Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People said the same thing about women who took to the streets to protest the fact that women weren't allowed to vote. They said the same thing when women marched in favor of the ERA.
What are today's feminists fighting for now? Other than equal pay, I can't think of a single thing that today's women have to complain about. Feminism has ruined the dynamic between men and women, but feminists are too blind to see it. They are consumed by hate, resentment and victimhood. It's pathetic.
What are today's feminists fighting for now? Other than equal pay, I can't think of a single thing that today's women have to complain about. Feminism has ruined the dynamic between men and women, but feminists are too blind to see it. They are consumed by hate, resentment and victimhood. It's pathetic.
I have a great dynamic with my (male) partner. We both consider ourselves feminists.
You sound like you have a fair amount of hate, resentment and victimhood. How has feminism ruined your relationship with men, exactly?
Religions are, though. Which is that one without any self-conflict?
An ideology is simply a system of values and ethics. There is no epistemological definition that states that "a system of values must contain more than one ideological truth". And even if there was, we can simply add another ideological statement alongside it:
"God exists" (Theism).
"Ethical statements are objective truths" (Moral realism).
So explain to my how this ideology is self-referentially incoherent.
Some modern women who are victims of the latest 'feminist movement' like to think that they are empowered and refer to themselves as 'dangerous'. Do you have any idea what they are talking about? I am having a problem figuring this out. If these women are so 'empowered' then why are they so dependent on the system to take care of them?
Do you think maybe the children that they are having, most without steady fathers apparently, will be as dependent as them?
Enlighten me with your feminist wisdom.
This should be one of the shortest threads in history. LOL
If the women in the thread keep running around the room with their arms flailing around like crazy women a la George Costanza in the Seinfeld, Coco the monkey epsisode, ..then they're just keep going proving their points in that the radical feminism and herd/hive mind mentality is a problem.
If the men in the thread keep running around the room with their arms flailing around like crazy women...they just keep going proving their points in that trying to subjugate women and here/hive mind mentality is a problem.
An ideology is simply a system of values and ethics. There is no epistemological definition that states that "a system of values must contain more than one ideological truth". And even if there was, we can simply add another ideological statement alongside it:
"God exists" (Theism).
"Ethical statements are objective truths" (Moral realism).
So explain to my how this ideology is self-referentially incoherent.
She is not interested in a conversation. Just ignore her as you can see by her responses she's most likely very immature.
If the men in the thread keep running around the room with their arms flailing around like crazy women...they just keep going proving their points in that trying to subjugate women and here/hive mind mentality is a problem.
If you don't agree with someone's point...you do it intellectually, or you get no credibility or bonus points for your stance. That's how it works.
I don't see where he as attacked anyone or tried to gang up on anyone whereas as some of the women in the thread are trolling and trying to get women to gang up on him and others.
Even compared to some of the nonsense you've written in this thread, this reply is pretty appalling.
For example, if I post the link from earlier, categorically disproving your claim that scientists don't measure happiness, will it really make any difference? Somehow I doubt it. I think you know just how disingenuously you are behaving.
I'll also ignore the diatribe at the end (that has nothing to do with what I said).
Scientists can try to measure happiness, but in the end, happiness is subjective. Nothing you've said, no studies you've proffered can change the fact that happiness is subjective.
And I'm not surprised that you choose to ignore part of my post. When you can't refute something, ignore it and try to minimize it.
An ideology is simply a system of values and ethics. There is no epistemological definition that states that "a system of values must contain more than one ideological truth". And even if there was, we can simply add another ideological statement alongside it:
"God exists" (Theism).
"Ethical statements are objective truths" (Moral realism).
So explain to my how this ideology is self-referentially incoherent.
"God exists". Please tell us how this statement is a "system of values and ethics".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
