yconic - Feminism
Hide Menu

My Feed Money for School Student Help Brands Winners Support Center



Explore yconic
Explore Student Life Topics
Scotiabank
STUDENT CHAMPION
yconic proudly recognizes Student Champion Partners who are providing our community with superior support for their student journeys. Learn More
Student Help Brands

Feminism

A photo of DiddlySquat DiddlySquat
It appears to me that today, feminism consists solely of redefining everyday concepts to try and squeeze illogic in between logical bookends, turning implications into factual realities by filling in blanks with outrageous suppositions (OMG! Women get paid less, it must be institutional sexism!), explaining away any and all empirical data that contravenes feminist conclusions with absurd and specious reasoning, and just generally making sh*t up.

I often hear the argument that women are victims of domestic abuse, or rape, or anything else, disproportionately to men. My answer is a big "no sh*t" with the supplemental reminder that men are stronger than women, and possess more testosterone. It’s simple biology, not some cosmic conspiracy that can be remedied by remaking society through positivist legislation.

My question to feminists: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?
Was this helpful? Yes 0
68 replies
 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous
Outstanding post :)
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of dkonieczny dkonieczny
For all the women who have been abused about there, what do you think that they would think about this post? Feminism is showing support for women, and support for equality. How is abusing someone because it's their "simple nature" showing equality? If a woman beat a male, there definitely should be consequences for their actions. Sorry if females don't want to be abused.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of littleroom littleroom
Just because men are naturally stronger than women doesn't mean they have to exercise that. You don't think it's a problem that they do?
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of littleroom littleroom
Just because men are naturally stronger than women doesn't mean they have to exercise that. You don't think it's a problem that they do?
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo
Reading comprehension. He wasn't advocating or rationalizing domestic abuse; just stating that women are more commonly abused than men because women are physically weaker than men.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of leviaidan leviaidan

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote
Reading comprehension. He wasn't advocating or rationalizing domestic abuse; just stating that women are more commonly abused than men because women are physically weaker than men.


+1.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous
The argument itself is inherently flawed.

The idea of a civilized human is based on the premise that they will control their natural/primitive urges to fit into a set of pre-determined moral standards. If they do not, it is the responsibility of the legal system to punish them in a manner that will ensure that they do not pose a danger to the rest of civilized society.

The OP is making the argument that because men have the natural urge to release the effects of testosterone by abusing women, that it should be accepted and understood. This is a ludicrous proposition since it is akin to saying that men should somehow be exempt from having to control their natural urges even though this is a prerequisite to maintaining a civilized society.

If the punishment for domestic abuse was the death penalty, do you for one moment think that men would hesitate to control their supposed ‘urges’?

And the point that somehow testosterone causes men to want to abuse women is even more ludicrous. So men who do not physically abuse women are suppressing their natural urges? And there is no less harmful way to let out this ‘frustration’ other than to abuse women?

And throwing around a bunch of fancy jargon to make your argument is meant to automatically impress and intimidate all into submitting to your irrational, defective views?

Seriously.

Nice try.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
This post was deleted

 
A photo of Zion Zion
Tastes like Tannenbaum. Possibly Douchebag. Or (twist) BOTH.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of kaloolah kaloolah

@Alatia wrote
The argument itself is inherently flawed.

The idea of a civilized human is based on the premise that they will control their natural/primitive urges to fit into a set of pre-determined moral standards. If they do not, it is the responsibility of the legal system to punish them in a manner that will ensure that they do not pose a danger to the rest of civilized society.

The OP is making the argument that because men have the natural urge to release the effects of testosterone by abusing women, that it should be accepted and understood. This is a ludicrous proposition since it is akin to saying that men should somehow be exempt from having to control their natural urges even though this is a prerequisite to maintaining a civilized society.

If the punishment for domestic abuse was the death penalty, do you for one moment think that men would hesitate to control their supposed ‘urges’?

And the point that somehow testosterone causes men to want to abuse women is even more ludicrous. So men who do not physically abuse women are suppressing their natural urges? And there is no less harmful way to let out this ‘frustration’ other than to abuse women?

And throwing around a bunch of fancy jargon to make an argument is meant to automatically impress and intimidate all into submitting to your irrational, defective views?

Seriously.






+1


(I will post on this thread later, but right now I need to being practicing flute...bleah lol)
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo

@Alatia wrote
The OP is making the argument that because men have the natural urge to release the effects of testosterone by abusing women, that it should be accepted and understood.



