Do Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?

I stopped reading here. Yes, yes you are.

For whatever argument you bring forth trying to make a point, it's all invalid since who are you and what makes you think you can value someone over another based on something totally irrelevant, i.e. sex? I mean really, this is the 21st century. Valuing any human being over another without an individual reason is ignorant, arrogant and yes it makes you a scumbag.

Your really on a whole equality of outcomes thing here arnt ya. Well you have fun with that. The only way to get that is to hold people down.





You are entitled to believe whatever you want to but males and females are different than one another, physically and more than likely mentally as well.

That's obvious, diversity makes the world interesting. Wouldn't be much funsies to be a 7-billion-way identical twin. Doesn't make 1 person worth more/valued/better than another person due to preset arguments like: sex, skin colour, nationality, age or name it.

I meant that basing your argument on: 'person X is(n't) Y therefor (s)he is worth less' is ignorant and arrogant. Nothing else really.

You can say that men and women are of equal value in a general sense but we don't go through life dealing with things in a general sense we deal with them in a case by case sense and in that sense there are situations that are better handled by men than women and the opposite is true as well. So when someone deals with a certain situation often and they know that men deal with it better than women then it isn't wrong for them to favor men over women. Once again the opposite is true as well.

So you're not going to respond to me calling out your stupid logic of "If you're not x group, then you're a bigot!". Because somehow only Feminist believe in equality.


Also when you hear me right that we're not equals what do you assume I mean? Are you implying that I said it's okay to treat people like trash depending on ethnicity/gender/socioeconomic backgrounds? No I'm acknowledging that there's differences in various groups and people of different backgrounds and people will treat others differently based on their own perceptions and sometimes, facts.(Like sexual dimorphism) I've said this several times in this thread but if we're going to be equals it should be in the eyes of the law, which is highly unlikely because of people's present perceptions and biases.(an example, subject-object dichotomy that keeps getting pushed by feminist)

Also people value specific people over others all time, whether it be hiring someone, making friends or romantic relationships.

Regarding "equality", a fitting quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, "Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom". You even said it yourself in a post after this response, people's diversity is what makes the world interesting.

Just pointing out that at difference of Ergheiz I don't actually have anything against those who doesn't share my point of view and believe about it. People can believe in whatever they wish as long science doesn't prove them wrong and they are considerate with others. Though with that said, cruz737 (and at some degree Coconutt) has been quite mean and arrogant, with an expressed closed and definite opinion just like Ergheiz with his side (and just like a lot of feminists and anti-feminists on average).

Considering the topic's title and objective, I guess the inverse question can be applied as well:

"Do Non-Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?"

It's the same. As for me comes, I do accept I can be wrong and I'm constantly sharing discussion with those who doesn't agree with me (like now), looking for information, studying about it, looking at other's person lives a bit and so. Though my believe so far has remained the same and until I change of mind, or science proves me wrong, I'll still be believing, aspiring and fighting for more equality for both genders under the imperfect, yet (in my opinion) still useful feminist activism (and I'll condemn our errors even if we, moderates, can't be loud on Internet or magazines, and constantly seeking owns errors to correct them).



TL;DR: Your system is unfair as you're burdening a person because the efficiency of others, and by doing so, you're worsening the efficiency of the whole demographic group, including the individual. That isn't inclusive, friendly, constitutional or anything aside plain and old unfair (and elitist) discrimination.

Demographics are used as a tool to see the current results of a given group. It isn't even flawless or good at only doing that as demographics often lacks details at an impressive degree and even more often lacks causes, analyzes and so, leaving them to opinion (or more in-depth studies). Demographics are an useful idea to give us an idea of averages, but shouldn't be taken too seriously neither. Considering it's averages nature, using demographics on individuals is an awful idea.

Why? Simple. An individual is an individual, different from others, yet, averages are using everyone's group results, thus by considering (or directly using) demographics, you're beginning to favor or burden him/her by others work, not owns alone. By doing so you're hampering the freedom of people to equal access and oportunities regardless demographics that's on every western constitution (and now if you're against that point of the constitution, we have little more to talk).

