According to the dictionary, feminism is: "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"
For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income? Why should we have 'economic equality' among men and women? Men and women should make equal pay for an equal amount of work. They should not make equal amounts of pay regardless of whether or not they work.
I think it is interesting to note that Friedan herself (the mother of feminism, essentially) was a staunch Marxist.
What of 'social equality'? How will you achieve this 'social equality'? Are you going to ram this agenda down everyone's throat through government force, and social control?
According to webster online, the definition of fascism is: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"
Of particularly important note is the section that reads "economic and social regimentation". Keeping in mind that feminism demands both economic, and social equality of the sexes, this begs the question: 'how will you attain this 'social and economic equality'? Through use of the government.
Political equality is something women in the USA already have. So what is the purpose behind the feminist movement?
In light of these considerations, I am not a 'feminist.' I am in favor of equal rights under the law for all people, regardless of sex. Is this 'feminism'? No. Not feminism by definition, anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 21:00
>>1
"Of particularly important note is the section that reads "economic and social regimentation". Keeping in mind that feminism demands both economic, and social equality of the sexes, this begs the question: 'how will you attain this 'social and economic equality'? Through use of the government. "
And social regimentation through force. (fascism)
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-18 22:32
>>1 Good post, and great articles. No wonder all the feminists I know support the democrats (the socialists).
>>4
It's not feminism to worry about. It's the neo-feminists to watch out for, they're damn hard and stupid. By the way, that site's 'Nazi' symbol is actually wrong, it's a Buddha sign. The Nazi symbol is diamond-shaped, not square. That site loses.
Name:
Dick Grande2006-08-18 23:53
Feminists are losers that are not experiencing a massive stiff cock on a regular basis. I can help them.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 3:51
>>6 Probably the saddest thing I've read on this board, serious or not.
>>6
Though I would enjoy a stiff cock up my rectum!
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 4:19
>>8 OH FUCKS I GOT HAD BY AN E-OPPONENT WHO INSINUATES THAT BEING GAY IS BAAAAD! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
One can commonly get the measure of a human by the mental awareness and eloquence of her critics.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 5:46
>>5
"The Nazi symbol is diamond-shaped, not square. That site loses."
Big fucking deal, he turned it a few degrees to make a joke, shut the hell up.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 6:09
>>7 OH FUCKS AFTER REVIEWING THIS POST I'VE JUST REALISED I AM A HUEG HYPOCRITE LIKEW XBOX! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
One can commonly get the measure of a human by their ability to self criticise (i do so sorely wish to be a blonde 6ft scandinavian woman and not a 5ft sasquatch faced African American *sniff sniff*) critics.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 6:31
>>11 I'm actually a 181 cm redhead Swede who is growing a goatee. Yay. And how the hells am I supposed to "self criticize critics"? And isn't self-criticizm hyphenated?
Feminism, by definition, is incompatible with the ideas of liberty.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 7:26
>>15 By your definition, yes. The most intelligent feminists search for core cultural problems rather than trying to balance scales to make things look neat and symbolic. Your lame trolling is argument enough that one has to take the good with the bad with this. >>13 Feminazi, bushitler and so on. How much more can you people become wastes of human parts? Stop hogging the hydrogen and carbon, you faux-libertarian heterosexuals.
>>16
No one is forcing women to wear bras, I also fail to see what this has to do with egalitarianism.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 9:04
>>18 Oh your scope of the problem is absolutely mind-boggling. I am a convinced egalitarian now. My dick actually twitched when I read all that truth in one throbbing sentence. Mesmerizing.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 10:42
>>19
Thx, it is good of you to admit you are wrong. You see most women stopped being feminists once women got equal rights because there was no longer a need to push for women's rights, the real assholes stayed on and came up with stuff like "lol culture is sexist" because they made so much money selling bumper stickers when they were on the rise or something.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 10:54
>>20 You do provide amusement, I'll give you that for justifying your waste of elements.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 11:03
I think the worst battles for feminism today are rogue bouts of sexism in the corperate world and the divide of how sexually active men and women are seen as (one as a normal, even complimentary status, and the other as slut).
