Leo has surface-level knowledge about modern feminism(maybe)

[Ibn Sina]

44 minutes ago, Shadowraix said:

. This kind of work is often transcending the pure focus of the survival of the self and to care about all life.

"All life"

And this type of work is creating MGTOW, 
men suffering double standards,
jobs getting to women, etc.

Have u suffered due to the  opposite end of feminism?
If men were not suffering, then it would be okay. But due to feminism, there have been artificial suffering in men.

So I have always found 2 kinds of people. Those due to luck, haven't suffered due to feminism, and those who have suffered due to feminism. Those who haven't suffered, think that feminism is good, it's about rights of women just like surfingwave was saying they deny all the bad things about it (like men cheating on women while men go to war) , then there are  other group of men who have , due to bad luck suffered due to feminism or they see the inequality in feminism. 
All life includes both men and women, you cannot sacrifice men and push women up. 

Again, I don't want people judging my character- you are saying this because you have had bad experiences with women, you haven't talked to women. 

Because that is not logical, that doesn't counter my arguements.
The reality is that there have been men who have been disadvantaged and wronged due to feminism (like my early school years).  Doesn't happen to all men.
So from that perspective, feminism has it's evil side which not all men see, and it is creating unnatural suffering in men due to double standards etc etc. 

And there are arguements like- feminism is moving higher from stage blue, to orange , yellow ?

Really? By depriving men of oppurtunities? By double standards? 50% property to women?

What about , men also do your best, women also do your best,  we are not restricting any of you with any laws, ready get set go, go to blue from turquoise as much as you want no one is stopping you.

But the current western feminism (according to my understanding, which may be wrong) is-

- 50% property to women.
- Double standards eg Rape of males, not okay to fat shame women etc.
- Job reserved for women although there is no restriction for men and women (may be this doesn't happen in US but I know places where this happen)

So I don't think it encompasses "All life" as you put it.

You can reply by talking about how feminism benefits men/is not bad for men.

I am guessing you will be saying this is 'not due to feminism'. Then give me the answer to each of my points, what is the reason for the above 3 things that I have pointed out if not feminism. Teach me.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Aeris]

38 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

HHHAHAHHA, Yes, very offensive to men. So what? I am also a man. But I have read many many many psychology papers, have had hours of experiences observing people, have read many posts in quora, and this is the educated opinion that I have formed. It's not like I wrote this just  because I wanted to. I am also a truth lover. And my observations have shown this, so even if you think this is wrong, then it's your own opinion if that makes you happy.

 

Good question. This is just experience gap. I have read many news papers, have read many such news (meaning the newspapers that I get). You haven't. That's why you don't have this opinion, I have. From my experiences this is what I have seen, you didn't have these experience. Ofcourse it's bit exagerrated, all I am saying is women cheat , when men are abroad and have heard hundreds of news like that.

 

 

 

Okay, ask them about what? Give me the questions and I will ask them. 

 Just give me the questions dude, and I will tell you word by word what you they told.

But it shouldn't be stupid questions like-

Is it hard to live as a woman?

Is it true that you are easily able to attract rich men, then men would if they were in your place?

I know what they will say. But all my conclusions are derived from my observations and my life experiences. So it's should be a better question that can really teach me something that I don't know.

 A woman saying "Yes it is hard, it is hard to get a job, it's hard because we have to get child birth, " and doing the researches , and having the life experiences  are 2 different things.

 

I did the same.

Try to draw a million point on a paper.

Circle 1000 of them.

Imagine no one have a clue about reality and 1000 of them like to spread all days their best 'scientific view of life' of course none of them base his knowledge on anything but 'absolute truth' not a perspective created by their life upbringing.

You is a point. Your brain focus on the basic beliefs as lenses on some of these points. Each random point formes your 'unbiased' worldview.

When we say science is shit. It is not an idea. It is pure solid absolute understanding of 'truth of life'. We all come from the same exact path than you. Eating billions of knowledges will not makes you truthful it only makes you another telling point on an Infinite Map of possibility.

There is no way to prove something unless experienced with your soul and body deep in the bones.

You know things with head. But reality is not a collection of cloud-model. Readings 1000000 science paper doesn't make any points. It only prove a story' a fantasy in the head of one.

