~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
[deleted]
[–]I_am_Norwegian 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
Let's not forget governmental and media reach. It's political suicide in sweden to say you're not a feminist. They control a lot of media and academia, so that they can say this with a straight face is insane. The amount of rationalization and mental gymnastics these people go trough is mind-boggling.
[–]Zeddikus 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Thing is, as report after report suggest, it is only mental gymnastics, because in Sweden, where feminism "Won", women achieve less than women from any other western society. Apparently, when you do all the heavy lifting and give both men and women the option to take off for being a parent, and have every sort of childcare option available, and payed for by the state, women choose to take advantage of it an be moms, and men do not take advantage of it and become kings of industry.
It is funny, really. Feminism won in Sweden, and the women there use those winnings to become traditional house wives. It is a laugh riot.
[–]Roulette88888 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
There's a Master's/PhD thesis waiting to be written here.
[–]HertzaHaeon 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
...men do not take advantage of it...
Swedish men's parental leave usage has been steadily increasing for a long time.
...and become kings of industry.
Higher education correlates with longer parental leave for men in Sweden.
...women there use those winnings to become traditional house wives..
The emplyment rates for men and women in Sweden only differ by a few percentage points. The number of working women is lower in both the US and the UK. It's noticably lower in less equal countries such as Japan and Greece, and noticably higher in more equal countries such as Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.
[–]Zeddikus 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
Women only work part time in sweden, and achieve less in the workforce, do not attain equal numbers of upper management positions as women in the rest of the West
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/do-women-really-have-it-better-in-sweden/article15552596/
While slightly more women are in the Swedish workforce, they only average part time. 73% of US women working avg 36 hours a week trumps 80% Swedish women avg 22 hours a week. See how that works?
What do you think those women are doing when not working? Ohh, that's right, housewives.
[–]HertzaHaeon -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
A significant majority of women work full time.
The average work time per week for Swedish women according to above link is 28.2 hours. Sweden is known for a much better work-life-balance than the US, so numbers are unlikely to be directly comparable.
Furthermore, the trend has been increasing worked time for women and decreasing worked time for men for several decades, despite the total worked time being constant for the same time period.
Personally, I like this trend because I think it's good that fathers are primary and higher earners in families. I thought had I read complaints about men working so much from MRAs, but maybe I misremember.
[–]Zeddikus -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link
I am not for or against it. If women want to not work as much, by all means, don't. I am simply pointing out, that in the country where feminism won, women achieve less professionally than they do in the countries where it supposedly has not won. Make no mistake, feminism today is about empowerment, because in every western country, equal opportunity is the law. Feminism is no longer about equal opportunity, it is about equal outcome. And in Sweden, that is only achieved by cooking the books through quotas, because when given a choice women choose to work less (regardless of reason) and thus have low rung positions in the workforce, because important positions are given to those (regardless of gender) who put work 1st. Women in sweden, overwhelmingly don't put work first, and thus, comparatively to other western women, achieve far less in attaining important positions. No one respects someone who only got the job because of a quota. Those women are little more than window dressing.
My entire point is that those in charge of feminist ideology hate the idea of women eschewing careers to become a homemaker. That is the antithesis of their goal of achieving power and control. Thing is, when all their demands are met (like in Sweden) of what will make it easier for women to excel in the workforce, those very women, still choose work/life balance over what gets one power in the workforce. Which is working all the time to achieve high status positions. Meeting feminist's whims about childcare, and extended parental paid leave, and flexible hours was supposed to create an environment where women would work more. In Sweden, where all of that was achieved, women work less, and achieve less, whereas men just like men everywhere else, even though they are offered the same perks, work far more and achieve far more than women professionally. Just like everywhere else in the world. Not because of inherent sexism. Not because women have too much on their plate (all this help alleviates that), but because when given a choice, men and women choose differently. Much to the chagrin of feminists.
[–]HertzaHaeon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The statistics I just posted show you that women work more and more, which contradicts your baseless assertions.
Female executives make up about 1/3 of the total and this proportion is slowly rising in both private and government arenas. There are no qoutas at work there.
