• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has feminism accomplished one good thing after 1990?

soylentgreen said:
I am not attacking you for stating facts I am attacking you
Click to expand...
Thus the problem. You attack the messenger. That's illogical.

for cherry picking your facts. You have yet to answer the question. A good indicator of the bias you how.
Click to expand...
No, nobody should ever state facts that directly refute the feminist position.
 
whateverdude said:
Is there one single positive thing we can attribute to feminism after 1990

I remember as a kid watching cartoons in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we'd have characters in shows that were stereotypically feminist.
And they're always be depicted as irrational psychos. For as long as I remember, they've been the subject a parody and not worthy of genuine respect
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing your views, clearly they've had no impact on you.
 
CLAX1911 said:
Thus the problem. You attack the messenger. That's illogical.
Click to expand...


This sort of fallacy you are using is called quote mining. By breaking up a complete sentence and changing the meaning to suite your argument. I am not attacking the messenger if as i had claimed i am attacking the cherry picking being done by the messenger.
You really need to figure out how to divorce your personality from your argument otherwise every critique becomes a personal attack which is the only defense you have.


No, nobody should ever state facts that directly refute the feminist position.
Click to expand...
Nor should one condemn merely on a few internet pictures shown to them. Come up with something sensible instead of conspiracy theories And i might agree. keep posting that women are the enemy of freedom and all i see is propaganda.
 
whateverdude said:
Is there one single positive thing we can attribute to feminism after 1990

I remember as a kid watching cartoons in the late 90s and early 2000s, and we'd have characters in shows that were stereotypically feminist.
And they're always be depicted as irrational psychos. For as long as I remember, they've been the subject a parody and not worthy of genuine respect
Click to expand...

Your views on feminism are based on cartoons you watched when a kid? What kind of cartoons did you watch?
In those day i was reading comic books from cartoonists like this one.
images
 
soylentgreen said:
This sort of fallacy you are using is called quote mining.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. The added phrase "for cherry picking facts." didn't change the context. You're attacking people for presenting facts. You made that statement.

By breaking up a complete sentence and changing the meaning to suite your argument. I am not attacking the messenger if as i had claimed i am attacking the cherry picking being done by the messenger.
Click to expand...
Yes you are attacking the messenger for presenting facts. That isn't logical.
You really need to figure out how to divorce your personality from your argument otherwise every critique becomes a personal attack which is the only defense you have.
Click to expand...
You said you are attaking him because he presented facts. That didn't become a personal attack. You admitted it was.



Nor should one condemn merely on a few internet pictures shown to them.
Click to expand...
Nobody is. The pictures are merely an example.

Come up with something sensible instead of conspiracy theories And i might agree.
Click to expand...
Nothing is sensible to you. You admitted to attacking people for presenting facts. That isn't a conspiracy theory that is you denying reality.

keep posting that women are the enemy of freedom and all i see is propaganda.
Click to expand...
You see propaganda you made up. I never said anything about women.

Don't blame me for your strawman you made it up.
 
soylentgreen said:
It would seem somewhat counter productive to divide the genders in two and then propagate messages of hate between the two. As far as species survival goes.
Click to expand...

By standing up against undeserved hatred of men, and for men's fundamental human rights, we are reducing hate between the genders. The main contribution of men to propagating messages of hate between the two genders is the fact that too few men counter undeserved male bashing and male hating.
 
soylentgreen said:
keep posting that women are the enemy of freedom and all i see is propaganda.
Click to expand...

Someone who slanders men just for fighting against hate and discrimination is indeed the enemy.

But women are not the enemy -- every human is entitled to fundamental human rights. Cassie Jaye has done more for equality and fairness for all then I ever could.
 
SCitizen said:
By standing up against undeserved hatred of men, and for men's fundamental human rights, we are reducing hate between the genders. The main contribution of men to propagating messages of hate between the two genders is the fact that too few men counter undeserved male bashing and male hating.
Click to expand...

I do understand your concerns and applaud the nature of what you say. My concern is more about the concentration of attention on creating blame instead of doing something constructive. There is nothing positive to be gained merely from pointing out that such things happen. They are advertised well enough and the more offensive the more advertising it gets.

i find phrases such as " men's fundamental human rights, are some what vague and would inspect the contents more carefully. What rights would they be?
 
SCitizen said:
Someone who slanders men just for fighting against hate and discrimination is indeed the enemy.
Click to expand...
From what i have seen from the propaganda presented of your view, women could say quite similar.
But women are not the enemy -- every human is entitled to fundamental human rights. Cassie Jaye has done more for equality and fairness for all then I ever could.
Click to expand...
From an article of her;

How a feminist petition to stop a film became a massive own goal - Hack - triple j
Cassie Jaye says it's assumed that men's issues are men's fault.
Click to expand...

I would say that it is true that she bases her argument on that assumption. But she seeks only to place blame by such a thought. Seeing issues that are of concern to males as a fault is an attempt to shut down conversation on such issues. In fact it is one of the issues for males that they do see men's issues as men's fault. And will not talk about it because another male issue is never to admit to a fault.
 
soylentgreen said:
From what i have seen from the propaganda presented of your view, women could say quite similar.
Click to expand...
There hasn't been any propaganda presented.

