GOAT = Fed, I won't even address half of your points, because a lot of them are really misogynist bullshit and it should be obvious enough.
So backing up your points is misoginistic bullshit?
But here are the few I want to address :
First, sexual assault is a special type of violent crime and that was what I was talking about, not just criminality.
Yes but women are primarily affected by just one sort of violent crime more than men, whereas men are primarily affected primarily by the vast majority of violent crime. Therefore overall men are affected by violent crime far more than women. It can't even be compared. Also please aware me on why sexual assault is a 'special' type of criminality? It certainly cannot in any level be put above the main crime from which we derive all morals in the West: murder. I can also think of many crimes one can commit which leave scarring on victims than sexual assault. This is another thing I hate about feminists. They want to put **** on such a level that it's deemed to be the worst crime on can commit.
And the reasons why men are victims of violence also come from gender education, because they are brought up to express themselves through violence with other men,
Not really. How?
So basically you're implying men are violent thugs? Because the majority aren't. I don't see how one can say men are brought up to express themselves though violence with other men.
See this is the problem with your post-modern discourse: It does not discuss in absolutes, it's all down to opinions. What something looks like violence to someone will not be violence to an other person. It's far too subjective for me to take seriously.
so that's one point where feminism can be good for you, but anyway you will make fun of me for saying this, whatever.
It's futile to discuss with you like any feminists. See this is your logic:
> Women are oppressed and men are priveleged due to patriarchy
> I bring up many areas of life in which this is clearly not true
> Then you say that is also due to the patriarchy
This is extremely logically fallacious and is called circular reasoning.
But the big difference is that they are not brought up to live in fear of attacks
Of course they are. I've been told many times to not be alone at night, to keep my belongings safe, this is basic advice given to all. And of course you're not supposed to live in fear of these attacks and lock yourself in. But you should take pre cautions to minimise the risk of being attacked. This sort of advice is regularly told to everyone.
and even less to feel that THEY are responsible for avoiding these attacks.
If you go with money flying out of your pockets and wearing gold jewellery through the slums of Detroit at 12am and get robbed no one is gonna feel much sorrow for you.
If you leave your house door open and go out, even if accidentally, your insurer will refuse to pay you out.
You cannot expect to take no pre cautions and have no one criticise you for it. Of course it happens.
Women are constantly reminded of the danger of r*pe and how THEY should make sure they avoid it.
And rightly so, **** is no different to other crimes and everyone should be told on how to minimise your risk. It's better to tell people that the world is all rainbows and ponies and no crime happens.
There is a special kind of gendered violence in r*ape, and the way victims are considered, which does not apply to "regular" criminality liked being robbed.
Please expand further. What about male **** in American jails?
Well thank you, you are actually going in my direction. I am always trying to assert my right to liberty over safety (I must not be a real woman... well I'm a feminist, that explains it, right?)
As a side note; yes I don't consider feminists feminine and hence, in my eyes, they're not 'real' women [whatever that may mean].
Every time someone tells me I'm crazy because I go running on my own, and that I could be attacked, I resist that argument.
Well that's because they care for you. Statistically, you're less likely to be the victim of any violent crime than men, but everyone gets told not to go running alone in dangerous areas because evil exists out there.
What do you propose to do which allows everyone to go out there without fear of being attacked?
You could introduce draconian laws like in the Middle East where there are severe punishments for criminals impeaching human rights and people live in quite a lot of suffering for very, very low crime rates. They have no freedoms but they have their safety. Do you wish to go down that route?
I think it would be far worse to relinquish my freedom to go running on my own, than to take the risk of being attacked.
Yes so what's your point then?
But the thing is, if I ever actually get r*ped or killed while I'm running, I'll be blamed by many for being reckless and irresponsible, because apparently, in the minds of many people, you don't go running on your own when you're a woman. (Don't say that's not true, you only have to read the comments on articles about women who were attacked while they were on a run).
Not really. I honestly can't remember a time some girl got ***** ir killed and they said: ''oh we won't prosecute the criminal because she shouldn't have been out on her own'', neither do people tend to bring that up. So please stop this.
OH the old argument, "you should be grateful for the attention you get even when you don't want it." Why? Because being reassured about my physicaly attractiveness should be my main goal in life?
Where did I say that? I've seen a picture by a feminist which said:
''I need feminism because no guy gives me attention''. I couldn't find it but dammit that was the perfect place to put it in.
You know, I'm just like everyone else, I'm interested in getting attention mostly from the people that I do find attractive. Yet, in my life it rarely happened, sadly, and that did not make me complain that they had not given me what I "deserved". I just tought I was too ugly, or simply unlucky.
I'd say it's because you're a feminist. No masculine man will or ever will like a feminist, no matter how she looks.
Worst part still: "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]."
I think the only misogynist stereotype that was missing from your message was the "women like jerks and not nice guys" stereotype. It comes out of the blue, turns out to be completely false about me (I was never attracted to bad boys and never dated any), but that's not even the point... Add to this the "you actually attracted them on purpose", so I'm also more or less a slut, thank you very much.
But what's wrong with being a slut?
100% srs, this may come as s surprise to you, but nothing wrong with being a slut, they're there for the pleasure of men, obviously I wouldn't ever date one seriously, but sluts are good for a nice time. In fact this is the biggest irony:
Women shame sluts far more than men
The only men who shame sluts are the jealous ones pretty much and they're in the minority. I wasn't saying you were a slut either. And yes someone who goes to a bar which is quite clearly an environment made for primarily meeting new people, particularly the opposite sex, and then gets annoyed for men hitting on her is either just clueless or just there for the attention. This isn't being a slut, this is being an attention whore.