[–]Zeddikus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Women work more and more, yet still considerably less than any other western nation. They achieve less than women in any other western nation, so much so they are moving towards quota's to cook the books.
http://www.thelocal.se/20130624/48648
[–]HertzaHaeon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The difference when worked time and employment rates is taken into account isn't very big, especially if you consider that we work less overall in Sweden because we're productive and have a better work-life-balance. Also, the 2/3 of women that work full time do achieve just like anyone else.
Those are discussion about quotas. They haven't been implemented yet. Quotas are sought by businesses themselves because they think they can be beneficial to the company. They're not "cooking books".
[–]AmerikanInfidel 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Maybe that's just their plan all along.
[–]zomgitsduke 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Still not enough.
It's political suicide in sweden to say you're not a feminist.
No, it isn't.
[–]mirazatha 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
"thats not having a voice, thats benevolent sexism!" /s
[–]Zosimasie 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
Funny, you never see feminists fight against benevolent sexism for women. I wonder why that is...
[–]TacticusThrowaway 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Oh, it'll be taken care of as a side effect of working on women's rights.
I really wish that wasn't a quote.
[–]mirazatha 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
happy cakeday!
This is an excellent counter-argument.
[–]typhonblue 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
What they're complaining about is that women's strength doesn't have a voice.
Simultaneous with that complaint they are promoting the biggest inferiority complex for women in history. The most comprehensive mythology of women's weakness to date.
Feminists are funny people.
[–]AtheistConservative 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
But if feminists stopped complaining, they'd cease to exist.
[–]FetusMulcher 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Isn't Google's technically a search engine?
[–]Roulette88888 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
With billions of hits a year.
[–]oishay 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It is a search engine that it the purpose of the website
[–]lillojohn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Techbically breast cancer is not a woman issue.
Edit: oops didnt read good. MEN get beaten too!
[–]dzamir -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Wow this subreddit is really starting to suck!
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes I agree, simply anti feminism is not mensrights material
[–]WatchDogx -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link
Bit of a strawman dont you think.
[–]lasertits69 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
A strawman is where you construct an argument your opponent didn't make and then tear it down and say "I won! I'm right!". What is the false argument OP makes/tears down and what is feminism's actual corresponding argument? How are they significantly different?
[–]WatchDogx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link
The assertion that feminists claim they don't have a voice in society, associates an argument to them that many or most feminists may not agree with. The OP then attempts to tear down that argument with the evidence of Google supporting the ribbon day.
[–]lasertits69 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
"Women get no attention or representation anywhere and women's issues are never highlighted"
If this is true, we sure would have a strawman. But from my gender studies course I can assure you that many feminists DO believe that women don't have an adequate voice in society for their issues. "Women's issues are stifled and invalidated" is a core belief in most feminist's version of feminism. You seem to remove these feminists from the group of true feminists and wind up committing a no true scotsman fallacy.
EDIT: I upvoted your OC since I think your comment contributes to the discussion and that is want the up/downvotes are for. It is important that we examine our own beliefs and statements to vet them of logical fallacies such as the strawman, and your comment has prompted us to do just that.
[–]WatchDogx 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
"Straw Man" to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
We dont have a concrete proposition that we can attribute to feminists in general. But lets say that the original preposition that a feminist might make would be "Women don't have an equal voice as men in society". The OP then replaces this reasonable preposition with a similar but absolute proposition of "Women don't have a voice in society". The OP then refutes this with the google screenshot. I would say that this fits quite well with the definition of a straw man.
[–]lasertits69 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link
I would agree with you but where is men's awareness google's? (not rhetorical, they may exist without me seeing them) Unless men's issues are getting more Google homepage dedications, then women's issues are given at least an equal voice and this screenshot still refutes the actual feminist statement. While your two hypothetical feminist arguments are significantly different, they don't lack parity in such a manner that the screenshot does not refute them both at the same time. If the tool used to destroy the strawman also destroys the original argument, then the original argument is still destroyed even though the author uses a strawman. For example: "The pro-military people just want to turn the world into a big battlefield and I am against that because killing is always wrong." Actual argument: "We should take the steps needed to defend ourselves, and that involves killing." By accepting that killing is always wrong, you tear down the straw man but at the same time tear down the real argument.
