING (which I never mentioned, let me remind you
) to a frivolous pleasure. Girl, sit. You're going on block, your notification popping up on my screen is gonna spoil my day. 
Original post by ApeMob
I tend to not like women who happen to be feminist. I already know their mission stems from being an outcast as children so now as adults they want to have a "purpose" and they basically seem to enjoy being rebellious mavericks in the name of equality
Um, where on earth did you get this idea from? Massive generalisation or what?
Original post by Birkenhead
Guardian articles aren't, no. Independent sources on genuine employment disparities which acknowledge all possible reasons are.
PRSOM about 20 times in this thread.
Original post by Mia1001
Actually, women have recently scored higher than men on average in IQ tests. To be brutally honest, IQ does not test intelligence, but problem solving ability. This is much different to the usual standards of academia which are assessed through exams, such as GCSEs and A levels.
Your post is a bit out of date. i have found one that contradicts your post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9401241/IQ-tests-women-score-higher-than-men.html
In regards to higher education, the supposed test for academic capability, females have generally been more successful than males.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10260163/GCSE-results-2013-girls-stretch-to-record-lead-over-boys.html
(There are other sites too I'm sorry if you hate the telegraph, but I don't want to list all the papers when the facts are always the same).
2014 has seen the highest difference between the 5 a*-c rate between boys and girls for GCSEs. They have just been released so I cant quote the specific numbers, but they should be on the BBC news as they were this morning.
Also, unlike what society would like you to believe, the most academic people are not all geniuses. Looking at Forbes Rich List, it is apparent most of the top CEOs have a medium standard of higher education. Granted some go to Havard, Yale etc but many go to their local state college. An excellent education does help in the search for high paid jobs, but it does not guarantee it.
Your post is a bit out of date. i have found one that contradicts your post.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9401241/IQ-tests-women-score-higher-than-men.html
In regards to higher education, the supposed test for academic capability, females have generally been more successful than males.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10260163/GCSE-results-2013-girls-stretch-to-record-lead-over-boys.html
(There are other sites too I'm sorry if you hate the telegraph, but I don't want to list all the papers when the facts are always the same).
2014 has seen the highest difference between the 5 a*-c rate between boys and girls for GCSEs. They have just been released so I cant quote the specific numbers, but they should be on the BBC news as they were this morning.
Also, unlike what society would like you to believe, the most academic people are not all geniuses. Looking at Forbes Rich List, it is apparent most of the top CEOs have a medium standard of higher education. Granted some go to Havard, Yale etc but many go to their local state college. An excellent education does help in the search for high paid jobs, but it does not guarantee it.
My post was talking about standard deviation of intelligence, not average intelligence.
Original post by Eugenie Grandet
Um, where on earth did you get this idea from? Massive generalisation or what?
That's what I feel, you have anything worthy to put in or no? And since you asked where I got it from (don't care if it was rhetorical) past and very recent experiences with feminists who reek of that "generalisation." General means it's happened enough to say it's true. And so I did. 
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ApeMob
Trick I know about suffrage, stop bringing the voting up. If you're critiquing my post, voting is irrelevant because I never even MENTIONED it?
&I never said that. If my post is too long for you take a break, drink some water, and come back. I never said that, quote me, "hun!"
Here's my copypaste:
"Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense.
If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures?
I NEVER SAID: ACTIVISTS FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS ARE FRIVOLOUS. I SAID HALF the things I do now are frivolous pleasures (able to dress how I want, talk how I want, get on the computer and talk to your lovely ass), who in their right mind would deduce VOTING (which I never mentioned, let me remind you) to a frivolous pleasure. Girl, sit. You're going on block, your notification popping up on my screen is gonna spoil my day.
&I never said that. If my post is too long for you take a break, drink some water, and come back. I never said that, quote me, "hun!"
Here's my copypaste:
"Certain kinds of feminism will also increase lesbianism and single parenthood
. Flappers in the 1920's wanted to work (sounded like a good idea...) but only to escape various types of domestic abuse from their upperhanded husbands and the beeline to prostitution or destitution if something happens to their breadwinning husband. But that was like the 1800's Flappers also got carried away and wanted to be able to drink and dance to jazz all times of the night and run wild in the streets as young or married women . Women leaders in general wanted education, and that's probably the only thing that made sense. If some women hadn't fought for rights, I wouldn't be able to do half the things I do now but none of those things are necessary anyway, just frivolous pleasures
. Why revolt against society just for frivolous pleasures? I NEVER SAID: ACTIVISTS FIGHTING FOR RIGHTS ARE FRIVOLOUS. I SAID HALF the things I do now are frivolous pleasures (able to dress how I want, talk how I want, get on the computer and talk to your lovely ass), who in their right mind would deduce VOTING (which I never mentioned, let me remind you
) to a frivolous pleasure. Girl, sit. You're going on block, your notification popping up on my screen is gonna spoil my day. Okay chill. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your quotes. I would disagree that "being able to dress how you want and talking how you want" are frivolous pleasures though. In some Middle Eastern areas, women can't even do that.
I think the point of an equal society is that we are able to revolt to show a freedom of speech.
Original post by andrew2209
My post was talking about standard deviation of intelligence, not average intelligence.
An average intelligence that is higher would suggest more consistency, but also more people in the higher proportion and less in the lower proportion. And I did say that IQ is not a measure of academic achievement. Employers look for graduates, not those with high IQs.
Original post by ApeMob That's what I feel, you have anything worthy to put in or no?
That's what I feel, you have anything worthy to put in or no?Don't get rude.
There are plenty of men and women that define as feminists who are well-adjusted and popular but think that how women continue to be treated and represented in society is wrong.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 ?
