Something which feminists need to learn

[–]RatsSewer 229 points230 points231 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoeBender1 193 points194 points195 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]420weedscopes 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotsopeculiaR 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]420weedscopes 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotsopeculiaR 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]420weedscopes 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotsopeculiaR 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]420weedscopes 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]votebleach2020 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It really depends on what kind of coaching staff you have and what socioeconomic environment the team is set up in. When I was playing football in high school, there were five other schools in our league that we had to compete against. My school was more of a blue collar upper middle class school, there was one that was more white collar, another that was blue collar middle class as well, one that was way above our skill level but also blue collar middle class, one that was poor as shit and had trashy parents supporting the program butt the coaches encouraged a different work ethic on their players and then there was another school that was straight up ghetto trash. Guess which high schools grilled their players on a regular basis to not play dirty? The first five. Guess which school allowed their players to play dirty? You guessed it. The ghetto trash one.

[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Holmfastre 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bcmonke 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Holmfastre 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coach_DDS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ReunionIsland 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamnathandrake 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sbaker777 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]youreallmeatanyway 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]RatsSewer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]amberclad 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 79 points80 points81 points 9 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]thePINKavenger 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thePINKavenger 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SaiHottari 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lackofagoodname 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Donnough 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Donnough 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

private companies only care about profit margins

Fucking exactly. Profit margins don't discriminate based on race, gender, etc. You don't like what a business is doing, you stop giving them money. They change or lose profits/go out of business.

How the hell would you stop the government? No amount of blocking highways or voting in other corrupt politicians will get them to change anything.

Also business can't break into your home, government can.

Not to mention you're not entitled to having some all powerful entity care about you. It's not the fucking government's job to provide shit for you, that's your responsibility. If you think any government as a whole cares in the slightest about its people, I don't know what else to say.

Also

we only have to look back a couple centuries to see what business does when the have all the power

Yes, so the solution was to break up that power. Why then should we give all the power to the central government and expect different results? Especially when the government has as much power as it can vote in. Stop giving them power.

[–]Donnough 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well businesses have and still do discriminate against people. Overtly by race just about 50 years ago and now happens based on sexuality. That's also to ignore less obvious cases, but you know what stopped overt racial segregation? The government, not the businesses which didn't go out of business or change anything until regulations came in.

You stop the government by voting, protesting, etc. I'm sure you would tell the unions in the early 1900s, the Civil Rights movement, women's suffrage, the American Revolution, etc. that there is no way for people to change the government, right?

Also business can't break into your home, government can.

I don't know where you are from, but in America they (the cops) can't without a warrant or if they see some shit going down.

It's not the fucking government's job to provide shit for you, that's your responsibility.

Again, don't know where you're from, but America was founded based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are human rights that are secured by the government. So in America it is the government's job to care about you.

Yes, so the solution was to break up that power. Why then should we give all the power to the central government and expect different results? Especially when the government has as much power as it can vote in. Stop giving them power.

Are we better now with the government having power over corporations, or were we better back with corporations having near unlimited power?

[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You know what also caused segregation? The government.

And yes, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (property) was part of the declaration of independence (not a legal document detailing how the government would work by the way, just justification to break away from England). That means you're free to live your life, not that government will provide your life for you. It doesn't literally mean life in the sense that government is required to provide a living wage, free college, and healthcare.

And yes, government stepped in and put a stop to horrendous working conditions and monopolies (not so much with the monopoly part, but still). That was a legitimate role of government.

And if you haven't noticed, protesting doesn't mean shit anymore. We protested the outcomes of an election for weeks in case you don't remember. They're not listening. And just because someone stands at a podium and promises everything "the people" want, doesn't mean protesting works. If Obama is anything, he's a good representation of what happens. As soon as they're elected, they do what their funders tell them to. Not what the people want. Another good example of that is Hillary Clinton, who pretends to attack wall street while picking up checks from those same damn people.