Also, it is possible for this pic to refute both statements but to still have the statements be true. For example: even if Google puts up women's awareness stuff all day erry day, yet nobody listens or donates, then women's voices really aren't being heard.
To reiterate, I have heard feminists make the unreasonable version of this claim in my women's history class and in professor office hours and in ethics classes. You commit a no true scotsman if you say that "true" feminists don't make such unreasonable claims.
[–]WatchDogx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Having a sexist link on the google homepage doesn't refute the argument that women have less of a voice in society than men. It's certainly evidence against it, but its not nearly enough to refute such a general assertion. Personally I am disappointed that google publicly supports a sexist cause. But I don't think making up straw man arguments against it does anything to further the cause of mens rights or gender equality, especially when it's just a repost with some shitty editorial literally 3 hours after the original was posted to the same subreddit. If people are going to take this subreddit seriously we need to hold its content to a higher standard.
[–]lasertits69 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
While in and of itself not enough to completely refute either assertion by deductive logic, it does serve as a useful premise in the argument and represents something that feminists who claim voicelessness will have to reconcile with their claims. The most you could argue against this post is that it is useless since it only presents an incomplete argument and then draws a conclusion.
And I will reiterate once more that its strawmanness is irrelevant if the voicelessness argument was actually made, which it was. Even granting that it is a strawman (via a no true scotsman fallacy), the pic does act as evidence against both the strawman and the "true" feminist argument.
[+]SiliconRain -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
The OP is essentially saying that the feminist argument is "Women get no attention or representation anywhere and women's issues are never highlighted", which he has torn down by showing a high-profile instance of a women's issue being highlighted.
But that's not exactly a feminist argument; it's similar to what a feminist might say, but it's not actually a position that a feminist would realistically defend, hence it is a straw man.
[–]lasertits69 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
You are yet to show that the "real" feminist argument is significantly different from "Women get no attention or representation anywhere and women's issues are never highlighted" in a manner that invalidates this picture as counterevidence. A straw man has a significant difference that makes the two statements lack parity in a way that the tool used to destroy the straw man does not also destroy the original argument.
If the realistic feminist position is at all similar to "Women get no attention or representation anywhere and women's issues are never highlighted," then high profile cases of the opposite are very valid counterpoints.
Besides that, you seem to be making a distinction between what a feminist might say and what position they would actually defend. If they know that what they might say is indefensible, why do they say it?
Further you have a bit of a no true scotsman fallacy going on here by saying ("sure it looks like a kilt a scot might wear, but the scots I know only wear kilts made of wool shaven in the spring. No true scotsman would wear a kilt of autumn wool.")
EDIT: For the record I know nothing of wool, sheep, or when you shave a sheep.
[–]Roulette88888 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I can see where you're coming from, but Google is one example of many institutions that will promote/raise awareness of days/months such as this one.
And there's nothing wrong with them doing that.
The problem arises when Feminists continue to argue that women have no voice in society when governments/institutions not promoting this will attract attention from Feminist groups.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]I_am_Norwegian 24 points25 points26 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zeddikus 20 points21 points22 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]Roulette88888 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HertzaHaeon 6 points7 points8 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zeddikus 3 points4 points5 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]HertzaHaeon -1 points0 points1 point (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zeddikus -1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]HertzaHaeon 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zeddikus 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]HertzaHaeon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AmerikanInfidel 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]zomgitsduke 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]HertzaHaeon 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mirazatha 28 points29 points30 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]Zosimasie 13 points14 points15 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]TacticusThrowaway 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]mirazatha 6 points7 points8 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Roulette88888 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]typhonblue 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]AtheistConservative 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FetusMulcher 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Roulette88888 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]oishay 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lillojohn 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]dzamir -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]WatchDogx -2 points-1 points0 points (10 children) | Copy Link
[–]lasertits69 9 points10 points11 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]WatchDogx 0 points1 point2 points (5 children) | Copy Link
[–]lasertits69 5 points6 points7 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]WatchDogx 2 points3 points4 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]lasertits69 2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]WatchDogx 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]lasertits69 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+]SiliconRain -6 points-5 points-4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]lasertits69 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Roulette88888 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link