From an article of her;

How a feminist petition to stop a film became a massive own goal - Hack - triple j


I would say that it is true that she bases her argument on that assumption. But she seeks only to place blame by such a thought. Seeing issues that are of concern to males as a fault is an attempt to shut down conversation on such issues. In fact it is one of the issues for males that they do see men's issues as men's fault. And will not talk about it because another male issue is never to admit to a fault.
Click to expand...
Right is all the fault of the imaginary patriarchy.

That myth has been dispelled. Feminists are finished.

I think the only question now is whether the third wave will drown it.
 
RAMOSS said:
Considering the fact that the guys who have issues are teh ones that are doing the complaining , and the vast majority of men do not, that makes more a statement than anything else. I mean, I bet you can't link to a specific statement by Emma Watson that shows misandry. It seems a lot of the MMA folks are uncomfortable with strong , independent women.
Click to expand...

MMA is mixed martial arts, while MRA is Male Rights activist. Though I suppose an MRA guy could also be in MMA.

The whole "you're scared of strong independent women" thing is not only stupid since these women are almost never independent or have any desire to be(feminists are big on free things for women), but also not an argument.
 
whateverdude said:
Still waiting for that example of positive social reforms coming out of third wave feminism.
Click to expand...

There's more women in congress and government than ever before.

There's more women CEO's than ever before.

There's more women starting businesses than ever before.

There's more women earning equal pay than ever before.

There's more research into women's health than ever before.

There's more women in the military than ever before.

There's more women in sports than ever before.

There's more women in college than ever before.

There's more women in science than ever before....






But if we're going by cartoons....Wonder Woman just broke box office records for a woman director for the second week in a row.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
There's more women in congress and government than ever before.

There's more women CEO's than ever before.

There's more women starting businesses than ever before.

There's more women earning equal pay than ever before.

There's more research into women's health than ever before.

There's more women in the military than ever before.

There's more women in sports than ever before.

There's more women in college than ever before.

There's more women in science than ever before....






But if we're going by cartoons....Wonder Woman just broke box office records for a woman director for the second week in a row.
Click to expand...

I find it sad that women are measuring their success by how they measure up to men. They say this is being independent, but to me it feels more like trying to beat an opponent than anything else. I mean, you're literally going by what percentage and number women make up in individual things like it matters at all.
 
Henrin said:
I find it sad that women are measuring their success by how they measure up to men. They say this is being independent, but to me it feels more like trying to beat an opponent than anything else. I mean, you're literally going by what percentage and number women make up in individual things like it matters at all.
Click to expand...

That's what equality is, Henrin. When women can achieve the same level of respect and success as men in their field then that is equality.



More men are stay at home dads and helping to raise kids than ever before.

More men are doing the household chores than ever before.

More men are paying child support than ever before.

More men work for a female boss than ever before.

More men dress like women than ever before...
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
That's what equality is, Henrin. When women can achieve the same level as men in their field then that is equality.



More men are stay at home dads and helping to raise kids than ever before.

More men are doing the household chores than ever before.

More men are paying child support than ever before.

More men work for a female boss than ever before.

More men dress like women than ever before.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Equality is about the ability to do something, not everything being 50/50 between two groups in terms of numbers. If no women worked but every woman could they would still be equal.

And what in the **** does housework have to do with anything? Housework is a choice that feminists have been treating like an obligation of men to do since the sixties and I would love to know why.

Also, child support has been traditionally paid for by men. In fact, in 1601 it was created to make men that didn't want to support their children do so against their will. More men being forced to care for their children by the state only means that more men are choosing to not do so voluntarily. How is that a good thing?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
I find it sad that women are measuring their success by how they measure up to men. They say this is being independent, but to me it feels more like trying to beat an opponent than anything else. I mean, you're literally going by what percentage and number women make up in individual things like it matters at all.
Click to expand...

Anyone who sets up a society that subjugates others is an opponent of the subjugated, that's why they bristle when the topic comes up.
 
Fenton Lum said:
Anyone who sets up a society that subjugates others is an opponent of the subjugated, that's why they bristle when the topic comes up.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that participation in things isn't what equality, empowerment, or even being independent means. Equality shouldn't be defined to speak towards individual decisions made by people. If someone decides to be scientist, a teacher, or a stay at home mom it shouldn't somehow mean she is less or more equal to her male counterparts that might have made a different decision. Just because more men work in this or that field doesn't somehow mean that women are somehow less equal to men, but only that less women decided to enter that field. This idea that women deciding as they fit to live their lives changes overall equality of women is truly mind bogging and sad.
 
Henrin said:
No, it's not. Equality is about the ability to do something, not everything being 50/50 between two groups in terms of numbers. If no women worked but every woman could they would still be equal.

And what is the **** does housework have to do with anything? Housework is a choice that feminists have been treating like an obligation of men do since the sixties and I would love to know why.