And if I have a choice between trusting my unalienable rights to those pathetic snakes, or just not giving them the power, I'll choose the latter.

1 act of government power being good does not make all of them good. And most of the time, you never get that power back.

[–]Donnough 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So what? You're idea is to give all the power to large corporations and go back to the age of monopolies (but probably worse this time since they would have more power)? All of your criticisms of the government apply to corporations too. I mean, who do you think the "funders" of politicians are? They certainly aren't other politicians. The fact is that corporations don't do anything to help the people unless they are forced to, while the government does do good for people.

And if you haven't noticed, protesting doesn't mean shit anymore.

With that attitude it never will. It takes more than a couple weeks of protesting to change anything, you have to show them that you really mean it. Especially if it is something as big as changing the electoral process. Real talk change is slow and doing the right thing is never easy. It takes months or years of protesting to change things, and sometimes people will die. All successful protests were a long and hard struggle, during the union strikes people were beaten and killed by the Pinkertons and they had to send their kids away so that they didn't starve during the strikes. Black people in the Civil Rights movement were regularly beaten and killed by the police or just angry white people. If they gave up because "protesting doesn't mean shit anymore" like you did what do you think would happen? We would probably have far worse working conditions and have worse civil rights. But throwing your hands up in the air and giving up because nothing happened after a couples weeks of light marching didn't change anything shows that you don't really care that much.

Really, what do you propose that can replace our current system of government and be better?

[–]lackofagoodname1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, I'm saying don't give power to anyone. Both business and government act in their own interests. Giving power to a corrupt government is worse than a corrupt business, but they're still both not in our best interest.

My attitude of "protesting doesn't work" comes from our pathetic uses of it. Don't like the outcomes of an election? Protest. Enraged that a criminal (who is black) is shot by a cop (who is white)? Protest. Someone doesn't agree with gay marriage? Protest like annoying twats.

The civil rights movement worked because people came together civilly for a just cause. When you turn protesting into shouting "what do we want (dead cops) when do we want it (now)" on busy highways as people try to get to work, is when the power stops listening. That's not coming together for a just cause, that pathetically petty, divisive, immature, unintellectual bullshit.

I guess the better thing to say is protesting works when it's done correctly. When it's overdone by a bunch of god damn idiots, not only are their protests uneffective, but any protest begins to get clumped in with that.

And my proposal is that the government is run like it's fucking supposed to be. Judges don't write laws, they interpret them. The president doesn't abuse their ability to pass executive orders to simply bypass congress. Anything not explicitly granted to the federal government is left to the states (where protesting and public opinion would be much more effective). Small business is actually allowed to grow and compete (meaning don't tax them out the ass and put regulations on them that prevent them from expanding).

Believe it or not, following the Constitution actually works.

[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Donations aren't necessary for charities to work. Just look at things like Humble Bundle. It raises money for charities and developers by appealing to our greed. Charities that have things to offer us in exchange for our money will thrive. And those who fail to raise money will fail, leaving room for other charities to move in and take their place.

What is a "livable wage"? Is it enough for a young adult with no debt to live in a studio apartment working 50-60 hours a week, or is it enough for a single mother to raise her two children while working 40 hours a week?

The money for higher wages won't appear out of thin air. That increase in wages will be subsidized by the lower and middle class shoppers who go there to save money. Walmart is helping a larger number of people by keeping their prices low rather than paying no-skill workers more than their jobs are actually worth, and forcing the shoppers to foot the bill.

[–]Donnough 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The amount of money raised doesn't matter when most of it is wasted due to the bloat, inefficiency, incompetence and corruption of government. That money has to pass through 5 different redundant federal and state departments, padding the wallets of rich overpaid government assholes the entire way through, before it makes it to the people who actually need it. If you give that same amount of money to a privately owned charity minus the too many layers of bloated bureaucracy, don't you think that money is going to be able to help more people?