Otherwise, the rest of feminism is divided between extremists who wish to declare femal supremacy and a 'pseudo-feminism' which wants everyone to know that just because they have equal rights doesnt mean they need to use them and might not want jobs or anything outside of raising a family.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 11:07
Xel can't get into his head the idea that non-discrimination means not discriminating against anyone.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 11:08
>>23
Wow, what a terrible thought: everyone being equal? I shudder to think.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 11:22
I don't care about any of this bullshit. A dyke fem just needs to get fucked by the right guy. They are confused and frustrated.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 11:54
>>23 Not so at all. I mean, I don't believe feminism requires discrimination. feminism means a lack of discrimination for both genders, because they go hand in hand. "Oh feminists will want girls to get all the jobs just because they are girls and that is like discrimination anyway so they must be retarded. Lawl feminazis, because that is combining words." >>24 "Wah wah me, wah me wah, wah wah wah me me me. Feminists don't believe in equality and secretely they want someone to pull out chairs and open doors for them." >>22 The borders are far from that easy to outline.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 12:08
>>10
Can you back up your claim? Do you know the author of that shitty site personally? No. GTFO.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 12:27
Women should make equal pay for baking pies and cakes.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 13:03
>>26
Why the do you call it feminism then? Surely it makes sense to call your movement "gender-equality" instead of fucking around? Clearly you are a sexist. Also as a black disabled female immigrant from Chad with aids who has aborted 3 8 month old fetuses I fail to see what is wrong with culture, girls are doing better than boys in schools throughout the board, apart from big shot business, women by law must be paid the same and television is filled to the brim with white males getting kicked in the balls by women and white males always being figures of ridicule and the bad guys. Clearly if anything television gives an unrealistic view of white males. Possibly as a result of the reactionary idea that in order to balance thing we must heavy handedly discriminate against people who we perceive to have power. The only result of this is that white males who did not have a millionaire dad and were not given a position at college in favour of a superiorly qualified ethnic minority etc etc... get pushed down lower, whilst the actual racists and millionaires are unaffected and women and ethnic minorities are made to feel even more inferior and ridiculous as affirmative action doesn't solve their problems!
Stop being a feminist and start being pro-equal-gender-rights. Also if you REALLLLLYY think culture is sexist, start trying to ban segregated toilets and sports etc etc.. to prove you are not retarded.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 15:23
>>29 Okay, if you 'libertarians' get your boxers in a bunch over semantics we'll call it egalitism so that the founding fathers don't cry. Happy?
Also, the reason sports and toilets are 'segregated' is because that is an area were even "feminazis" consider biology to be the crux.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 18:35
>>30
Well, term feminism originally refered to women's equality movement, but in modern times it has evolved to mean female equivalent of chauvinists. Many people(including even females) consider it extreme and negative term. That's why you shouldn't really use it if equality is what you want.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-19 18:39
>>5
Bullshit. Manji(Buddhist Swastika) isn't inverted. Inverted Swastika exist in many cultures, though Nazis probably got it from Hindus. Having deep fascination with India(Hint: Aryan = Indo-European) and Tibet.
Name:
Xel2006-08-19 18:39
>>31 Semantics still, that is my opinion. I am a feminist who will always define my goals through facts and anlysis. Once I'm convinced that a goal is compatible, even synonymous with freedom, I'll act in favor of it and will subsequently trample anyone who can't argument back or tries to label me a reactionary.
>>33
Yeah but guess what? Your ideas aren't synonymous with freedom. Equality isn't 'synonymous' with freedom. >>1 is right. You can't be consistantly pro-liberty and be a feminist all at the same time.
>>36
We can't watch you because this is the internet?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 4:42
>>30
But surely we should be judged by our merits and not out genes? Why should men have to share toilets with people who enjoy splashing their shit and urine around. Not all men are uncivilised immature savages and I fail why we should be dumped in one group. I demand the right to shower and toilet with women!
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 4:54
>>36
It isn't possible. I'd like to see you justify forcing equality on people using the values of liberty and freedom.
Name:
Xel2006-08-20 5:21
>>39 Legislation is useless, it's like trying to shrink a tree to bonsai size when it's already big and doing quite okay. If you start of early, though. I know my analogy sounds restrictive and molding but I am not talking about anonymous job applications and making people dress unisex. Inequality is a situation with accumulated, complex causes and most intelligent feminists treat the problem as such. Unfortunately they meet resistance everywhere, so excuse them for not being perfect.
Name:
Xel2006-08-20 5:49
If you feel attacked by feminism, it is probably a counter-attack anyway. I dislike the marriage-hating, generalizing, symbol-loving, doomsaying, "LAWL Let's kick-em-all-in-the-groin!!!" hypocrites too but they are not the majority. Feminism as an idea is still justified, but it may not be used as a shield to hide pro-statism and unneccesary legislation.
You keep repeating this, I'd say it's time you backed it up with some proof now.