Then we have the current side of demographics. Inclusion means you're granting opportunities regardless the current result in hope you'll improve those results in the future (even if sometimes they can't reach full equality for other reasons, you're still increasing it). By considering people by their demographics, then you're not giving a chance to those who aren't already in the top to show what they are able to. And by doing so, you're worsening the weak demographics and making even stronger the strong one, making you less willing to seriously consider the weak demographics for a job or anything. See where I'm going? Vicious cycle.

The end result of the vicious cycle is that the individual's end result worst, his/her groups results worst and often, everyone losses as variety is often an impulse in productivity. You're never gonna give him/her a chance in the long run just because they born in certain way.

The worst of all this is that this sadly doesn't apply to gender alone, as it's often strike a way harder on race, religion, sexuality and a lot of other fields. We call people using such system discriminators, and because you're applying it on people for the mere fact they were born in certain way no matter what their individual result, you're an unfair one.

If you stop considering demographics for individuals and you give people a chance you can get surprised. Most people given a chance to females and now on most fields you see a 40/60 ratio that was earlier a 5/95 ratio. In fact, we even reached the 50/50 ratio on the younger than XX age block (earlier than 25 on The Americas, earlier than 28 on most Europe, earlier than 30 on Northern Europe) in a lot of fields and each year it's getting closer on the remaining age blocks and fields (as people with your belief, discriminators, are now lacking a reason to discriminate anymore as they were proven wrong with a kick in the ass). It's believed the financial and science sectors are lagging because their highly elitist nature to avoid giving chances unless current and proved results, for example, and we know that because their stagnant mobility of actors.

How you can know if sexual dimorphism is actually affecting:

- Stop considering individuals by their demographics. This doesn't mean you have to pick less fit people, after all inside a demographic group there will be always those who are already fit to start the virtuous cycle.

- Give them a real and equal chance. Their chance that their results each year will increases are almost absolute. Wait until the results stop increasing and leave it pass five years (recommended ten) to avoid statistical errors.

- On most cases you'll see a 50/50 (expect an statistical error up to 47/53) ratio already. If it isn't the case, it can be sexual dimorphism, but it's tricky as there can be more things affecting integration. For example females can be more affected with unnecessary time consuming things like being forced to expend more time dressing and making up. Their morale can also be affected by increased verbal abuse. Anyway, first check those things at job.

- If integration is fine, then the cause can be external issues rather sexual dimorphism itself. For example, are males being selected from groups with more disadvantages? Are females using power they had beforehand to get better results? There are external burdens related you feel unfair (like can be childbearing, a father getting frustrated because their reproductive rights got neglected, etcetera)?

- After all those answers are "NO" with a certain confidence, your percentage is the actual sexual dimorphism. If any of those answer got warm "maybe" or "yes", then it's tricky, but you can play around at guessing how much they are affecting in the ratio, a guess that if backed by numbers, it can be an useful one.

- Even if sexual dimorphism is causing difference, you should still giving equal chances and ignoring demographics for individuals. After all, if certain job is getting a 40/60 ratio, you may do well in preserving that 40% that is still better than the other gender remainders at given job and the unique way to preserve it is by keep including them.

The magic of this if that it can be applied to anything, like race and so). By applying that system we can't be sure the extent of sexual dimorphism on most current cases as numbers are still getting more equal each year. When the trend stops we can give a more decent guess about how much affects sexual dimorphism after all, until then you can believe wherever it will stop, like I believe it will stop in a 50/50 (3% error margin) in all non physical intense areas (and we're even getting surprised in those fields already), too.

100% perfect equality between the two genders can never be achieved, simply for the fact that we have different genders. By the very fact that nature and biology made us different we cannot achieve truly perfect equality, we can get pretty close though.



I don't have anything against anybody here, or any person for that matter who doesn't wish anything bad for me (and obviously you don't). I understand that when i write here i can be mean, arrogant and sometimes even offensive, but the purpose of that is not to make anybody feel bad or hurt your feelings, the purpose of it is to prove a point. Also if my opinions sound closed and definite, it is because i genuinely believe in what i say, and i genuinely believe them to be true.