And I hate to break it to you, but if you take all of the dividends the Waltons make from their stake in the company and split it up between all of Walmart's (and Sam's Club's) current employees, that doesn't doesn't come close to allowing for the kind of wage you are talking about. We're talking about an almost negligible amount of money when split between 1,400,000 employees. If the minimum wage of Walmart employees was raised to $15, for example, almost all of that cost would have to be passed on to the shopper. The cost of living goes up for everyone, meaning effectively EVERYONE ELSE gets a reduction in pay to accommodate the raise given to Walmart employees.

What do you think happens to the number of jobs available in that scenario? Do you think a Walmart greeter is still going to be employed if they cost $15 an hour? Do you think they are going to have 5 isles manned at $15 an hour when 1 or 2 can accommodate the customers at a slightly slower rate? And how much do you think it will cost to replace those employees with kiosks within a couple years? What happens to all of these career Walmart employees when there are fewer jobs available and many more people competing for said jobs due to the high wage?

And you didn't answer my question. Is that person an adult living in a cheap apartment, or is it a single parent raising children? Is it a college student paying off $50k worth of student loans? Just how much of your financial burden can society reasonably be asked to bear for you?

Charities are better than government because they are more efficient, more competent, and more trustworthy. If you think government is any of those things then you have not been paying attention.

[–]Donnough 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The same type of bureaucracy and corruption can exist in any group, even charities. It is not just limited to government, so no I do not think that using charities instead of a government is the right solution. Sure our government has problems, but those are not inherent in the system. Getting rid of the government for there being corruption and bad politicians would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I imagine the Walton family is making crazy bank off of their dividends being that just Jim Walton is worth $32.9 billion, Nancy Walton Laurie is the lowest with $4.2 billion, and their entire family is worth $124.3 billion. I imagine they make enough to cover the difference. But that is also excluding all of the executives, the CEO makes 1,133 times the median worker's wage ($25.6 million - $22,591). I imagine that the other executives make a similar amount. Lowering executive pay (a person does not need that much money per year, and can't even spend it all anyway) and cutting into some of their profits (which I feel is safe to assume is very large, if not ridiculously so) should be able to pay the workers fairly. Raising worker pay leading to raising costs of the product is a very common myth that these corporations like to tell. The fact is that they want to pay their workers as little as possible and charge as much as possible to make the biggest profit they can. When they really have so much money to spare that they don't really need to raise prices. It's a win-win situation for them, because if enough people buy that excuse they can pay their workers like shit, and they can raise the price of their goods if they have to pay their workers more, either way they make more money and no one is mad at them for it. This is all also ignoring the impact of good workers, if you pay them well and treat them well you will get the best workers and that is good for a business. I do find it interesting that you talk about "overpaid government assholes" and how the government can't be trusted, but don't seem to have a problem with corporations doing similar things.

To your question about a livable wage, I feel that the phrase is pretty self-explanatory. A livable wage is a salary that allows a person to live in that area without needing assistance (government or otherwise) or another job while working full time. This would include the cost of housing in the area, food, health care, etc. The minimum wage was designed to be just this, when pegged to inflation it should now be around $20 per hour, and companies seemed to survive then and I'm sure they can survive paying their workers fairly now.

I guess I trust the government to do this because the system can work, look at Denmark's social programs which seem to be doing just fine or in Utah where they just gave homeless people houses and suddenly they drastically reduced their homeless population. Every person of voting age has a say in who is in the government, we can change policies and vote the politicians out of a job if we don't like them, and we can see a lot of what the government is doing; while we don't have a say in the boardrooms/even know who makes corporate decisions, for-profit companies are beholden to profit not people, non-profits right now are chronically underfunded and usually scrambling for enough money to exist which I don't see changing if we follow your plan, and it has been proven in the past that having corporations in charge of the public hurts the average person more than a government in control will.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Brusanan 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's more like a sale. Developers still get paid. They get sales that never would have happened otherwise, and it is also advertising for their game. Humble Bundles can appeal to developers for purely selfish reasons. Plus there is the Humble store, where games are sold at market value and a cut of the sale goes to charity. You can also see that as the store being charitable, but it is also a selling point: it's a reason for consumers to choose that store over a competitor, and you can guarantee the "selfless" act of donating a portion of profits to charity will bring in plenty of free advertising all across the internet, and garner plenty of loyal repeat customers.

Either way, that was a response to the concerns of individuals not being charitable enough to donate to keep charities afloat. Nobody is arguing that charitable organizations need to exist (wasn't that my argument in the first place?), but charities already have a business incentive to exist. It's everyone else who needs more incentive to give to charity.

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Henniker 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Henniker 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bufedad1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xsp4rrow 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DOOM___IFHY 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod[M] [score hidden] 9 years ago stickied comment (10 children) | Copy Link

[+]SRSLovesGawker -16 points-15 points-14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

The problem I have with it isn't that it's a meme, is that it's incorrect. To have equality of opportunity, one has to have equality of outcomes of the things leading up to the opportunity.

Consider two children, one born to a poor family and one born to a rich family. The rich kid, broadly speaking, will likely have superior access to a stable home, nutritious food, more-than-adequate lodging, more likely to have a stay-at-home parent or more time to interact with parents in general, reliable transportation to school and other required locations, additional non-scholastic cultural and educational opportunities like travel to exotic lands, high speed internet and "always on" gadgets like smart phones to have constant access to the world's collected knowledge, few roadblocks to making or maintaining friendships, etc.

The poor kid is, again broadly speaking, more likely to not have a stable home life, subject to food, shelter, sleep and safety inadequacies. Opportunities that require money are going to be difficult to acquire and will have to be 'triaged', or gone without. Travel opportunities are pretty much nonexistent, as are hours spent with parents (or, often, the sole parent), and so on.

These kids both make it through public school, and are now looking to go on to college. Yet despite now both having an opportunity to attend college, you cannot reasonably claim that opportunity is equal. One kid has a clear advantage.

So how does one 'equalize' that opportunity? Well, you have to equalize all the disparities in the inputs. More money for the poor kid, or less for the rich one. More and better food for the poor, or less and poorer for the rich. More access to parental time for the poor, or less for the rich... etc etc. As we see, some of these solutions, while they result in more equality, can be considered deeply unethical: it takes someone truly dedicated to the ideal of equality to be sanguine with the idea of "less attention from parents for those with an excess" as a solution to inequalities of parental care.

The only real equality of opportunity is strictly equality of opportunity under the law, in that Anatole France style: "The law, in its majestic wisdom, prohibits the rich and poor equally from begging in the street, stealing bread or sleeping under bridges." This is practical, and I would suggest the only really enforceable equality that doesn't go into insanely unethical territory, even as it highlights the disparity of fortune to those subject to it.

I'm a fan of equality of access and opportunity under the law, but full equality of access, which would require full equality of outcomes, is something that I argue is neither possible to practically achieve nor desirable given the messed up things that'd need to be done to get there. See: post-czarist Russia, Maoist China, the Kibbutzim and other communes that required children be surrendered to the community for raising, et al.

[–]mensmod 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Coach_DDS 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SRSLovesGawker 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but how is dropping cash on a kid who, say, has been chronically underfed his entire childhood going to result in equality of opportunity? He'll still be shorter, he'll still have the psychological and neurological effects, just with a fatter wallet. It may help in some small way because those effects can result in him having less earning potential today, but it's not a solution, only a band-aid (and one that doesn't really band-aid particularly well either).

This is the point I'm trying to make -- for there to be equality of opportunity, there has to be equality of outcome of all the things leading to that opportunity unless you're only talking about equality of opportunity under the law and not social equality. I'm in favor of equality of ^opportunity under the law: noone should be turned away from an education because they're black, or female (or white or male for that matter). Opportunity based on merit leads to the best outcomes imo and judging based on the merit required to do the job/succeed in school/accomplish task xyz should optimally be the sole comparitor.

Of course, in the real world, we have things like 'equal opportunity' legislation which is, in fact, exactly the opposite... it's expanding opportunities for people not based on merit, but on their membership in what may be considered disadvantaged groups. Trying to force an equality of outcome (success in applying to college x, getting job y) where on the merits alone they wouldn't succeed.

^Edit: ^Typo ^Fix

[–]Fucky_Thirstboi-16 points 9 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mensmod 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rebecca-x 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]balancedhighs 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rebecca-x 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]balancedhighs 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chip_Clydesdale 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bryanpcox 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Source_or_gtfo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nybo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_divided_by_0- 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]buyingcoachtix 117 points118 points119 points 9 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]_____username____ 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamMANCAT 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thesimen13 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]lackofagoodname 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]subzero_600 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]crimsonkodiak 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]gamercer 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]gamercer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wickedogg 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It's not just like. Separating by gender is more similar to separating by skin color. It's not an important distinction.

When wrestlers are separated by weight, there's a huge bit of physics behind the division. As an extreme example; pitting a 100lb wrestler against a 400lb wrestler would not only be uncompetitive, but would very likely result in serious injury or death.

When runners are separated by distance, it's a matter of training and mechanics. You'd no sooner pit a sprinter against a marathoner than you'd pit a monster truck against a Formula 1 car.

The only reasons to separate male and female sports are:

Preserve traditional inter-gender modesty (e.g. no wrestling T&A-grabs)
Carve out a niche for generally less physically-capable females to compete, while barring less physically-capable men from participating

Honestly, I can think of very few institutions which are more blatantly sexist than gender-locked sports.

^Disclaimer: ^I ^was ^a ^6'3" ^240# ^HS ^American ^Football ^player

Think of it this way: The tallest and/or most athletic boys get to play HS basketball, if they'd like. The almost universally shorter and/or less athletic girls also get to play HS basketball, if they'd like. But...the 5'2" boys almost never get to play HS basketball, regardless their athleticism.

Instead of segregating by gender, it makes a lot more sense to segregate by more sensible characteristics like height, weight, age, or gauges of speed, strength, dexterity, flexibility, etc. That's how motorsports work.

[–]wickedogg 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrdnsln 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jrdnsln 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]PacoBedejo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gross oversimplification. You can't turn a sprinter into a marathoner of the same ability just by changing the training. Different length races require different body types to excel.

I'm well aware. I wasn't trying to be thorough in the comparison. I felt it obvious enough to most readers.

And the end result would be that men dominate all sports. It's not just strength but men have better spacial reasoning and hand-eye coordination.

So? Why create a special category for an lower-performing group based solely on gender?

The problem is that the ceiling for peak female athletic performance is very low compared to the potential peak male athletic performance.

And the peak basketball performance for 5'6" males is very low compared to 7'0" males. It doesn't mean that some of them might not want to play competitively against people of similar ability.

This just sounds like equality of outcome. No one is guaranteed a spot on a basketball team.

I didn't say everyone needs to be on the same teams in the same games. If they're going to break out a special league for lower-performers...why must it exclude shorter and/or less athletic males? The taller and/or more athletic females sometimes play on the peak-competitive team.

[–]johhnytexas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bambooskeleton -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]HitlerHistorian 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]umbra0007 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rant2087 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bambooskeleton 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SaiHottari 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fengpi 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Canttakethewhyfromme 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluefootedpig 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluefootedpig -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]rebuildingMyself 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

tl;dr: NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!

I don't think anyone here thinks all women are some mindless automatons that seek out to destroy men. What we're concerned about is the reality that if a woman wanted to destroy a man, society gives her plenty of legal options to do so with zero consequences on her.

And as a pet peeve, I hope you realize at least in the USA, there are no quotas for AA.

Tell that to anyone that didn't get into Stanford with perfect grades because Stanford wanted to admit a muslim that spammed BLACKLIVESMATTER all over the application.