Also, child support has been traditionally paid for by men. In fact, in 1601 it was created to make men that didn't want to support their children do so against their will. More men being forced to care for their children by the state only means that more men are choosing to not do so voluntarily. How is that a good thing?
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about equality in numbers....but rather equality in opportunity and access. If more women have equal access to opportunities then more women can achieve success.

Housework pertains to the OPs question of women's social achievements. With men sharing the work load at home it allows women to achieve outside the home.

It wasn't until fairly recently that child support was enforced by US courts and the law. It's because men weren't paying their child support that the law became necessary. Forcing men to pay for their offspring takes pressure off the welfare system and taxpayers...and that's a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I didn't say anything about equality in numbers....but rather equality in opportunity and access. If more women have equal access to opportunities then more women can achieve success.
Click to expand...

You looked at numbers and suggested that more women doing certain things equals more equality. If less women were in the military because of their own choices that wouldn't mean that women have less opportunity, but just that less women want to go into the military for whatever reason.

Housework pertains to the OPs question of women's social achievements. With men sharing the work load at home it allows women to achieve outside the home.
Click to expand...

Men being socially pressured to do more housework isn't an accomplishment of anyone. Feminists acted as if men were in the wrong for making their own choices on what they desire to do around the house because of their wife or the woman they are living with. Men don't have to do things for women just because, sorry.

It wasn't until fairly recently that child support was enforced by US courts and the law. It's because men weren't paying child support that the law became necessary. Forcing men to pay for their offspring takes pressure off the welfare system and taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Actually, the system was put in place back when women didn't work. Instead of taking steps to resolve that problem the government at the time (1601) decided to go after men. Child support is actually a really bad example for your argument since it ignores equality for men.
 
Henrin said:
You looked at numbers and suggested that more women doing certain things equals more equality. If less women were in the military because of their own choices that wouldn't mean that women have less opportunity, but just that less women want to go into the military for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
You're right....it's not a matter of how many women join the military....but rather that women now have the equal access and opportunity to do so if they so choose....the same as men.


Damn...my computer is misbehaving.... I'm gonna have to get back with you.
 
Hi....I'm baaaaaack....


Henrin said:
You looked at numbers and suggested that more women doing certain things equals more equality. If less women were in the military because of their own choices that wouldn't mean that women have less opportunity, but just that less women want to go into the military for whatever reason.


Men being socially pressured to do more housework isn't an accomplishment of anyone. Feminists acted as if men were in the wrong for making their own choices on what they desire to do around the house because of their wife or the woman they are living with. Men don't have to do things for women just because, sorry.


Actually, the system was put in place back when women didn't work. Instead of taking steps to resolve that problem the government at the time (1601) decided to go after men. Child support is actually a really bad example for your argument since it ignores equality for men.
Click to expand...

You're right....it's not a matter of how many women join the military....but rather that women now have the equal access and opportunity to do so if they so choose....the same as men.

I don't know if men were socially pressured to do more housework...or if women just started doing less because they worked more outside the home. Either way, it appears that the less women waited on men hand and foot...the more men shared in the responsibility around the home.

In this country, child support was always a state issue...until the Federal government got involved in 1935 because too many men were avoiding their responsibility and share in the costs of raising their own children....

"...The federal government of the United States became involved in providing welfare assistance to impoverished children in 1935 through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In turn, the federal government realized that many children were entering that program because noncustodial parents were often avoiding their fair share of the costs of raising their children, and began to develop the foundation of today's overarching federal framework for child support enforcement...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States​


The government forced equality in the cost of raising children.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Hi....I'm baaaaaack....




You're right....it's not a matter of how many women join the military....but rather that women now have the equal access and opportunity to do so if they so choose....the same as men.

I don't know if men were socially pressured to do more housework...or if women just started doing less because they worked more outside the home. Either way, it appears that the less women waited on men hand and foot...the more men shared in the responsibility around the home.
Click to expand...

The pressure in the sixties came about because men were in fact not picking up the slack around the house when women started to work. Feminists demanded men do more around the house so that their wives could live the life they wanted. The whole thing is a great example of social coercion.

In this country, child support was always a state issue...until the Federal government got involved in 1935 because too many men were avoiding their responsibility and share in the costs of raising their own children....

"...The federal government of the United States became involved in providing welfare assistance to impoverished children in 1935 through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In turn, the federal government realized that many children were entering that program because noncustodial parents were often avoiding their fair share of the costs of raising their children, and began to develop the foundation of today's overarching federal framework for child support enforcement...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support_in_the_United_States​

The government forced equality in the cost of raising children.
Click to expand...

You realize that equality in raising children would mean that men have a choice to support the children, right? Women are allowed an out after sex, while men are screwed if a pregancy happens and she doesn't abort. Until that issue is resolved there is no equality. The fact is child supports very existence flies in the face of equality between the sexes since it offers men no choice.
 
reinoe said:
What would that progress be and why would that progress be attributed to feminism and not social progress in general? I see you can't make a list for us 25 posts into the thread.
Click to expand...

How can further equality for women NOT be linked to social progress? I would say the same for racial equality...they are inextricably linked with social progress and further equality for women and people of color is a major driver of social progress IMO.

More opportunities and equality for everyone can only improve society as far as I know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom