My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Wonkie [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you only lend credence to media feminism by bashing the gynocracy(XXOG)

have some subtlety gents

mirror mirror who's the farest?

trickk a buck 50 on that horse n carriage

down to the watches, alligator straps

feminists holler back, just like they parrots

six different time zones, i don't set er back

As I heat it it turns blueish,

JD European custom, the politic is Italian

it seems i get foolish, the post is Jewish

we aint browsing, pull up so mean with the angel bowing

or with the emblem bearing the Stallion

yeughhh

[NachtMystium]

History doesn't lie. Yeah it has changed somewhat, but it will always remain the same as long as universal truths remain. People can go against the grain as much as they want but you can't fit a circle into a square.

Just think about the very beginning, which noone knows for sure, why would Man be the long-lasting, dominant constant throughout all of history? Genders are not equal. I know that's a hard pill to swallow. Yes, they should be treated equally, but they are not equals.

Men and Women must recognize their differences and capitalize on their strengths lest they end up wasting time trying to pretend they are the same, ultimately resulting into what we currently have now - which is just a waste of time that will result into whatever wasted time produces.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

History doesn't lie. Yeah it has changed somewhat, but it will always remain the same as long as universal truths remain. People can go against the grain as much as they want but you can't fit a circle into a square.

Just think about the very beginning, which noone knows for sure, why would Man be the long-lasting, dominant constant throughout all of history? Genders are not equal. I know that's a hard pill to swallow. Yes, they should be treated equally, but they are not equals.

Men and Women must recognize their differences and capitalize on their strengths lest they end up wasting time trying to pretend they are the same, ultimately resulting into what we currently have now - which is just a waste of time that will result into whatever wasted time produces.

With the right proportions, a round peg will fit into a square hole.

[NachtMystium]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

With the right proportions, a round peg will fit into a square hole.

Okay, let's go with that. Let's even agree that this is already true today, that we have met the right proportions for some circles to just happen to fit through the squares, for some reason, they want to fit through.

2+2 always equals 4 though. There are no proportions to change this.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

History doesn't lie. Yeah it has changed somewhat, but it will always remain the same as long as universal truths remain. People can go against the grain as much as they want but you can't fit a circle into a square.

Just think about the very beginning, which noone knows for sure, why would Man be the long-lasting, dominant constant throughout all of history? Genders are not equal. I know that's a hard pill to swallow. Yes, they should be treated equally, but they are not equals.

Men and Women must recognize their differences and capitalize on their strengths lest they end up wasting time trying to pretend they are the same, ultimately resulting into what we currently have now - which is just a waste of time that will result into whatever wasted time produces.

Think about how unstable a past society would've been where vast majorities of poor men didn't have access to women. You're talking about social instability at an unsustainable scale. I think that, rather than superiority, accounts for misogyny during the past

Regardless, while we have different characteristics and traits, I think it's highly speculative to assume men's qualities are "better." Different definitely, but probably not better

[NachtMystium]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Think about how unstable a past society would've been where vast majorities of poor men didn't have access to women. You're talking about social instability at an unsustainable scale. I think that, rather than superiority, accounts for misogyny during the past

Regardless, while we have different characteristics and traits, I think it's highly speculative to assume men's qualities are "better." Different definitely, but probably not better

That's exactly my point, though. We are no better than one another and it's so fruitless to try and prove otherwise. It is foolish, though, to try and pretend that men and women are the same.

Men and women are better and worse, are strong and weak, they are the constant variable and for some reason people are hellbent on proving otherwise despite history spoon-feeding you the statistics.

Men are better at X, Women are better at Y. Why is this such a hard concept for the general public to grasp? Why do women feel the need to constantly meet some kind of equal statistic rather than being content with their own strengths?

[loramin]

Originally Posted by NachtMystium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Men are better at X, Women are better at Y. Why is this such a hard concept for the general public to grasp? Why do women feel the need to constantly meet some kind of equal statistic rather than being content with their own strengths?

Because the reasons men and women are better/worse at X/Y aren't just genetic, or even just biological.

Of course, biological differences do exist. For example, women have a higher pain tolerance than men because they have to give birth, but they can't hold as much in their bladder (compared to men) because their bladder is surrounded by baby-making organs and a man's bladder isn't.

But biological differences make up only a small part of the many differences between men and women in our society. All the rest come from environment, mainly social conditioning. Studies have shown that babies as young as 10 months old have already learned some gender roles. In other words all of us, before we were even a year old, had already started building our internal template for what it means to be male or female, based on the templates of people around us ... templates which came from a long history of inequality.

No one (sane) cares about "equality statistics" when they're about basic biological differences. But the problem is that throughout history people have blamed socially-caused traits on biology, not just for women but also other groups. For instance, so-called "scientists"
blamed the shape of African-Americans' heads for their inherent biological mental inferiority ... even though there was no such "inherent biological inferiority" at all (as real scientists would later prove). What was perceived as a biological issue was in fact entirely a product of environment.

Likewise, women today are prevented or discouraged from doing things, even if they can do them as well as men. The only way they can show that they're being prevented is to use facts and information, eg. "equality statistics".

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because the reasons men and women are better/worse at X/Y aren't just genetic, or even just biological.

Of course, biological differences do exist. For example, women have a higher pain tolerance than men because they have to give birth, but they can't hold as much in their bladder (compared to men) because their bladder is surrounded by baby-making organs and a man's bladder isn't.

But biological differences make up only a small part of the many differences between men and women in our society. All the rest come from environment, mainly social conditioning. Studies have shown that babies as young as 10 months old have already learned some gender roles. In other words all of us, before we were even a year old, had already started building our internal template for what it means to be male or female, based on the templates of people around us ... templates which came from a long history of inequality.

No one (sane) cares about "equality statistics" when they're about basic biological differences. But the problem is that throughout history people have blamed socially-caused traits on biology, not just for women but also other groups. For instance, so-called "scientists"
blamed the shape of African-Americans' heads for their inherent biological mental inferiority ... even though there was no such "inherent biological inferiority" at all (as real scientists would later prove). What was perceived as a biological issue was in fact entirely a product of environment.

Likewise, women today are prevented or discouraged from doing things, even if they can do them as well as men. The only way they can show that they're being prevented is to use facts and information, eg. "equality statistics".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0MuT0v6ds

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Regardless, while we have different characteristics and traits, I think it's highly speculative to assume men's qualities are "better." Different definitely, but probably not better

well if u dont play to ur strengths how could u be better?


720

[mickmoranis]

this page is just a tldr of the google guy memo, which imo was not off the mark.