Uhhh. THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID (even if he meant that, it's not what he said, and is not something you can reasonably infer from what he said).

So many internet arguments are started because one person lacks the ability to transfer language to meaning. He (the OP) phrased it perfectly, but you took what he said and turned into something he did not mean.


And throwing around a bunch of fancy jargon to make your argument is meant to automatically impress and intimidate all into submitting to your irrational, defective views?



Yep. He does that a lot.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo

@Zion wrote
Tastes like Tannenbaum. Possibly Douchebag. Or (twist) BOTH.



Definitely Douchebag.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous

@Zion wrote
Tastes like Tannenbaum. Possibly Douchebag. Or (twist) BOTH.

The only thing I have in common with two users you mention is that we are female ( assuming those two are as well). I have better things to do with my time than to troll forums that are meant to serve an informative purpose.

Only a male chauvinist would think that there are only a few females capable of forming an effective, coherent argument.

You wish.


Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of treecows treecows
First of all, the testosterone point is null. There is no biological link between testosterone and aggression. "Men" are genderized to think they should be dominant, aggressive, and anything else that "manly" insinuates.

Secondly, when studying domestic abuse, feminism isn't looking for the physical reason. The person who is physically stronger in a relationship is more likely to be the abuser than the victim. Yeah great, anyone could have told you that. Feminism looks at the reasons for why domestic abuse occurs, why victims accept the abuse, and why victims are forced sometimes into accepting the abuse. It just so happens women are abused at a much higher rate than men, so that is studied. Feminism also looks at domestic abuse amongst homosexual couples.

I guess I am for prescriptive equality, because substantive equality is only theoretical.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of DiddlySquat DiddlySquat

@Alatia wrote
The argument itself is inherently flawed.

The idea of a civilized human is based on the premise that they will control their natural/primitive urges to fit into a set of pre-determined moral standards. If they do not, it is the responsibility of the legal system to punish them in a manner that will ensure that they do not pose a danger to the rest of civilized society.

The OP is making the argument that because men have the natural urge to release the effects of testosterone by abusing women, that it should be accepted and understood. This is a ludicrous proposition since it is akin to saying that men should somehow be exempt from having to control their natural urges even though this is a prerequisite to maintaining a civilized society.

If the punishment for domestic abuse was the death penalty, do you for one moment think that men would hesitate to control their supposed ‘urges’?

And the point that somehow testosterone causes men to want to abuse women is even more ludicrous. So men who do not physically abuse women are suppressing their natural urges? And there is no less harmful way to let out this ‘frustration’ other than to abuse women?

And throwing around a bunch of fancy jargon to make your argument is meant to automatically impress and intimidate all into submitting to your irrational, defective views?

Seriously.

Nice try.




Here’s where the intellectual acrobatics routine begins. Right on cue. *sets up the safety net*

At least wear tight clothing for us while you perform.

I never said it should be accepted. I understand that as a woman your IQ is statistically likely to be 5 points below that of the average male, and that thinking is not your strong suit, but you've got to at least start paying attention to what's being written on here.

Acts of rape should most certainly be punishable. And I don’t particularly have a problem with rape shield laws, for example. I do have a problem, however, with attempts by the legal feminism movement to re-write the common law standards of rape to make convictions all the more easier. In the US, legal feminism movement advocates change to things like constructive force in rape law by expanding it into harmless speech, abolishing the resistance requirement (as imperfect as I think the resistance requirement is, I do not think abolishing it is a good idea), and establishing cockamamie standards like the "reasonable woman" standard. They all have the concerted and irrefutable goal of getting more rape convictions.

Answer my question, Ms Serious Feminist: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Anonymous Anonymous

@DiddlySquat wrote

@Alatia wrote
The argument itself is inherently flawed.

The idea of a civilized human is based on the premise that they will control their natural/primitive urges to fit into a set of pre-determined moral standards. If they do not, it is the responsibility of the legal system to punish them in a manner that will ensure that they do not pose a danger to the rest of civilized society.

The OP is making the argument that because men have the natural urge to release the effects of testosterone by abusing women, that it should be accepted and understood. This is a ludicrous proposition since it is akin to saying that men should somehow be exempt from having to control their natural urges even though this is a prerequisite to maintaining a civilized society.

If the punishment for domestic abuse was the death penalty, do you for one moment think that men would hesitate to control their supposed ‘urges’?

