I lack the energy to answer your long list of arguments. I disagree on most points, especially on feminism, although I agree that women are favoured in court in child custody cases. I have reached my opinions after careful analysis. I grant that these movements can sometimes go too far, but the opposing sides are way more toxic and unbalanced, in general. I watched the video. I agree that that debate was very unbalanced and illogical.
However, you can't judge a movement based on some fanatical representatives.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
PS - The real reason you won't respond to this is not energy. It's cognitive dissonance.
"I disagree on most points"
And yet all the facts I cited are absolutely undisputed, even by feminists. You disagree, but can't argue with reason, so you hide behind handwaving. Your ego knows you will lose, and it wants to protect what it thinks about itself. Part of your identity is tied up in your opinions, because you are human.
When you ignore facts and handwave them away with excuses, you are admitting that you prefer to live in your bubble of cognitive dissonance than in the real world.
It's a much better place out here in reality than it looks at first, I promise.
If your opinions are based on anything real, they could have stood up to scrutiny instead of copping out.
You are still in Stage 2 - wanting to help with social problems, but are still deeply co-opted enough by identity politics that you don't even know what the social problems are.
To pre-empt the foaming reply I usually receive from this:
It's very simple. You have an opinion that flies in the face of all accepted fact. It's therefore demonstrably wrong, yet you not only cling to it, but refuse to even address the facts. Cognitive Dissonance, Mental Illness, or Deliberate Agent Provocateur are the only 3 explanations, and I see no evidence of #2 and #3.
You have not provided any evidence whatsoever for your claims, and your facts are mostly alternative facts. You give me a long rant, full of unfounded claims, calling them established facts. And claiming that I suffer from cognitive dissonance is pure crap.
I have no obligation to enter into a debate with you. I have a burn-out.
I could give you 50 cites for every claim made above, I literally see it in court on a monthly basis. But why would I bother when people's cognitive dissonance usually prevents them from even reading it?
Is the Huffington Post a feminist-friendly enough source for you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html
Maybe you'd prefer a real source, U Michigan Law (this is a "top-ranked" law school, fyi, notch down from Yale/Harvard/Stanford):
"PROF. STARR'S RESEARCH SHOWS LARGE UNEXPLAINED GENDER DISPARITIES IN FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASES"
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
Those were literally the first two google results for "women get lighter sentences". I didn't exactly have to go digging. See what I mean about widely accepted facts?
"alternative facts"
Are those what you call facts you don't like? I don't have time to educate the willfully ignorant all day.
Educate yourself and become free from the cultural marxism overtaking the west today.
PS - Thank you for a civil reply. I, too, share your lack of time and energy. It is only because I value any mind willing to engage so highly that I bother to say things that I know will, in the short-term, only anger people in an attempt to educate them. I certainly see no benefit from it at all; in fact, these discussions cause me great anxiety.
I grant you the point, women get lighter sentences. That was only one of your points, not what I was talking about. I'm talking about the bigger picture. Your point does not prove that there is no discrimination of women,or that there is no patriarchy. Men are also discriminated against, no doubt. Just to a lesser extent.
"Your point does not prove that there is no discrimination of women"
I never argued this point. There is discrimination of everyone.
"there is no patriarchy"
You just granted the point that there is no patriarchy yourself, just now.
Patriarchy (noun) - "a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it"
You just conceded that the government discriminates against men in favor of women.
You just conceded that you live in something closer to a matriarchy or gynocracy than a patriarchy.
I eagerly await your cited argument that women are systematically excluded from power when our last presidential candidate who was a "shoe-in" was a woman. Given women pay less taxes, receive more tax-paid benefits, lighter sentences, presumption of custody in family court, presumption of innocence in rape and domestic violence cases, Title IX protections, and many other matters of fact and common public record, you will find your position literally impossible to support.
Here's another bite-sized citation for you:
Yep, looks like men pay 2-3x as much for fewer services alright, and still get to be drafted for war.
Maybe it's that completely fake gender wage gap:
I did not grant the point that there is no patriarchy. I was talking about the feminist theory definition:Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.[37] It often includes any social, political, or economic mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[38]
What is the source of your graph?
I'm a man myself, but the oppression of women is very obvious to me, women are objectified, get lower wages(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap) , are subject to abuse in relations, etc. Please don't make me pull out a lot of statistics. I will, if you force me by denying facts.
To respond to your other question, the source of the chart is data from the government of New Zealand, which is where that particular study was sourced:
http://imgur.com/gallery/3lWlM
"Research finds that as a group, only men pay tax."
"In nearly all age groups, women receive more tax than they give."
Well, I appreciate the honest answer, but everyone one of those feminist points I cited is a fact. You can look them all up if you like.
It's not disputed by anyone that women get far lesser punishment for the same crime and presumption of innocence in various cases, these are matters of public record and police policy.
"I grant that these movements can sometimes go too far, but the opposing sides are way more toxic and unbalanced, in general."
I disagree, but I used to be fooled that this was the case, as you are now. Both sides have fanatics, but basically all feminists are now fanatics because they are pushing for more rights when they are already a protected and favored class. Again, this is a matter of public record, law, police policy, and fact. I'm not presenting any opinions here.
The toxicity you cite is like...4chan and idiots on the internet. They aren't part of any rational rebuttal to feminism. The toxicity I cite is now endemic and institutionalized from the top down.