Or how about any firm above a certain size being screwed out of government contracts and such because they don't have enough women (whether or not they could do the job or not)?

But even in your response, you claim women are abusing loopholes, but ignore that some men do have privilege based on their genitalia. Yes, not all men, only a few, but I would venture to say it isn't 0.

So why is it evil to bring out that a few men get advantage because they are men, but a few women that get advantage means all women are doing it?

Yeah....the top 10% of men have privilege. As mentioned in my original post. However, it's not due to their genitalia. It's always been about wealth and connections, assuming it was given to him thanks to being born in the right family. A poor man that worked his ass off and became rich is not privileged other than a fucking awesome drive to succeed. I'll even grant you genetic privilege like taller guys more likely to be hired than shorter guys. Which is why they are in the top 10%. Your average woman has far more privileges in western society than your average man. A glass floor subsidized by taxpayers being one of them. Or how about non-butchered genitalia?

The only obvious privilege any man has over a woman is the privilege of registering for the draft.

[–]bluefootedpig -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Tell that to anyone that didn't get into Stanford with perfect grades because Stanford wanted to admit a muslim that spammed BLACKLIVESMATTER all over the application. Or how about any firm above a certain size being screwed out of government contracts and such because they don't have enough women (whether or not they could do the job or not)?

Show me where AA has any quota on it, it doesn't. There is in fact, no law that puts any quota on hiring. Those examples are sets of internal policy. Trump can decide to hire all male crews, there is nothing illegal there. A big company can decide to hire all men, nothing illegal.

What is illegal is ignoring an applicant because of their gender. So all AA gives is a way to sue a company that might be decriminalizing in hiring, if they can prove it. And showing that only men work there is not enough.

Tell that to anyone that didn't get into Stanford with perfect grades because Stanford wanted to admit a muslim that spammed BLACKLIVESMATTER all over the application.

maybe you believe it is because he is Muslim (which there is no protection for), or because he is black, or maybe, just MAYBE, it is because he has a HUGE record of community service and was extremely well qualified by his achievements alone. Maybe you should read up on the guy, or would you reject Bill Gates because he didn't write an essay you liked? You talk on getting respect based on achievements and not skin color, look at that guy who got into standford, and look at what he has done.

Yeah....the top 10% of men have privilege. As mentioned in my original post. However, it's not due to their genitalia.

Yeah, you might want to get out and work more. I have worked at jobs where the hiring manager has told me point blank he doesn't hire women. Period. I have had co-workers say things like, "we would love to hire women but they just can't...." name your thing. Any man will do, but a woman will have to prove herself. I say this coming from a very male dominated field (engineering), and these are my co-workers and hiring managers saying this. Imagine going to work at a place that feels because you have a penis, you are not able to do your job of thinking.

A poor man that worked his ass off and became rich is not privileged other than a fucking awesome drive to succeed.

I agree, do you feel the same about women who are poor and become rich as well? or do you feel that they cheated due to AA?

Do you think that no women being able to serve combat roles is not privilege? My daughter loves the military, wants to be on the front lines to save the USA from bad people... sorry dear, but you can't because you are a girl and the boys next you can't handle being in a foxhole with you and not raping you.

Let's go in to that for a moment. Tell me the privilege that is lacking in the military that allows so many women to be raped? I believe men being raped in prison is horrible, I hope you do to, but how do you excuse it in the military? At least in prison, it is fellow prisoners raping you. In the military it is your commander.

Anyway, I digress. My point was simply you are highlighting less than 10% of women, even if there is legal ways of screwing over a man. You are following the very fallacy that you are claiming feminists do. Feminists are bringing awareness of rape on a campus and you are feeling attacked because only a few men do. It sounds like the exact same as you saying that women are able to screw men over legally. How is bringing awareness of campus rape different than you bringing awareness to your issues? Remember that both cases highlight only a fraction of the people involved.

[–]ScottVandeberg 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I think you hit the nail on the head this is actually the most annoying assumption of feminism in my view: men start ahead of women regardless of other circumstances.