And the point that somehow testosterone causes men to want to abuse women is even more ludicrous. So men who do not physically abuse women are suppressing their natural urges? And there is no less harmful way to let out this ‘frustration’ other than to abuse women?

And throwing around a bunch of fancy jargon to make your argument is meant to automatically impress and intimidate all into submitting to your irrational, defective views?

Seriously.

Nice try.




Here’s where the intellectual acrobatics routine begins. Right on cue. *sets up the safety net*

At least wear tight clothing for us while you perform.

I never said it should be accepted. I understand that as a woman your IQ is statistically likely to be 5 points below that of the average male, and that thinking is not your strong suit, but you've got to at least start paying attention to what's being written on here.

Acts of rape should most certainly be punishable. And I don’t particularly have a problem with rape shield laws, for example. I do have a problem, however, with attempts by the legal feminism movement to re-write the common law standards of rape to make convictions all the more easier. In the US, legal feminism movement advocates change to things like constructive force in rape law by expanding it into harmless speech, abolishing the resistance requirement (as imperfect as I think the resistance requirement is, I do not think abolishing it is a good idea), and establishing cockamamie standards like the "reasonable woman" standard. They all have the concerted and irrefutable goal of getting more rape convictions.

Answer my question, Ms Serious Feminist: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?



Prescriptive since you want an answer so bad.

Will explain when I have more time.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Abobkaty Abobkaty

@DiddlySquat wrote
It appears to me that today, feminism consists solely of redefining everyday concepts to try and squeeze illogic in between logical bookends, turning implications into factual realities by filling in blanks with outrageous suppositions (OMG! Women get paid less, it must be institutional sexism!), explaining away any and all empirical data that contravenes feminist conclusions with absurd and specious reasoning, and just generally making crap up.

I often hear the argument that women are victims of domestic abuse, or rape, or anything else, disproportionately to men. My answer is a big "no crap" with the supplemental reminder that men are stronger than women, and possess more testosterone. It’s simple biology, not some cosmic conspiracy that can be remedied by remaking society through positivist legislation.

My question to feminists: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?




I am sorry, but I don't fully understand what you're asking. I'm not stupid, however I am a girl. I am also ESL (and a feminist although).

What is the difference between "prescriptive equality, and substantive equality"?
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
This post was deleted

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo
I'm all for equality, but there are circumstances when equality is unrealistic. If I'm looking for employees for my rock quarry - jobs that require lots of heavy lifting - I'm most likely going to hire just men. That's not because I'd rather hire men, but because I'm looking for physically strong people (and it just so happens that 99.9% of the very strong population is male). The feminist movement, though, is so extreme that there are laws that require me to hire women simply because they are women (sort of ironic...), even though they may not be the best candidates for the job (and this means that men who are well-suited for the job are not hired).

For that reason, as well as those that DiddlySquat mentioned in his last post, I'd consider myself a person who is a feminist but who does not subscribe to the feminist movement.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of DiddlySquat DiddlySquat

@Abobkaty wrote

@DiddlySquat wrote
It appears to me that today, feminism consists solely of redefining everyday concepts to try and squeeze illogic in between logical bookends, turning implications into factual realities by filling in blanks with outrageous suppositions (OMG! Women get paid less, it must be institutional sexism!), explaining away any and all empirical data that contravenes feminist conclusions with absurd and specious reasoning, and just generally making crap up.

I often hear the argument that women are victims of domestic abuse, or rape, or anything else, disproportionately to men. My answer is a big "no crap" with the supplemental reminder that men are stronger than women, and possess more testosterone. It’s simple biology, not some cosmic conspiracy that can be remedied by remaking society through positivist legislation.

My question to feminists: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?




I am sorry, but I don't fully understand what you're asking. I'm not stupid, however I am a girl. I am also ESL (and a feminist although).

What is the difference between "prescriptive equality, and substantive equality"?



The difference between the two is one is results-oriented (substantive equality; equality of results) and one is prescriptive, or simply how the law applies across genders. A prescriptively equal population would have the equal protection of the laws. The same standards apply to everyone regardless of their gender.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
This post was deleted

 
A photo of Abobkaty Abobkaty

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote
I'm all for equality, but there are circumstances when equality is unrealistic. If I'm looking for employees for my rock quarry - jobs that require lots of heavy lifting - I'm most likely going to hire just men. That's not because I'd rather hire men, but because I'm looking for physically strong people (and it just so happens that 99.9% of the very strong population is male). The feminist movement, though, is so extreme that there are laws that require me to hire women simply because they are women (sort of ironic...), even though they may not be the best candidates for the job (and this means that men who are well-suited for the job are not hired).

