How do I answer that? By saying "Yes feminism does rely on logic?"
Feminism does not rely on logic.
Logic and science are the truth, nor surprise here then that logic was thought up by men and science is utterly dominated by men [and advanced and discovered by men].
You have no arguments here, only arbitrary statements. Can anyone claim to have "logic" when they claim "privilege" does not exist? I mean, really?
Correct. I wasn't responding to any arguments, I was indeed just giving my opinion hence it was a statement.
And don't even get me started on the "emotion" thing. That's one of the main misogynist stereotypes. Women cannot think with their heads, only with their hearts.
Indeed this is correct. It's a scientific fact that men are more logical than women.
T]he male brain experiences an acid flush about three months into gestation damaging the corpus callosum, or intermediary between the two hemispheres. This makes women more prone to bounce around between hemispheres, and men more prone to focus cognitive energy to areas of the brain consistently. Furthermore, the caudate nucleus, ventral tegmental area (VTA), limbic system, are shown to be up to three times larger and far more active in the female brain than in the male brain. The combined over influence from irrational, emotional centers of the brain together with the propensity to bounce around frenetically between hemispheres, leads to a less rational, more emotional product.
And why would nature build women in such a manner? Because, in accordance with CH axioms, nature has designed women to be more emotionally prone for the (main) purpose of child rearing. Furthermore, the rapid oscillation between hemispheres allows them to parallelize household tasks in the home, i.e. taking care of children, cooking, cleaning, negotiating with other units in the tribe, etc. Males on the other hand, have more inherent ability to focus. That combined with a heightened depth perception made us more adept for the hunter gatherer role. It goes without saying thus far, we are in complete agreement with CH maxims.
So yes I am sick of this wishy washy PC talk that men and women are equal in every sense. Of course this also means that women are better in other areas using the brain than men, but in terms of formulating arguments and thinking logically there is no doubt that on average men are better.
So nothing I can say makes sense, I'm a woman, I don't have the ability to think logically. That is, especially if I don't agree with you.
Not because you're a woman. But because you're a feminist.
Any discussion with feminists are futile, I am only here to destroy you so others don't fall for your rhetoric and set an example henceforth.
(I wonder how I achieved so much in my education with such a dysfunctional brain, indeed).
Please don't tell me that the education system is an accurate representation of someone's true abilities.
Let's begin by asking: is your education in a STEM field?
You talk of science, are you not aware of how much "science" has been used for ideology? Does scientific racism mean nothing to you?
Not if you cite sources and actually check the scientific literature.
Science does not lie, people misrepresenting science can lead to 'scientific racism' and other ills.
I can only laugh at your agument that we are becoming "feminized".
Well, that is a personal observation of mine, in terms of social behaviours. Men are still required to keep their roles in society as breadwinners yet women are free to do whatever they want - be it destroying society by becoming a single mother [yes this does have bad effect both on the child and soceity and I can give you studies to prove this]. Furthermore I've seen more are acting more feminine [lisps are becoming common, skinny jeans being mainstream] and many are becoming emotional wrecks like most women, unable to argue logically. Of course there's scientific research on these things, you can only observe such behaviour and I'm sure you'll agree with me on these points.
If what you mean to say is that the imbalance is shifting towards equality, I agree with you, but I don't call that "feminization". That's just trying to strike a balance. Otherwise I can say that all the spheres of power are "masculinised" (and you can refer to your beloved scientific data to establish this, I believe!)
Isn't this the same country which has banned men from getting DNA on children to see if it's there?
Yup some great equality this is. From Napoleon who said that men have every right to know who is their child to now, where France is a socialist hell hole. Also reminds me of Sweden and the Nordic countries; from the Vikings who were real men, you could literally sense testosterone oozing out of them to now where it's a feminist utopia. Cannot believe how men can stand idly by and let this happen. Dammit too many white knights and manginas around nowadays.
In fact the whole premise of equality is not logical since men and women are not equal, both physically and mentally.
No, it is feminism. If you don't know this, you don't know the first thing about feminism. Feminism IS about gender equality, NOT about female supremacy. Those who claim otherwise are just falling for anti-feminist propaganda, and using the fact that the name is misleading.
Nope, I have never seen feminism protesting about problems men face. Ergo, it is not about equality. Can you give me an example of a concentrated effort adopted by many mainstream feminists to protest about issues men face?
And we do care about men and the stereotypes imposed upon them. Because you can both be "privileged" collectively and still be victimised by the system individually.
You contradict yourself in the same sentence. So you can be privileged yet be victimised by the system?
So how much victimised do you need to be by the system to not be considered ''priveleged'', where do you set the boundary on such an arbitrary concept.
Ah yes, the men who are so privileged that they live lesser than women by quite a few years in nearly every country
Oh yes, the same male privelge which means that breast cancer receives more funding than prostate cancer despite both affecting men and women the same.
According to estimates from the National Institutes of Health, in the United States in 2010, 207,090 women and 1,970 men will get new cases of breast cancer, while 39,840 women and 390 men will likely die from the disease. The estimated new cases of prostate cancer this year — all affecting men — is 217,730, while it is predicted 32,050 will die from the disease.
In fiscal year 2009, breast cancer research received $872 million worth of federal funding, while prostate cancer received $390 million. It is estimated that fiscal year 2010 will end similarly, with breast cancer research getting $891 million and prostate cancer research receiving $399 million.
And it's pretty much the same throughout all countries in the world.
I'm pretty sure a lot of men are enjoying that privilege
As long as I'll be scared walking home at night, or that people will make me feel like I ought to be scared (or even that I'm irresponsible) because I walk home at night...
That's funny because men are far more victims of violent crimes than women:
Men are 76% of homicide victims as well the majority victims of violent assaults and muggings.
''Male victims were most often physically assaulted by a stranger or by someone else outside of the family. In 2008, men were the victims of 80% of all reported attacks by strangers.''
Of course these are American statistics but I'd wager that it's more or less the same in other Western countries.
So tell me cupcake, why should your safety be prioritised over men's? Don't you want equality after all? It's quite clear men are the victims of violent crime far more than women.
Also wanting safety over freedom is an inherent feminine trait, seeing as how most Western countries are eroding liberty in the name of safety is another example of a femininsed society and thus it is not surprising these concepts have always been perpetrated by men and feminists quite clearly want several freedoms eroded for their safety.
''Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.''
As long as I'll have to say "I'm not interested" 5 times to a guy who keeps following me around in the street because he won't take "no" as an answer...
As long as I'll have to leave a bar because I cannot have a quiet conversation with a female friend, since a guy won't leave us alone even after we've clearly told him that we're sorry, but we are having an important conversation and would like to be left alone...
As long as I get called a "bitch" or a "slut" by a guy because I've turned him down (very politely) or I'm simply not in a mood to talk to him...
Yet if no one gave you any interest you'd also be complaining that society considers you ugly and doesn't give you the attention you deserve.
These problems literally reek of ''first world problems''.
In fact one needs to ask why would you be in a bar to have a ''quiet conversation''? Who the heck goes to bars to have 'quiet conversation'?! I'm sure there are many other venues out there to accommodate that. NID you there to soak up the attention men give you yet don't want any of them making a move on you [unless it's the tattooed thug or drug dealer].
Yet your post contains no logic, science or statistical data, just unsubstantiated statements and opinions
Of course, like I said I wasn't responding to an argument, I was just putting my opinion across.