Seriously, LinusK, you are faced with a plethora of real life feminists, not strawmen built of faux stances, or at-a-distance random articles, and instead of trying to understand us or reconcile our views with your impressions of what feminism “really” means, you ignore us.
You’re not here for the hunting, are you?
It’s sad, LinusK, that you take the opinions of people who don’t like feminists as more valuable about what feminism is and means than actual self-described feminists.
It’d be like trusting people who hate Jews, rather than Jews themselves, to tell you about Judaism.
The best source for information about Judaism are Jews. The best source for information about feminism are feminists. There are plenty here that would be happy to answer your questions and engage with you, and it’s very sad if you’d prefer to take the word of those who oppose feminism over us about what feminism really is.
I have to much respect for myself to go through that mendacious, poorly reasoned clown show a second time.
I did indeed answer that question, all the way back in post #329:
Attempting to argue for the existence of any long-term trend based just on 12 months of data is statistically meaningless. It might be the case that women are becoming more violent and/or that men are becoming less violent, or it might be that the past 12 months shows just a random fluctuation in violence rates, or it might have something to do with changes in reporting patterns, or a number of other possible scenarios. The 12-month data by itself doesn’t “tell us” anything except what happened in the past 12 months.
Now, what I personally happen to believe is that intimate-partner violence by women is probably massively underreported (although I’d guess that really severe violence, the kind that results in ER visits and hospitalizations, is probably not). So it wouldn’t surprise me at all if increasing transparency about this issue reveals that there is actually much more IPV committed by women than previously thought.
But that’s just my gut-level speculation on the subject. It would be statistically irresponsible to infer that a short-term data set from just the past 12 months “tells us” anything concrete about long-term IPV trends.
I wasn’t sure, since you seemed to think that saying the opposite would be some kind of insult on par with the original statement, when the original statement is, in fact, true - men are genetically deficient compared to women, just in the sense of having less of the damn stuff.
I do know, and it wasn’t an insult, it was a joke on your statement.
The Friendzone isn’t something that just happens to men, it happens to people of all genders.
I know two women who are involuntarily single and celibate. Both are brilliant but unconventionally attractive. Both are in the ‘friendzone’ of every man they know because they are too smart and successful. Hetro men treat the like men, and the very thought of dating one of these women sends shutters though straight men. Neither is ugly, both are wicked cool people, but men won’t touch them. Wonder why?
When men are in the friend zone, is it because they are too smart and successful?
I do recall reading (possibly on this forum) that women having two XX chromosomes has an averaging effect, which isn’t always advantageous. For example more women are of average intelligence with a narrower bell curve at each end, there are more very unintelligent men as well as more super-smart men than there are women at either extreme because if a man has the ‘super-smart’ gene on his X chromosome then it is expressed, if a woman has the ‘super-smart’ gene on one X chromosome but ‘average smart’ on the other then the effect is a lower level of intelligence overall.
I am not a geneticist so take that for what its worth. But I do think describing one sex or the other as ‘inferior’ is unhelpful to say the least.
They wont make the first move?
You must not be a feminist.
Have you considered that maybe the best sources for who really is and isn’t a feminist aren’t people who really, really don’t like feminism? Maybe, just as Jews can tell you more about Judaism than people who hate Jews, feminists can tell you more about feminism than people who hate feminism?
You’re talking to someone who thought The Onion was a good source. He’s not interested in reality.
I read that Onion article, too.
Yes, it’s clearly satirical, but satire only really works if it’s got some connection to current trends or attitudes. I wouldn’t cite The Daily Show as a literal source of news, but sometimes you can illuminate things with satire better than with straight reporting. That Onion piece is riffing on some sort of theme; either that men are criticized no matter what they do, or that women have unrealistic expectations that aren’t (and indeed, can’t) be fulfilled. It’s not a terribly flattering portrait either way, but it does say something.
Now, whether LinusK meant for it to be taken in that way, I don’t know. If he did, it was certainly his obligation to provide some context rather than just a link.
Because they are “unconventionally attractive” which means ugly. Jane seem to think it’s because they’re too smart and successful, but it’s probably the unattractive part.
I doubt he was capable of providing context; he probably didn’t even read the Onion article. He obviously doesn’t put much thought into the things he cuts and pastes into his posts here. That’s why his sources often don’t support his claims and/or have nothing to do with the post he’s responding to.
My pet theory is that LinusK is actually a bot, but it’s more likely that he’s simply copying quotes and links from some other forum and rarely bothers to look at the original source himself.
Yeah, there are some interesting issues involved here, like disparate treatment in the criminal justice system or decreasing educational opportunities, but they aren’t being well presented by the OP. I guess I just hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
I don’t like using that term because it comes with too much baggage I’m not comfortable with and I’m not fond of labels in general, I would probably describe myself as a Humanist (for the here and now) and Transhumanist (aspirations for the future).
Some of you have asked LinusK what he’s trying to accomplish with this thread. I’m sure you’ve noticed he hasn’t provided an answer.
This may be the closest we’ll ever get to an honest explanation of his motives:
So perhaps if we find these issues interesting, we need to start our own threads, and leave this one.