I can only answer for myself.

Yes, all the time. I re-think and argue with myself over my own opinions all the time, and i dare to say quite a lot more often than majority of other people do. I never answer here or anywhere else on anything unless i have a serious opinion about the matter which i believe in. It just so happens that nobody has yet to proven me wrong here (at least not that i remember).

It's quite simple really in definition. If you believe in EQUAL rights for women, you are a feminist. It's that simple. You don't have to like the word or whatever, but it's the truth.
If you believe that women are not equal, you are a sexist.

It is that simple. If you are insulted or don't like it, well sorry. Your problem. Lots of women are also insulted by men claiming they are not equal.

And if you bring forth diversity as argument for inequality, yes that's true.
BUT that also means you have to judge people on their individual 'diversity' or just personality and not for something they can't influence or help like gender or whatever.


I'm not sure what you don't understand about this if it's still vague to you, but I can't be much clearer than this.




Well, you're probably right, but it's still a goal worth fighting for in my opinion, even if it's practically impossible.

Also, I got nothing against no one. If you are insulted it's your problem, it's not my goal. The part about someone being a scumbag, the person literally asked for it. Sorry for replying and being honest.


For a TL;DR version, read Nyara's version. It's a lot cleaner and probably better written than whatever I put up here. Also English isn't my native-tongue, so I might use different terminology or have different definitions to words than you. Like I said I don't mean to insult, however if you are, your problem.

It's a simple textbook definition that not every feminist prescribes to, nor are they the only ones who own the concept of people being treated like equals or being equals under the law. Feminism is not a philosophy or school of thought, it's at best a shaky activist "group" with conflicting ideas. Go ask a several feminist on what they think of porn and you'll get a variety of answers, ranging from it's liberating to it's oppressive and that it teaches men that they're entitled to a women's body.
Again labeling someone as part of a loosely based activist group that often teeters on being a hate mob is very ignorant. Not only are you implying that all feminist are for equally(they're not) but that feminism owns the concept of equality. You cannot be this ignorant can you?

I don't think I am no, I am not aware of American social issues, but hey...I'm not American so I don't really know what the situation over there is, but here there is no such thing as you describe.

Of course there are radicals in everything there is too discuss, it's an art to make sure a minority (or even majority) doesn't suffer due to it.

Speaking about ignorance by the way. Not sure what your general media news source is. But Do you truly believe because some crazy ladies go protesting in a non sensible way to you, that means that EVERY feminist is that way? Can you please stop making outrageous and IGNORANT claims about half of the world for the sake of argument?

Wow, now you're claiming that I'm making ridiculous claims about half the worlds population.
Also you cannot believe that women are not a ubiquitous group and then pull out the "half the population" argument you hypocrite. Feminism isn't a straightforward ideology/movement and there's varying opinions regarding many issues, crazies or not. Feminisms problems aren't with the media(in fact in the West it's heavily bias and favors them in when caught lying like in the UVA case) or the radicals who have zero power and are mainly ignored. People like you who come with the all or nothing attitude will probably never look at feminism in a critical way. Take Nyara for example, she said it was okay to tell men not to rape. Doesn't this go against your personal views of treating everyone like an individual? In your opinion is she still a feminist? Or is she now an extremist despite it being a common proposal to a very serious and complicated issue?

[edit]
@Nyara.
http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
False rape accusations are a big deal. Even if it wasn't around 45% it's a terrible crime that ruins people's lives. I'm not surprised that young black men are the primary victims of false allegations.

At the very end you can correctly simplify it as just a fight between individualism vs socialism (people should fight individually vs people should fight together) and a fight between how much each one believes sexual dimorphism is actually affecting. In my case I'm a centrist toward individualism and socialism, so I share part of collectives and share parts of own opinion (that can go against sections of collectives easily, but without leaving them). I do believe sexual dimorphism (mental) is minimal enough to pass unperceived, too.