Name:
Xel2006-08-20 6:19
>>42 15 % of the elected national chamber seats in America have female butts on them in 2004. 49 % in Rwanda, 45,3 % in Sweden.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 6:20
>>40
Most of said feminists support affirmative action, among other things, which are completely inconsistent with the ideas and values of liberty and capitalism. These ideas are fundamentally unamerican. People should be free to do as they please, and hiring should be on a voluntary private basis, in which the government has no say at all.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 6:24
>>43
Women have voting rights. Just because there are more males in the government doesn't mean there is cause for concern. Females have equal rights, and the system is relatively free and hands off. What more do you want than equal rights? Are you not going to be happy until employment is exactly 50/50 man/woman, and that the government is completely 50/50? People have voting rights, and they have the right to vote prejudicially against women if they want. Anything short of giving them the ability to do this is denying them representation in government, which is against the very the fundamentals of democracy and self-government. It is denying people representation in government. It is un-american.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 6:36
The statistical effects of the equal rights laws will take decades to come into being. we can see the process beginning now. Most doctors are in their 30s and 40s and there are many non-white and/or female doctors, however in politics and big business you need decades of experience and a high level of education and most major positions are held by people in their 50s, 60s and 70s and women in their 50s, 60s and 70s were not afforded the same opportunities.
Margaret Thatcher is a good example, she was a brilliant leader, she toppled the soviet bloc saving god knows how many lives, freeing millions and ranks as high as Abe Lincoln, Washington and Churchill. The fact she was a woman in a high position proves that she was indeed there because she was a person of extraordinary intelligence, which fits in perfectly with my hypothesis and it should since my hypothesis was induced from the facts so it must be true.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 6:50
lol feminazi
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 7:04
>>46
So give them decades. Fuck affirmative action.
>>48
Affirmative action is just a typical heavy handed unthought out response by the government, but it is with good intentions. You see the problem socialists have is that they are immoral, but the people generally have a sense of morality, so they have to distort reality in order to get people to support what they want. People need to realise that the real solution is libertarianism and voting libertarian.
>>52
Why do they have to be female? The worker's ability to operate machine tools determines how effective their steel working skills are, not their gender.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 10:57
>>53
But clearly the absence of women in the steel worker business is a sign of gender discrimination. Some feminism is urgently needed here.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 11:58
Well, obviously women don't have what it takes to be politicians either
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-20 21:09
>>54
There are many industries in which women are not very regularly seen in. This is not necessarilly a sign of gender discrimination, and feminism is not needed.
Speaking of female politicians & feminism, I was pretty disgusted to hear a few feminists saying they were going to vote for the governor we have of our state now, for no reason in particular other than that she was a woman, and that 'we need more women in the government'. I guess they fail to see that this is just as sexist as those who would vote against her for the sole reason that she is a woman.
Equal rights are already here. The feminism movement is old, outdated, and needs to die - or at least to move to countries where women are /actually/ oppressed (note: the USA isn't one of them.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 6:14
>>56
"I guess they fail to see that this is just as sexist as those who would vote against her for the sole reason that she is a woman."
Yeah. If there was a political race between a man and a woman, and I voted for the man over the woman just because he was a man, and said so, everyone would be like 'ZOMG SEXIST CHAUVINIST PIG!'
I guess when feminists do it voting for a woman just because she is a woman, its OK, LOL!
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 10:50
>>54
It does not prove discrimination is occurring, it just states that discrimination may occur. If someone prefers an underqualified man over a qualified woman discrimination is occurring, that is proof since the chances of a board of 3 people involved in the decision making such a foolish mistake is next to 0. However if you have no proof that this has occurred, there is no proof that discrimination is occurring.
>>56
Correct, >>51 is correct and people should vote libertarian as they tend to be more congruent with people's reality.
I am aware that women have been severely discriminated against by men for 1000s of years, but I prefer egalitarianism to feminism. If the definition of feminism is the same as egalitarianism, then the majority of women who claim to be feminists certainly do not act as though they are feminists.
Libertarians by definition must open themselves up to criticism, thus contradictions such as this are few and far between. Not that it doesn't happen, no human or political opinion is perfect, but at least libertarians do not claim to be perfect.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 10:51
>>61
Correct, >>51 is correct and people should vote libertarian as they tend to be more congruent with people's morality.**
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 12:21
>>56
>There are many industries in which women are not very regularly seen in. This is not necessarilly a sign of gender discrimination, and feminism is not needed.
Good. Then the absence of women in management and government isn't necessarily gender discrimination either.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 15:10
>>63
You should have read and understood my point. Disproportion in gender distribution doesn't prove discrimination is occurring, it means there is a higher chance of it occurring and if discrimination is occurring it doesn't tell you where and how discrimination occurred. Employers could be simply choosing the best person for the job on a meritocratic basis, whilst the real reasons for discrimination lie with the education given during the 50s and 60s.
