PETA just grossed me out!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Putting aside that you are reading too much into it (as Mrs. Snuggles has pointed out), why can't you be a feminist who doesn't like women? You can dislike them for accepting the stereotypes foisted on them by men and refusing to break out of them or free of them.

This would be a good time for you to back up your claim that feminists are against people being sensitive, especially in regards to women.

Just like a Communist can dislike ordinary people, because they are like sheep to the capitalist order, while saying s/he's for the people.

She's not an ordinary person. She's Elok's GF for goodness sake!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Men are more concerned about what they personally get out of their job. Women choose careers and activities that benefit society yet don't pay as well. In fact, they do things that are socially responsible without demanding any pay in return at all.

I have actually found that whichever gender is the primary breadwinner is more concerned about what they personally get from their job because they are more responsible for the well being of their families, therefore they have to get the higher paying job so they can give their family everything they want.

Until recently, it has almost always been the men who were the primary breadwinner.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Now we need Aneeshm to come along and tell us what feminism is really about. Then this thread will be perfect, or at least close to it.

Well I don't blame you since you've been slaughtered here like nothing else.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Men are more concerned about what they personally get out of their job. Women choose careers and activities that benefit society yet don't pay as well. In fact, they do things that are socially responsible without demanding any pay in return at all.

I have actually found that whichever gender is the primary breadwinner is more concerned about what they personally get from their job because they are more responsible for the well being of their families, therefore they have to get the higher paying job so they can give their family everything they want.

Until recently, it has almost always been the men who were the primary breadwinner.

It's too bad that you can't see how sexist that is.

But in fact, today both men and women work, but women still do all of the traditional work at home that they always did. So there is no way that men are more socially responsible.

In fact, there are many cases where men don't work at all, including house work and child raising, although that doesn't last long since women dump them. However, women still end up doing everything in the end.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Men are more concerned about what they personally get out of their job. Women choose careers and activities that benefit society yet don't pay as well. In fact, they do things that are socially responsible without demanding any pay in return at all.

The lack of qualifiers and modifiers in this statement is disheartening.

There are women who are concerned about what they personally get out of their job, many selecting careers and activities that benefit themselves and pay very well. They don't do things that are socially responsible without demanding some form of payment.

Well, gee, are you able to put 2 and 2 together? They take more risks and they are sexually promiscuous. That means they spread more sexually transmitted deseases.

No, you're extrapolating from the data to seek a conclusion that is not supported from the information provided. The data says nothing about the use of prophylactics, which partners and what activities are engaged in.

Indeed, during the formative years of our species, it seems that promiscuity was actually socially responsible, since it raised the likelihood of our survival.

Sure problematic, but what's worse is not being concerned with feelings at all, not paying attention to them, thinking they are bad.

The traditional Marlboro man's inability to express his feelings is a socially constructed pattern, not a genetic one.

The fact that men comit more violence doesn't advance my statement?

You're ****ing nuts! I'm serious, all of you have mental disorders of some kind or another.

The quoted part refers only to physical violence, which men tend to do; social violence, on the other hand, seems to be the domain of women--and the rates are quite possibly equal, according to the information presented.

So no, it doesn't advance your statement.

And it's not my fault that you're unable to detect nuance in an excerpt you yourself selected.

It doesn't.

Yes, it does. I've been stating that a lot of these communication and empathic skills are socially and culturally developed, and that it's difficult to assign value judgements to them, by saying which is better. Indeed, the simple fact that they say it's subjective and more likely has something to do with gender roles bolsters my argument, not yours.

The fact that empathetic people are more socially responsible.

You assert this, but you do not prove this.

blah blah blah, this post is just too stupid to continue criticising.

We can add a lack of attention span to your long list of glaring flaws.

Additionally, you've still failed to prove your assertion.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's too bad that you can't see how sexist that is.

But in fact, today both men and women work, but women still do all of the traditional work at home that they always did. So there is no way that men are more socially responsible.

In fact, there are many cases where men don't work at all, including house work and child raising, although that doesn't last long since women dump them. However, women still end up doing everything in the end.

It's too bad you can't see how sexist this is.

Quite simply, you're a female chauvanist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
If women did not exist, men would have to fill in and do those same jobs; much as if men did not exist, women would step up and perform those duties.

I'm not discounting the value of traditional female roles. You are, however, discounting the value of traditional male roles.

No. What I'm saying is that women do more work than men and get paid less, even though as pointed out women are more socially responsible.

You're sexist. Just against men is all.

Sexism isn't treating sexes equally. It's oppression. I've made that clear in this thread. Imran agrees with treating people as equal, however this results in oppression.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So in other words you're just like a typical man.

I think the human race should be destroyed and remade as an indeterminate number of unique, but interconnected, super-intelligent, and telepathic entities that acquire energy from completely inorganic sources and reproduce only when enough excess resources have been gathered to justify doing so.

Yeah, just like the typical man.

[Kidlicious]

Could you please try to be a little bit smarter Mrs Snuggles.

You just compared physical violence with social violence (defined as social rejection)

Also, you're asking for proof that empathy is a socially desirable trait.

If you have a brain use it now!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
It's too bad that you can't see how sexist that is.

But in fact, today both men and women work, but women still do all of the traditional work at home that they always did. So there is no way that men are more socially responsible.

In fact, there are many cases where men don't work at all, including house work and child raising, although that doesn't last long since women dump them. However, women still end up doing everything in the end.

I can't see how sexist it is that differences in "gender" are simply socially conditions and both men and women can be what they want to be and act how they want to act?

If that's sexist, then I'm in.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Well I don't blame you since you've been slaughtered here like nothing else.

Only by your definition of "slaughter." Perhaps it's a more feminist definition, wherein my inferiority as a human being is demonstrated by my domineeringly masculine attempts to punch holes in your terrible, terrible reasoning? If so, please tell me how I can be more understanding and nurturing about your gibberish worldview.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I can't see how sexist it is that differences in "gender" are simply socially conditions and both men and women can be what they want to be and act how they want to act?

If that's sexist, then I'm in.

Ah yes, women are free to prepare your meals for you and change your diaper. You shouldn't owe them anything for that though. Perfect reasoning and very masculine.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok


Only by your definition of "slaughter." Perhaps it's a more feminist definition, wherein my inferiority as a human being is demonstrated by my domineeringly masculine attempts to punch holes in your terrible, terrible reasoning? If so, please tell me how I can be more understanding and nurturing about your gibberish worldview.

You are making my point better than I could.

[Imran Siddiqui]

One wonders how you come to the conclusions you do. Me thinks its the voices.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One wonders how you come to the conclusions you do. Me thinks its the voices.

Did you read the post on Feminist Economics? You had no comment about it but you keep spouting off your nonsense about people being free to do whatever they want.