Note: Yeah, told already I think the single biggest flaw of the movement is the false rape reports. Though it's disproportionately bigger on USA than the rest of the world because the ease to present demands there (it's hard to present demands anywhere else), as false reports for most crimes also happens (and thanks to racism, guess the usually targets). Though that isn't the issue, the issue is that feminism does have a bias against guys on this and that's unfair.

I still recall the movie To Kill a Mockingbird (1960 portraying 1936) about this. The sad thing it's still happening and more than ever. Anyway, applying the concept above, you can't call yourself part of a group that does have flaws like that and you prefer to blame the group as a whole, when I can call myself part of the group and blame my own group for that thing on specific, so I try to improve it from inside rather kill it as a whole from outside.

Then how do transgender people fit into the equation?

If a person is born as a biological female, then transitions into a male, then is that person more fit to handle a situation that is best handled by men, or is that person more fit to handle a situation that is best handled by women?

Another point is the issue of ability: There is no ability that all people of one gender have. Not all women are good at cooking; not all men are good at construction. We cannot assume that a person of either gender will be able to do something, and we also cannot assume that a person of either gender will not be able to do something. For example, being a firefighter requires a lot of physical strength. I am a man, and I cannot be a firefighter. It requires far more strength than I have. But there exist women out there that do have the requisite strength and can be firefighters. Does this mean that I am a failure as a man? Does it mean that those women are not "real" women? Or does it simply mean that one cannot judge what a person can or cannot do based solely on gender?

Also, just to throw it out there, if we assume that all rape reports cannot be trusted because some are filed falsely, then we should do the same with democracy and not trust elections because some of the votes have been procured illegally; we should assume that every politician got his/her position because he/she bribed people and misused the democratic system. But that would be a logical fallacy, and those are bad.

I said it wasn't wrong to favor one over the other not that gender should be the only consideration.

You both and Ergheiz too have mentioned equality. I'm curious if any of you realize that there are different forms of it and that not all of them are good.

Demographics should never be a consideration for individuals, never.

For groups big enough where you are unable to distinguish individuals it's fine, though it should be used as a guide and not as a bible in any case. That means anything you apply using demographics for a group should not be strict. You should leave space for exceptions to prove you wrong, consider changes, try to preserve attention to individuals (and their special characteristics) as practically possible and so.

Feminists are never wrong.

Get that drilled into your head unless you want to be called a rapist.

Lets make this clear when I say it isn't wrong to favor one over the other I don't mean that the world should be run this way. I'm merely saying that if one chooses to do it that way it isn't wrong to do so. There are differences between the genders and that also means there are differences in capabilities.

In places like the US when you see differences in the make up of a company based on gender say 80% men and 20% women it isn't that they are purposefully choosing men over women. They are putting qualifications for the job out there and men are simply meeting those qualifications more often then women.

Since the population is split roughly 50/50 based on gender you apparently want to see close to 50/50 just about everywhere you look. This is called equality of outcomes and it is something that in a free society can never be achieved. There are differences between not only individuals but groups as well whether they be physical or cultural or whatever, and that leads to differences in outcomes.

We don't have anything to discuss because you're in favor of using something so vague and culturally affected as demographics to (unfairly) consider individuals.

You seem to have a failure of understanding I'm not saying that companies should hire people that way I'm saying that it isn't wrong for them to do it. There is a difference between basing everything on gender ability rather than giving everyone the opportunity to apply and then only taking the best with the results showing something other then 50/50 split between males and females. If the makeup of a company is 80/20 in favor of males it doesn't mean they favor males more than females in their hiring process it simply means that males fit their qualifications whatever they are better than females.


I am for equality of opportunity meaning that everyone has a chance at something but only the best get it. That is different than equality of outcomes which seems to be what you are for which is that the makeup of the overall population should be reflected in the makeup of smaller units within that population. Since the makeup of the overall population based on genders is roughly 50/50 you seem to think that the makeup of smaller units in the population should also be roughly 50/50 and that when they are not you seem to think that something wrong is going on. If this is indeed what you think then you are an idiot.