What really pisses me off about sexism and gender equality

For the record, I never threw out anything about what I need to do "to get laid". This much must have been an assumption you've made. When I ask why can't she pursue me, I'm just asking why she can't pursue me... that's all. If a woman has her own wealth, her own power. With power also comes responsibility. Equal social power, equal social responsibility.

 

First off that's assuming the police will take up the matter, they tend to want proof before acting in the manner in which you assume you'll get their assistance. (In in the case of what we're comparing against metaphorically speaking you would have to prove the pregnancy is yours)

(Sidenote: a friend of mine had something at someone else's house, he tried to get it back with police help and a court lawsuit, but it got thrown out as being to petty, given that the item was only approx. $315)

---

You might've admitted biological differences, but you did not go on to elaborate that those biological differences make some spillover into sociology. Your most recent response is the first I've seen you acknowledge this.

We agree that culture has been to rigid, with what colors designate what is appropriate to what gender and other trivial stuffs like that. I remember back in 2010ish? There was this huge controversy over this magazine that featured a mother painting her 4-5 year old son's toenails pink; in a nutshell trivial stuffs not even worth getting upset about.

---

The only real issue I think we're debating is the women's right to an abortion.


In terms of courts favoring custody battles based on gender - like in divorce situations - I think is unfair and needs to be changed, and instead parental merit should be considered (who has a steady job, stable living situation to offer a stable community for the kids to grow up in, who the kids feel most comfortable with).

---

Your 2nd to last paragraph, begs the question though...is it equal effort on both genders part to make a baby? The very process of making a baby requires two things:

1. 50/50 genetic haploid sex cells to combine (egg/sperm)

2. approx 9 months of gestation from the woman

A baby does not form instantly as soon as the sex cells combine, and the argument that you pose, that it's equal, falls flat because of the 2nd requirement, and your argument ONLY rides on the 1st, trivializing the 2nd or outright ignoring it.

In addition, to give the man equal rights to the child opens up pandora's box legally speaking in cases of rape and incest, in which the 1st requirement happens INVOLUNTARILY by default (like those three women in Ohio who were held captive).
Therefore, the woman would have to PROVE it was rape, do all the legal paperwork required for that, and have to wait and by then if the whole process takes beyond 25 weeks, she's condemned to motherhood even if legal allowances are made for rape and incest cases in a law.

 

So you think because the natural process takes longer on the part of the woman, that negates a man's right to his offspring?

Speaking of the trivial, since when do rapists seek custody of their children? Unless of course, there is a false rape allegation. Since when do men rape with the intention of getting children out of women?

 

I think it's more than that though, more than a lack of sex.

In my observations, guys who develop the "Friend zone complex" don't feel attractive or desirable. It's not just a lack of sex, it's a belief of inadequacy, not unlike how/why many women develop eating disorders.

The desire for sex is secondary on top of all this.

Also men compare each other to each other and observe locker-room behavior of his competition who might be two-faced depending on what social crowd he is in.

Conclusion: Girls don't see or don't care or even LIKE that other boy/man's personality over nice behavior because look at the results with the reaction of attraction on her part for him.

It gets worse too when say the other guy gets abusive because deep down he was always a jerk, while the friendship zone guy witnesses the abusive relationship cycle rather than logically staying away.

 

Religious fanatic type rapists would.

But even if the man DOESN'T intend children at the onset of a sexual coupling the result could happen by default.

And it's not just time, its the physical strain on the female body to carry the child.

My own mother has medical complications for giving me life, but that was her choice.

It is also less common but women can still die from childbirth. So no I don't think it wise to change this stance on this issue.

At least not until medical treatments/technology and social policy are more consistent with barring and caring for the poor children that have been born.

 

So, nonco55... you really, honestly don't agree with different but equal?

Surely you see how women tend to be smaller, more nimble, weaker in raw strength, better academically, mature faster, more emotional, better with certain mental tasks and worse in others, have different sexual drives, etc? Nature has created a different template in many ways, has it not?

Ethnic groups have different templates to a lesser degree too, so a different but equal principle does apply there too. African males tend to be taller, cope better in hot climates and worse in colder, possibly struggle a tad more to build body mass, cope with sunlight better, and so on.

It's not sexist or racist it's just biologically true

 

Closet feminists are still feminists. Closet feminism seems to be the latest strategy in the quest for making women uncriticizable by males.

It's easy to criticize a rad feminist who, above all, has little to no draw on the male population at large. It's a lot harder to criticize women who put on make up and go on dates (usually with doormats of the first order), but nevertheless still, at the end of the day, hold the notion of female supremacy close to heart despite the use of all sorts of euphemisms, minced words, and double talk.

The standard ad hominem of closet feminists are 'not getting laid', and if that accusation can't be made, then 'woman hater.' Of course, since they spend a lot of time covering their asses against those accusations being made against themselves on the flipside.

But the only difference between rad and closet that I see, is that the latter date doormats riddled with liberal male guilt, or maybe just a manipulable brute who needs to prove his masculinity to himself and the world at large at all times.

 

haha, imagine going into the Feminists boards and posting this:

I don't know if "getting laid" applies to women (is it just a male term?) but I'm sure I can adapt it if not xD

Yeah and I don't get why either gender has to prove they're "supreme"... equality is such a simple concept lol

Another thing that really bugs me is when they label ME a feminist for caring about gender equality. They may as well just run around peeing on everything and claiming it as their's >.<

Soooo pathetic

Why not just support equal rights for the genders and fair treatment of both sexes?

I mean, I did turn to anti-misandry, but that's because I felt like I was being so unbelievably discriminated against because I'm a man, I didn't know what else to do.

It says it all I think that "misandry" isn't even a familiar term whereas we've all been taught what misogyny is for as long as we can even remember.

For the record, I have nothing against feminists at all as long as they don't discriminate, and don't force these definitions upon me as well.

 

Good question. Do you have anything else?

'Getting laid' might be inherently linked to gender roles. The idea being that seduction is a guy's job. If sex does not occur, the responsibility rests on the guy, and the girl is all the more empowered by it.

It may well be that we do not have an equivalent expression for women, of course. Because women are the restraining factor in sexual intercourse.

The only counterpart would be 'slut.' Though, not an equivalent. But, oh, that is veeeery politically incorrect.

But the fact is, if we're even pretending to be fair, anyone who belittles man for not getting laid, should also belittle women for being sluts.

But who's trying to be fair? Not feminists. Closet, or otherwise.

 

Agreed. What a shame that the genders have to be always at each other like this, though.

There's really no need for it ._.

 

I find that to be quite natural, though there are exceptions to the rule.

What I find extremely bizarre, though, is the hordes of men who gobble up female supremacy hook, line, and sinker.

But that's probably just because I am not servile in any way, shape or form. It just goes against my grain. But, servility is quite innate in human beings.

Just look at most people's dependence on government, religion, etc.

 

I don't like it either. I hate authority figures. Well, I mean I am ok with them if they treat me good. Like a benevolent government, for example. I would work for them. But... the second they treat me bad... I will not hesitate to burn them the f*ck down haha

 

I don't even like the benevolent kind. It always carries a hidden tax.

 

I really wish that New Labour back in the '90s and all that here in the UK was as nice as it first looked. That would have been wonderful.

It was a nice bubble before it burst

 

Socialism is nice until you have to pay the bill!

 

I don't mind the taxes though.

 

I guess this is a bit off-topic though! hehe

 

I do. Remember what I said about servility? I meant it.

Or until, as Thatcher said, you run out of other people's money.

Agree, off topic.

 

Life under "Cherea" law.Great eh...