>>64 is right. Disproportion in gender distribution does not prove discrimination is happening.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 19:50
Feminism in a nutshell: a bunch of fish-smelling dykes with military haircuts who want to fix supposed sexual inequality by treating men like shit and becoming lesbians.
P.S.: Sexual inequality still exists, but now it's the other way around. Women:
- Decide who to fuck, when and how.
- Decide who to date, when and how.
- Decide who to marry, when and how.
- Decide how many children to have, when and how.
- Decide how to spend money, and are the head of the family.
- You have to be constantly making money for her, buying things and being a pussy if you don't want to get dumped the very second you show the barest sign of not being a completely pussywhipped slave.
- Women also get the most attention and help from males because of the remote possibility that they could lay any of them.
Let's admit it guys, our dicks made us slaves of women. Even though we are more mature emotionally-wise, more stable mentally-wise, and rational (not "more rational", just "rational", as opposed to fucking crazy, irrational bitches), we get wasted and pussywhipped by these stupid, illogical and obnoxious whores just because they can fix our biological need. Goddamn my dick. (And no, I'm not fucking a man, my dick wants whore, not fag.) I wish I were asexual. (And no, I'm not chopping it off.)
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-21 20:19
Women can make a lot of money very easily when they are at the ages 18-35.
>>43
So women aren't popular politicians. So what? You can't tell people what they can do with their votes.
Name:
Xel2006-08-22 4:16
>>66 Oh yes, feminists approve of these inequalities. THEY. WANT. TO. GET. RID. OFF. ALL. GENDER. PREJUDICE. Rape is the result of men's sexual 'inferiority' to women, and educated, sensible feminists realize that the special treatment women get goes hand in hand with the special treatment men get.
"Fish-smelling dykes". Not all anti-feminists are idiots, but all idiots are anti-feminists.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 5:19
>>70
Excuse me, but where are those magical feminists you speak of and why do you think they represent a majority of today's feminist movement?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 5:46
>>70
You still have not addressed the fact that feminism and liberty are incompatible. See >>1 and >>2.
>>71 Yeah really, maybe I just have not seen any "sensible" feminists yet, but I have no clue what he is talking about. I honestly doubt if they even exist - and if they do, I have even greater doubts if they represent any kind of majority within the feminist movement.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 11:09
"For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income?" - WTF? No you would not, just a lack of bias, which, by definition, would ensure economic equality. >>39>>35
Are you retarded, or trolling?
No society is totally free. In anarchy, one person limits the freedoms of another any time they want. In a classless democracy, one person's freedom would be limited by being unable to gain more than the next person (presumeably by taking it from them somehow).
Equality limits freedom.
Lack of equality limits freedom.
Here, you are not free to treat a woman like you would your dog and prevent them from driving on the basis of being a woman. That is a limit on your freedom.
In Saudi Arabia, THE WOMEN'S freedoms are limited by the men doing the things described above.
You can't NOT limit freedom, so your argument is a Doug point.
In conclusion: Your logic is retarded. Equality is better.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 11:45
>>73
"For 'economic equality', would you not require a Socialistic government that then redistributes income?"
"WTF? No you would not, just a lack of bias, which, by definition, would ensure economic equality."
And how are you going to achieve this lack of bias? If you use any kind of force or government program to achieve it, which is part of the feminist agenda, it isn't compatible with liberty.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 12:03
>>74
Did you read the rest of the post? Also, you act like equal pay is some horrible travesty being forced upon employers. I'm talking about fucking true egalitarianism. Not that that is the point. The point is the REST OF MY POST THAT YOU APPARENTLY DIDN'T READ.
I'll summarize it: You pay one person less than another, you limit their freedom. Someone makes you pay people without bias, they limit YOUR freedom. Conclusion: humans living in societies limit their freedoms inevitably. If you have a model where people's freedoms are not limited, yet they still coexist as some sort of cohesive group working for a common good, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 12:06
>>73 here, woops, missed large part of this thread, so I am addressing >>72 as well.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 12:09
Whats the point of calling it "feminazi" feminism is as communist as it gets. The women or nazi germany where dedicated to stay home and rasie their chidren.
>>74 " If you use any kind of force or government program to achieve it, which is part of the feminist agenda, it isn't compatible with liberty." If these insidious programs you speak of do not force employers to affirmative action but instead try to move cultural barriers to equality out of the way, it is only incompatible with libertarian policy (the market will do anything and no money should be spent!) and that is not the same thing. Forcing employers to pay all employees equally is a stand for liberty, not against it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 13:42
>>79
What measures to "move cultural barriers" do you support?