Sure there is truth in science. But does it work on Logic or faith. Everything is pure faith- Logic is a belief. Not a godly rule. An illusion of sense in a chaos of nothingness. Absolutely everything is a cloud. When we told that the experience of a 'me knowing things' is a delusion. It is realised just as hard as looking the fire in the sky burn the retina.

This is a self belief about what the nothing is.

Do you think that Reading quora 100 years would makes your opinion stronger than everybody ?

[Ibn Sina]

3 minutes ago, Aeris said:

This is a self belief about what the nothing is.

Do you think that Reading quora 100 years would makes your opinion stronger than everybody

You have your belief , I have my belief. You think what you say is true because you feel it and say it so, I feel it, and have evidence and that is why I say it is right ( we are talking about on average women are beautiful than men). I have done my research, you just believe that is wrong with nothing whatsover. Does it mean I am wrong just because you believe I am wrong. This is my belief, and so is your belief, and I can say you are wrong. Still, who is right? you or me? 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

37 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

What's wrong with , just removing all meninisms and femininisms and do what we have to do? Why think- rights of men, rights of women?

This is what a dominant oppressive group would love. 

“Why think rights of white slaveholders and rights of black slaves? Let’s just do what we have to do”.  White slave-holders would haves LOVED that attitude.

It empowers a dominant oppressive group and perpetuates oppression.

Even today, this is a common frame a dominant group wants. For example, in the U.S. some people would say “Why have gay rights and minority rights? Let’s just do what we do”. Notice how this attitude is only embraced by an advantaged group and not by the disadvantaged group.

[Ibn Sina]

9 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is what a dominant oppressive group would love. 

“Why think rights of white slaveholders and rights of black slaves? Let’s just do what we have to do”. 

That empowers a dominant oppressive group and perpetuates oppression

But USA is not in that kind of society is it? People already know about human rights. Even if they(menninism, feminism) were removed, men and women are at even ground. So what's the need  of it? Only  if the pan balance was tilted should we raise voice, just like Simon de Beavoire, but now it's just powerplay.

Of course oppression should be eliminated. And USA people know when there is oppression. Why not just act on oppression whenever it arises, instead of making menninsm and feminism.

We need a  universal law against oppresssions and injustices, that eliminates all kinds of injustices whether it arises against men or women.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

But USA is not in that kind of society is it? People already know about human rights. Even if they were removed, men and women are at even ground. So what's the need  of it? .

Lol.

If you think the USA values equal human rights to the point no legislation is needed to promote and protect equal human rights, you don’t understand America. 

[Ibn Sina]

14 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Lol.

If you think the USA values equal human rights to the point no legislation is needed to promote and protect equal human rights, you don’t understand America. 

Okay. I also don't fully understand the situation.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Shadowraix]

54 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

So I don't think it encompasses "All life" as you put it.

I was referring to personal development work, becoming more conscious, not feminism itself.

All movements have their dark side. I mentioned in earlier posts about how a lot of woman are indeed toxic, but this toxicity didn't come from nowhere. Woman are constantly on the defense because they have to be. They get targeted a ton by men looking to gain, to be superior, to dominate. 

Moving woman's rights forward is not saying men's rights don't matter. People again often treat this as some vs thing. This kind of binary mentality is just furthering a divide. I think you would highly benefit by going on a place like Reddit and asking what western life is like for a woman and see what the majority description is like and figure out why they are fighting for rights and where they feel like they are lacking in it. If you'd like I would post it for you. It would make a good contribution to this discussion.

54 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

- 50% property to women.
- Double standards eg Rape of males, not okay to fat shame women etc.
- Job reserved for women although there is no restriction for men and women (may be this doesn't happen in US but I know places where this happen)

The property split on divorce only happens if you don't get a prenuptial agreement. By getting a prenup you can negotiate the divide of property before marriage.

I've seen the double standards you mention. Woman not liking to be objectified or gawked at but then go on the FB pages of many guys and gawk and make explicit comments towards them. This is something worth addressing I think. But I think woman act this way because the amount of unwanted attention woman receive is so great it puts a great deal of stress on them. The amount attention men receive is usually a fraction of that woman receive.

I'm not aware in the US at least of jobs being reserved for woman. Being denied a job simply for being male would probably go under discrimination. People in the US are *suppose* to be protected under law from being discriminated against by certain qualities like sex, race, religion etc.