I've been homeless. My home life wasn't great. I didn't qualify for any scholarships for school and could only get loans. I grew up on a farm. My family members were pill junkies for a while. I would've loved to have the life of a middle class white girl. You mean to tell me that my accomplishments are worth less because I'm white and have a dick? I had to work 2 jobs to go to school. I had to deal with my dad during opioid withdrawal. I had to live out of my car at uni for awhile. I've had my clothes thrown out on the lawn by my step dad. I had on average $3/day for food for 2 years.

They can shove their generalizations about how easy I have it up their ass. My story isn't unique either. This narrative that men have it easier invalidates every single struggle we've been through, and that's why men are angry. That's why feminism is under fire. That's why people hate liberals and by extension Democrats. That's why people are pissed off.

[–]azzaranda 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ScottVandeberg 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fengpi 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Blutarg -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EricAllonde 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Autumnland 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]poopyfartsy 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]poopyfartsy 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]poopyfartsy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the issue for me comes down to how you measure success and how you achieve it. Some things should be judged on outcomes. EG everyone should be able to read to a level that allows them to function in society. I don't think it is good enough to simply give everyone the opportunity to learn to read and call that a success. If we don't have 95%-100% of adults at that level I think we have failed.

You don't have to force people to learn to read to get a high literacy rate. Although I think children's education should be compulsory. Certainly, it shouldn't be up to children to decide if they want to go to school. However, there are non-authoritarian methods for raising the literacy rate as well. Think more carrot and less stick. EG I think one of our politicians is proposing early release to prisoners who learn to read.

[–]poopyfartsy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyFingerPointeth 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GOpencyprep 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MyFingerPointeth 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GOpencyprep 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rumpadunk 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]thewindandrain 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wickedogg 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tinman3 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]iainmf 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]jaib9 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]d3gu 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SirTrumpSupporter 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]gmcalabr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So the concept is that if we measure everyone's outcomes and one gender clearly leads, then likely they started ahead of the other. I agree, force equality of outcomes is flawed. But it's harder to measure that and harder to report about that than it is outcomes. Outcomes are a sign, not the end goal.

One go a step more to the left and say that, in some cases, the outcomes will never be equal because gender itself (strength, height, etc) will never have an equal starting position. Because of that, it's not totally unjustified to work towards equality of outcomes because all humans benefit from our biological diversity. Not to say this all wouldn't be easier if we could have our same biodiversity without being a dimorphic species, but we exist because we are dimorphs. So it lays upon all of us to deal with the problems instead of just telling women "it sucks to be you"

[–]Jules_Elysard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Temperfuelmma 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ISOanexplanation 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ImaPBSkid 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PM_ME_HOT_GOATS1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]-redditardation- -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]wickedogg 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]-redditardation- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoeBender1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Electroverted[🍰] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alkomb 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Liv47 -22 points-21 points-20 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Liv47 -24 points-23 points-22 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Becks91 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Really? When you shit on men in AgainstMensRights they are more accepting?

There's a classic misrepresentative statement.

It is very clear from all your posts that you don't give a damn about issues men face.

It's very clear you haven't seen all my posts. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that people will only agree with you about some things, at best. Anyone who agrees with you on everything you believe is plotting to kill you and wear your skin.

TBH, the only men's issues that I don't particularly care about are alimony and prison. As such, I don't involve myself in those discussions. I focus my attention on things I do care about - and because I care about them, the last thing I like to see is people discussing it like a bunch of spoiled brats throwing their toys out of the pram.

I did the same with feminist subreddits... briefly. You can probably imagine why that affair ended early.

[–]Badgerz92 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

FYI: You appear to be shadow-banned from AMR.

That's looking like it's the case. I had a run-in with one of the mods a few weeks back that didn't go pleasantly. Perhaps that played a part. What a shame. Running out of feminist subreddits to get banned from!

Either way, how's that for a measured response?