It's like you dancing at a club and a guy starts dancing with you and you get annoyed.
But then again, lots of people go to bars to have conversations, it is perfectly our right, and when I tell a guy that I'd like to be left alone, he should respect this. Nothing more to be said about this.
So this one instance = general of how men behave? Seems legit.
Finally... You are basically calling me a liar by claiming that I'm not honest when I say I fight against stereotypes about BOTH sexes. What do you know?
I am not part of any feminist organization. I am simply a woman who has been raised by parents who were egalitarian, probably feminists, actually (especially my dad), even though they would not necessarily use the word. After years of being part of the women who say "I am not a feminist but..." (and then proceed to list all the elements they believe in, and that actually DEFINE feminism), I started talking to a few feminist friends, and I realised that actually, I had no idea what "feminism" meant, and that my belief system was actually totally what feminism was about.
So now, I do use the label "feminist", no matter the stigma that's attached to it.
Yet not one piece of activism was seen by a feminist about male stereotypes that day.
Thus, I define myself as a feminist, because I think people should be free to be whoever they are without being constantly put down or silenced because they do not correspond to gender stereotypes.
Agreed. I absolutely do not agree with feminists but I still want their freedom of speech in tact so I can destroy them in arguments.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem feminists want the same:
Recently they wanted facebook to censor 'sexist' comments too.
I strongly believe in freedom of speech but most feminists are against freedom of speech which naturally puts me at odds with them.
I've already said what I thought about the myth that "science is truth". People who believe that are sadly the ones who lack logic, and, especially, perspective.
Science is the truth. It is not subjective, it is absolute truths.
They may never have taken a philosophy class, I don't know. But science is NOT truth, most of the time, science is just as ideological as the rest, but it's more dangerous, because it's PRETENDING to be the ultimate truth.
Dafuq did I just read here?
Science PRETENDS to the be the ultimate truth?
So Evolution isn't true?
Einstein's theory of relativity isn't true?
Ask black people what they think nowadays of the so-called science which said they were more stupid than us because their skull was smaller or whatever BS they had made up at the time to legitimate White domination.
So you can throw two scientific articles with their references, what does that mean? You know most people cannot understand them anyway. Maybe there are ten other articles which contradict them. Maybe in a few years, it will turn out that they are wrong, just like scientific racism was wrong.
There was a term for that: Pseudo science. People claiming them ironically didn't have any scientific basis for their arguments.
I honestly don't know what I can say to anyone who doesn't think science is the ultimate truth. Sad times indeed, the world has advanced so much due to science yet people remain sceptical, probably because it contradicts their world view that everyone is equal.
What I know is, I won't ever let you someone tell me that my words are less valid than his because I'm a woman.
No gender isn't taken into account.
Your reasoning is.
Most feminists lack reasoning ===> Their words should be discarded.
Like I exposed your reasoning above.
Thanks, will read it and respond.
I don't know if you are a scientist
Nope, I'm a student of mathematics: The ultimate science, the subject from which all science is derived.
but it seems to me that you know very little about social sciences
And neither does social science interest me. In fact it is a disgrace that the word 'science' is attached to such a travesty. Social science has no emperical backing to it, anyone can make a theory and it doesn't require a proof.
and if you think languages and social sciences don't involve logic... you are even more narrow-minded than you seem).
Languages are good and a few social sciences like history and economics are very useful.
Everything else is BS.
You can be in a society that privileges men in certain areas, without it being in all areas.
And the same applied to women so why bring up the patriarchy excuse then?
In fact legally, women are advantaged so much than men in many areas it's a disgrace.
Very often, for one advantage that you have, you have a corresponding disadvantage.
And the same for women.
For instance, men are not expected to spend as much time doing the chores, they get paid better for their jobs, promoted more easily
The pay gap myth has been debunked many times, I can provide you with a plethora of evidence if you wish.
... But if they want to spend time with their kids, or if they happen not to make much money, their quality as "real men" will be questioned.
And of course this is encouraged in women.
So don't you get the point which nature is telling? Men and women aren't
equal. Men and women can never be equal. Both have such different physical and mental structures, they can never be equal.
Now here's where my gripe with feminism comes in: They want to erode all the bad things which women are looked down upon, both socially and legally, they've pretty much accomplished the legally part and for the most the socially part as well, yet men's are still diadvantaged in many areas legally and socially [ie they're expected to man up everytime, this does not happen for women anymore, it did 50 years ago.]
Women are having their cake and eating it too.
I didn't claim you hated men.
How come I've always liked hanging out with guys, and practising activities like playing videogames? Maybe my friends are not real men? Or maybe I'm not a real woman, after all?
Like I said, feminists usually aren't FEMININE.
Yeah sure go ahead don't be feminine no one cares but don't complain when real men don't give you interest either, and yes you will be naturally attracted to masculine men, not feminised men.
And just as an aside; why do women usually go for 'jerks'? Because they're hyper masculine. The amount of proper masculine men is quickly dwindling in society and all you have are the extremely hyper masculine men left [ie the thugs and jerks as you call them] and your average doormat pro feminist man who berates his own gender for the supposed ''oppression'' of women and this is why women are attracted to them. Of course they're not a good representation of masculinity because they're too masculine, but this is the reason why they prefer them to you average feminist, pro equality man in Western society.
God dammit I fear for the current generation of men who have back bones to them and seem to worship women.