Although one thing I notice you are doing is every awful thing a woman does your mind instantly goes to "this is why feminism is bad to some degree" We need to create the distinction here between a political movement to treat men and woman under the same ethical, political, social/culture, and economic rules and woman just in general doing awful things. I have not been wronged by feminism, I have had woman hurt me though. If feminism involves taking away something from me and giving it to the woman where the result is now even, then I am all for it. They get upset when we try to jump into the conversation because we truly don't understand the female perspective and try to push what we think about their perspective and call that proper feminism. We try to overtake the perspective of the group we are trying to help. Thats really bizarre.

Although that doesn't really mean I agree with actual equality. People usually refer equality as equal opportunity.  The rest goes to qualifications. I think all of this job reservation stuff is an attempt at trying to jump start woman and encourage them into bigger fields, but its not really something that could stay around forever.

Woman are grouping together because they are unhappy. Instead of trying to argue, and tell them what they are going through, we could actually listen and ask them how we can fix it. Then perhaps they will be much more receptive in understanding how we feel about issues if we stop neglecting how they feel to push our own. People are very diverse and making a blanket statements without consideration for nuance is calling for disaster. The majority of feminists in the US are just normal woman tired of having the system/people always interrupting their normal functioning of life. They want to just get on with it as much as we do.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Shadowraix

[Ibn Sina]

@Shadowraix 

This is what I call good logical , good discussion intended for learning and education, instead of insulting me with-  you have never met a woman, women don't like you etc just because I told bad things about them and they being too dumb to give good replies to my genuine queries.

Thanks for your time, and teaching me about these issues @Shadowraix

Edited August 16, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, smurf88 said:

I also think that everyone should be given an equal opportunity. But shouldn't inclusion be determined by ability/merit, and not identity politics?
If an Indian man is applying for a position at a company in India, and he's more qualified for the job than an Asian, shouldn't he get the job? Or should the Asian be given preference simply because people of his race are "underrepresented" in that country?

I guess if they were of equal value as employees, maybe could give the minority preference. But anything above that is overreaching.

The argument of merit-based opportunity is another tactic used by a dominant group to maintain their disproportionate influence. It is a form of conflating individual and population levels. For example, conflating individual racism without acknowledging systemic and structural racism.

At the individual level, we can say it is ethical to give a job to the most qualified candidate. If candidate A is more qualified than candidate B, candidate A deserves the job. Race should not be a factor. The dominate group would get very upset if a minority candidate B was awarded the job. They would yell ”Reverse racism!!!” At the individual level, this would be reverse racism. Yet the analysis at a population level is a different level of consciousness and analysis. This is the level the dominant group would fight so hard against. 

At the population level, we see that the resources for the dominate culture A are not proportionate with the resources for the non-dominant culture B. At the population level, culture A is advantaged and culture B is disadvantaged. Cherry picking within these groups is dropping back down to the individual level to evade/obscure the population level.

You are not seeing the problems associated with under-representation because you cannot see it from an under-represented perspective or from a meta view. If minorities suddenly had 90% of governmental and corporate power you would quickly realize the problems with under-representation. 

When one says “I think everyone should be given an equal opportunity”, both individual and population level must be considered.

As well, the dominant group will want to control the narrative on what “qualified” means. If you ask men and women, what traits make a good leader, you may get some different answers. Why should men have more say in what makes a good leader?

2 hours ago, smurf88 said:

This, too, is an oversimplification. What area of If you're saying that women experience more oppression as a whole (90% more than men) we should include real statistics of how women are being oppressed by men.

Real statistics are important here, not perceived oppression, which is subjective and gets into the territory of restricting free speech.

I used 90% as as a hypothetical “If”. I did not say women were subjected to 90% of sexism. I would say women are subjected to a disproportionate amount of racism.

Statistics are an important tool. My concern with statistics is that they are often misinterpreted and misrepresented to support an underlying view and agenda. This is often subconscious since many people are immersed, attached and identified within a personal view.

I find the studies you linked to be interesting. They are the type of thing that would have value in Yellow level discussions. However, the manner in which it is offered seems to be from an Orange orientation - in which statistics are being offered to support a personal pre-conceived view and oppose an imagined opposing view. In particular, what you present seems very much oriented toward a dominant group perspective. You don’t seem to be aware of this and unable to see outside this perspective. This sets up an Orange level “debate” in which one person supports/defends their view against an opposing view. Ime, such debates generally lead to more contraction than expansion and I find them to be inefficient and unproductive.