For that reason, as well as those that DiddlySquat mentioned in his last post, I'd consider myself a person who is a substantive equality feminist but who does not subscribe to the feminist movement.




@mynameismatt

There are ways to hire the best people for the job, though! A firefighter must pass test to see that they're strong enough-and if a woman can not pass test than she is not hired for that job. That is true! Only in extreme cases are employers forced to hire women, and that is when they would be unjustly treated. If they can't do job, then they should not be given that job. But if they can do job and a man does not want to give them that job just because they are a woman, then that is a problem.
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of g93 g93

@Abobkaty wrote

@mynameismattgotmlgo wrote
I'm all for equality, but there are circumstances when equality is unrealistic. If I'm looking for employees for my rock quarry - jobs that require lots of heavy lifting - I'm most likely going to hire just men. That's not because I'd rather hire men, but because I'm looking for physically strong people (and it just so happens that 99.9% of the very strong population is male). The feminist movement, though, is so extreme that there are laws that require me to hire women simply because they are women (sort of ironic...), even though they may not be the best candidates for the job (and this means that men who are well-suited for the job are not hired).

For that reason, as well as those that DiddlySquat mentioned in his last post, I'd consider myself a person who is a substantive equality feminist but who does not subscribe to the feminist movement.




@mynameismatt

There are ways to hire the best people for the job, though! A firefighter must pass test to see that they're strong enough-and if a woman can not pass test than she is not hired for that job. That is true! Only in extreme cases are employers forced to hire women, and that is when they would be unjustly treated. If they can't do job, then they should not be given that job. But if they can do job and a man does not want to give them that job just because they are a woman, then that is a problem.


Women are being hired as firefighters, but they are not happy about being forced to hire them.

It's kind of like how it is very hard to get a job as a white male police offer (and a lesser extent as a firefighter).
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of Abobkaty Abobkaty

@DiddlySquat wrote

@Abobkaty wrote

@DiddlySquat wrote
It appears to me that today, feminism consists solely of redefining everyday concepts to try and squeeze illogic in between logical bookends, turning implications into factual realities by filling in blanks with outrageous suppositions (OMG! Women get paid less, it must be institutional sexism!), explaining away any and all empirical data that contravenes feminist conclusions with absurd and specious reasoning, and just generally making crap up.

I often hear the argument that women are victims of domestic abuse, or rape, or anything else, disproportionately to men. My answer is a big "no crap" with the supplemental reminder that men are stronger than women, and possess more testosterone. It’s simple biology, not some cosmic conspiracy that can be remedied by remaking society through positivist legislation.

My question to feminists: Are you after prescriptive equality, or substantive equality?




I am sorry, but I don't fully understand what you're asking. I'm not stupid, however I am a girl. I am also ESL (and a feminist although).

What is the difference between "prescriptive equality, and substantive equality"?



The difference between the two is one is results-oriented (substantive equality; equality of results) and one is prescriptive, or simply how the law applies across genders. A prescriptively equal population would have the equal protection of the laws. The same standards apply to everyone regardless of their gender.



Thank you very much!

I think that (with that definition) that if there are NO exceptions ever for prescriptive equality, then that can be bad.

I think that maybe substantiative equality is way better, because we're looking for results, right? We're looking for the best results possible :)
Was this helpful? Yes 0

 
A photo of mynameismattgotmlgo mynameismattgotmlgo

@Abobkaty wrote
There are ways to hire the best people for the job, though! A firefighter must pass test to see that they're strong enough-and if a woman can not pass test than she is not hired for that job. That is true! Only in extreme cases are employers forced to hire women, and that is when they would be unjustly treated. If they can't do job, then they should not be given that job. But if they can do job and a man does not want to give them that job just because they are a woman, then that is a problem.



I exaggerated a little bit, but still - a lot of those tests have different requirements for men and women (I know for a fact that that is the case with the Canadian Forces and the OPP), with women having less demanding physical tests. And I'm pretty sure that it's a requirement of large companies (e.g. construction contractors) to hire at least a certain percentage of female workers.
Was this helpful? Yes 0