It kinda sucks, but to be honest, how does it compare to being called every nasty name in the book, insulted, demeaned, threatened... I really do not care about downvotes. Look at my comment history here. If I cared about upvotes and downvotes, I would have gotten right the fuck outta here a long time ago.

I care about disproving the stupid, while letting the wise make their case. Threads that I comment on are ones that I care about, but are steeped in either bad information, or no information at all. Threads that I agree with (or at least don't disagree with) or whose content I don't particularly care about (we all have our "meh"s), I tend to stay out of.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Liv47 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

cuntsplaining

You're really going to have to define this for me, because like its counterpart, it seems to enjoy the status of "whatever the intolerant speaker wants it to mean".

Please explain me how quotas is beneficial to the society and how its fair to have a woman just because she is a woman?

I never said they were, and I don't agree that they are. You've made a remarkable leap in logic - it's just too bad there was nothing waiting to catch you on the other side :/

Remember, you instigated me to respond to you in this thread. I haven't told you anything about what I think on the subject matter yet. Of course, it likely won't matter much because you seem to have had this conversation with me already inside your own head, complete with all the feminist stereotypes that you can imagine.

I don't even know why I'm taking someone named "holyfuckingshit69" seriously. It must be the late hour.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]skunkboy72 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doriphor 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]geniice 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]quackquackoopz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hardcorex -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The wage gap exists because women have it pretty good.

Ironically, this is because of lingering sexist attitudes. Girls growing up are not encouraged to enter into heavy-labour trades, and boys are. Women are not expected to go to war when their country needs them, and men are. There is still a pervasive cultural attitude that girls are more special and we should not be risking them.

Evolutionarily this is actually sane, but we have plenty enough women to keep population at replacement levels and we are not going to go extinct if not every woman cranks out as many babies as her body can bear, so culturally we need to let this attitude go. People who truly care about gender equality should be working to fight the belief that every girl is sacred and must be protected by the more disposable men.

[–]bufedad -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]bufedad 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ether_reddit -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soundsaboutWRIGHT -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This is a terrible example. Men had a head start in this "race" all over the world. Women are and have been oppressed globally for centuries. "Women" are not given the same starting point. If you're married off at 9 to a 40 year old your opportunities are not going to be the same as your brother who was sent to school. If you're raped as a young girl and become pregnant you're not going to have the same opportunities as your brother. If you're expected by your family to have babies and cook, and they prepare you ONLY for that, you're not at the same starting point. Women are not allowed to become heads of many religions because they are seen as inferior. In fact all religions but very liberal protestant churches are lacking equal opportunities for women and men. Like I said. Terrible example.

[–]jaib9 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hazzman -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]valherum 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hazzman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The argument is that women aren't as interested in STEM fields because of cultural influence.

I guess the idea is that by encouraging more women into these fields you can offset the cultural influences that have always existed.

The reason they have always existed is, from an anthropological standpoint. Somewhat self explanatory, but thanks to modern technology may no longer be a requirement as the standard hunter/ child bearer relationship is no longer relevant.

As to WHY its necessary to have equal representation of men and women in a certain field. One argument that will continue to be raised is that of role models. Proponents claim that it will be difficult for women to feel like they can achieve something without a suitable role model in said field, someone they can relate to or imagine themselves being.

I'm not necessarily endorsing any of this, rather as someone who likes to debate these issues often with people of that persuasion, I am merely repeating the arguments I receive over and over and over again.

Starting the argument from a meritocratic stand point will inevitably lead you down the exact same logical path and the end point is what we are talking about now - arguably the most important, interesting and vulnerable aspect of this discussion.

Cut to the chase I say.

[–]p3ngwin -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Something which feminists need to learn
Author	jaib9
Upvotes	2619
Comments	220
Date	April 11, 2017 3:03 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/64oc2e/something_which_feminists_need_to_learn/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/something-which-feminists-need-to-learn.926263 https://theredarchive.com/post/926263

Comments