[mandyjw]

The reason that feminism has created a shadow is that it is based on giving women the same opportunities to be successful in a culture that already has masculine values. Leo is right, it's not feminism that is the problem, it's a necessary response. But feminism itself has already surrendered to the masculine paradigm and just isn't conscious of it yet. What we need is feminism 2.0, but that will require a higher consciousness society. Until then both men and women will suffer because of imbalance. Would you laugh at someone who washes out and puts a band aid on a scrape and say that it just has to heal on it's own? No, because even though it's true that it has to heal on it's own, doing the thing to ensure that it does heal is necessary and responsible. 

 

 

 

 

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

I have nothing against exceptional people from less dominant groups taking jobs from unqualified people in dominant groups, merit is merit.

Of course, that is how the dominant group wants to frame it! That is not my point at all. My point was at the systemic level.

And saying “merit is merit” also empowers the dominant group. The dominant group gets to decide what counts as “merit”. And they will try to frame things in terms of protecting their ability to decide what counts as “merit” or “qualified”. You are making assumptions that “merit” is some objective universal truth. It is not. It is relative and the dominant group has a very strong incentive to define “merit” because it empowers them to maintain control of disproportionate influence.

38 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

There is a distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. 

If a group genuinely has no opportunities, then they should be given access to opportunities, and then left to their own devices. I'm all for that.

But simply throwing resources at them when they don't have the infrastructure to handle it leads to a waste of resources. Ultimately, people at the group level need to take responsibility. Accepting handouts simply solidifies a master-slave relationship.

Again, this is from the perspective of a dominate group. Notice how you said if a group has *no access* they should be given. . . That is your bar? No access?! How generous of you ? 

As well, framing it as throwing resources at irresponsible people is another dominant group trope. For someone who genuinely wants equality, they may raise concerns - yet then offer ways to better reach equality. People that don’t want equality raise concerns but offer no better ways to reach equality. They will say vague things like “everyone should have equal opportunity” and leave it at that. There will be no substance and drive to reach that equality because they don’t want it. When the dominant group says “everyone should have equal opportunity” it’s a way to maintain the status-quo and maintain their disproportionate influence. Because the dominant group knows nothing will get done without their consent.

 

[Surfingthewave]

Thank you @Serotoninluv for your excellent moderation skills! Great knowledge and awareness here. 

@Ibn Sina I'm not quite sure if you quite understand what modern feminism is, looking at the resources you use, the papers you get and the questions you would like to ask women about the "difficulties they face". It's quite tricky to sum up thousands of years of oppression in a single post, and how that continues to play out in modern society.

I understand we have a differing of opinion however from what you say your upbringing may have been hugely influential in this so that might be something to look at in terms of how you have formulated your beliefs. 

[Leo Gura]

You guys should not even be talking about feminism until you've read 10 books about it.

So much foolishness in this thread that I can't even bother reading it.

Suffice it to say you have no historical context for women's rights and you have a massive male self-bias.

This problem can only be solved with serious study and education.

By all means be a man, but don't do it by creating an anti-woman ideology. Imagine being a man without being threatened by the success and empowerment of women. That's what true masculinity looks. A mature man would understand and support the basic aims of feminism. A juvenile man is thratened by it.

It's this kind of nonsense which is why I sharply criticize JP. He helps spread this cancer of the mind.

[Pouya]

@Robi Steel I see what you're communicating.

sometimes movements against racism sexism and gender oppression turns into the 180 degree way od the same problem.

Like under valuing straight or white or men. It's goddamn equality not sucking in the attention because you're not a white straight male. 

I see the solution as not giving a single fuck about these useless stuff. I don't care what skin color you have, or what gender you identify with and whether you're a man or a woman.

Simply stop giving a fuck people. Everyone is one with uniqueness. 

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, mandyjw said:

The reason that feminism has created a shadow is that it is based on giving women the same opportunities to be successful in a culture that already has masculine values. 

Along these lines, men have been able to define what has merit and what qualified is.

For example, if we consider what makes a good leader, the responses would be predominately male masculine - strong, assertive, aggressive at times, decisive, a strong negotiator, won’t back down, a winner etc. Feminine traits might be - a good listener, works well within groups, can see other people’s perspectives, empathetic, intuitive, flexible. 

What we we consider good traits for a president? I think it would be based predominately on masculine values and feminine values may be perceived as secondary, neutral or a weakness. 

[Surfingthewave]

6 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

For example, if we consider what makes a good leader, the responses would be predominately male masculine - strong, assertive, aggressive at times, decisive, a strong negotiator, won’t back down, a winner etc. Feminine traits might be - a good listener, works well within groups, can see other people’s perspectives, empathetic, intuitive, flexible.

You see I struggle even with this. Why do those traits mean they are masculine and why are they seen as "better"? I say a person who is the most authentic, inspirational, supportive, knowledgeable, experienced makes a good leader. That is neither masculine or feminine. 

[Shadowraix]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You guys should not even be talking about feminism until you've read 10 books about it.

So much foolishness in this thread that I can't even bother reading it.

Suffice it to say you have no historical context for women's rights and you have a massive male self-bias.

This problem can only be solved with serious study and education.

By all means be a man, but don't do it by creating an anti-woman ideology. Imagine being a man without being threatened by the success and empowerment of women. That's what true masculinity looks. A mature man would understand and support the basic aims of feminism. A juvenile man is thratened by it.

It's this kind of nonsense which is why I sharply criticize JP. He helps spread this cancer of the mind.

Yeah, the more I actually read what is being said here, the more I realize my understanding is the surface level one.

Until I do some in-depth studying on the topic perhaps a more listening than opinion formation approach is appropriate.

[Forestluv]

17 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

The systemic level is nothing more than the compilation of the individual level, repeated a million times over. It's pretty important to get the individual level nailed down, as everything else depends on it.

You haven’t reached a stage of consciousness at the collective level yet. To view a collective as a collection of individual parts is a contracted state of consciousness. Such a view is unaware of emergent properties. It would be like saying your consciousness is simply a collection of the individual consciousness of the trillion cells in your body. This fails to see a higher level of conscious - your emergent human consciousness. Here, you don’t see how a collection of individual human consciousness give rise to an emergent collective.

25 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

For the purpose of the argument I define "merit" as being able to perform the job. More performance = more merit.

Lol. What counts as “performance”? These are relative terms. A white man and a black women many have different relative ideas of what counts as “merit” and “performance”.

28 minutes ago, smurf88 said:

The individual who gets to decide what counts as "merit" in real life is the boss of the company. The boss does not collude with millions of other members of his race. He makes a decision by himself.  And if you don't like a boss's bias, there are other bosses out there. Or you can become one yourself.. 

You are seeing this boss as a separate, external entity. Again, you are not seeing inter-relations At more holistic levels. I’m not saying you are wrong. Rather, you are not seeing their levels. It is like looking at a map of Paris and not realizing Paris is within France and France is within Europe. It’s not like the details of Paris are wrong. It’s that one will not be able to see the inter-relationships between Paris, France and Europe. As such, one will be unaware of how the broader context of France and Europe affect the dynamics within Paris. Paris is not a separate, external entity making it’s own decisions. It is within a much more holistic system.

Another way to get at this, is that you are contracted within the proximal cause (the boss makes any decisions he wants) and are unable to expand outward to ultimate cause.

[Forestluv]

34 minutes ago, Surfingthewave said:

You see I struggle even with this. Why do those traits mean they are masculine and why are they seen as "better"? I say a person who is the most authentic, inspirational, supportive, knowledgeable, experienced makes a good leader. That is neither masculine or feminine. 

I just use the categories of “masculine” and “feminine” for convenience and because there is social constructs of masculine and feminine that have influence in society.

I agree that ideally we would value traits that make a good leader (although this becomes relative). Categorizing as masculine and feminine becomes a disservice when traits men tend to process, or expected to process, are labeled as “good” or strong and traits women tend to process or are encouraged to process are label “less good” or “weak”.

In the USA - of the traits you listed above -  “supportive” would be considered a “feminine” trait that is believed to be possessed more by women than men. Women may be encouraged, expected and allowed to be supportive. It has a submissive tinge to it. For example, I woman that is supportive of her husband when he screws up. For men, if they were supportive in a way that looked submissive, they would be considered weak by many people and judged harshly. Male leaders are often oriented toward “winning” against another. Male leaders tend to portray a sense of strength when showing support for someone in need. 

A lot of these social constructs have a long history. I suppose they can have some value in social structures over history, yet I see them as silly. I’ve dated a few women that were oriented toward social constructs and gender roles. I was supposed to have certain male traits and behave a certain way and she was supposed to have female traits and behave a certain way. To me it was silly and I couldn’t operate that way.