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 14:09
In order to move cultural barriers, unbiased education is needed. Also, there will have to be a deeper separation of church (responsible for subjugating women and gender roles) and state, since the two are slowly fusing together into one major dingpot. At least in my opinion.
Name:
Xel2006-08-22 14:13
>>80 I dunno, I'm but 17 and the upper echelons of feminist thinking and social sciences are undiscovered for me. All I know is that I don't approve of feminism just because it is labelled 'feminism', but that things need to be done. Affirmative action - stupid. Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes. Feminism doesn't mean what social conservatives tells you it does.
Name:
Xel2006-08-22 14:13
>>82 "Feminism doesn't mean what social conservatives tells you it does." Fuckery grammar.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 16:01
>>83
Clearly you are too used to writing shopping lists.
Name:
Xel2006-08-22 16:24
>>84 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAA that wasn't funny.
>>92
>By the way, male feminists are known as pro-feminists. :/
The word you're looking for is 'self-hating castrates'.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-22 20:01
>>94
I believe you mean phrase. Since that's more than one word. Troll, get the fsck out.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 20:18
>>95
Yeah. I added 'self-hating' later and forgot to change the sentence.
Also, eat a dick, you feminist scum.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-22 21:11
"Men of little mental caliber, self-esteem and openness of mind often uses a man's dick as the only defining characteristic. It is predictable, non-threatening and unbelievably sad." - Quoted for the truth. Please don't let your dick lead you, little boy.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-22 21:19
Forgot to mention, what makes you think I'm a feminist? I haven't stated my position, nor have I made many posts. Before you act out, you better weigh your claims and back yourself up instead of making yourself appear idiotic. Tsk tsk tsk, only little, ignorant boys make insults that have something to do with genitalia. Please, save yourself any further trouble by throwing yourself off a cliff.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 22:19
>>97
I'm so sorry that feminists cut off your dick and you're jealous of the other guys now who still have theirs.
>>98
>Forgot to mention, what makes you think I'm a feminist?
The fact that you're such a huge faggot.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-22 22:55
>>99
You don't know what for gender I am, don't just automatically assume what people are over the Interwebs. Under what bases am I faggot to you? You have nothing to back yourself up. You made your own defeat here. GTFO.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 23:06
>>100
Y did U let teh f3ministz cut ur dik off? Don't U need ur dik? LOL
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-22 23:40
equality = feminism ?!?!?!
wtf, if i want to advocate equality i dont want to be called a fcking feminist! I HATE YOU PMS BITHCES FOR RUINING EQUALITY!
Also, alll women should be eligible for REQUIRED drafts and the selective service! EQUALITY GOES BOTH WAYS BITCHES
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 0:59
>>95 Goog going, Kumori. >>102 "Also, alll women should be eligible for REQUIRED drafts and the selective service! EQUALITY GOES BOTH WAYS BITCHES" We have here an encyclopedic definition of trollfail. Women who try to join the American Army are raped and harassed by the enrollers, their superiors and their compatriots. Americans can't even provide acceptable cultural atmospheres for its women when they are ready to die for it. You have failed and so has your nation.
>>103
After reading your military comment I don't believe that your dick was cut off anymore. It probably shriveled up like a dried out earthworm and crawled back into your body out of shame.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 2:32
>>99 is the biggest asshole on these forums and the way his asshole got so big in the first place was from letting it get reamed by hairy-chested PE teachers. I'm sick of his stupid faggot ass running off at the mouth like his cheeks are filled with man ranch. I'm sick of him just blurting shit out without backing it up and daring to call it a "debate".
>>99, do us a favor you jizzfuck dickwipe....END YOURSELF.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 3:32
>>79
"Forcing employers to pay all employees equally is a stand for liberty, not against it."
Using force or coercion to do anything is not compatible with the ideas of liberty. The idea behind libertarianism is to force them to do only as much as is necessary for the preservation of their other freedoms. Affirmative action, and forcing employers to give equal pay is a sick violation of their rights. If I have 10 dollars, and I decide I want some work done, and I hire out workers, I can and should be able to pay them whatever I want, provided they agree. This is entirely voluntary, and if they don't like it, they don't have to take the deal. The government has no place in economics but to tax away the sum necessary to provide police, court systems, and a military to provide for the common defense. Everything else should be left up to private individuals. The right to property is the right to use and disposal as you please. This includes the right to pay someone to do work, provided they voluntarilly agree. This also includes the right of the employer to say he will pay certain classes of people less, for whatever reason if he wants to. It is his money. Said classes of people don't have to accept the bargain, if they don't want. Using force or coercion to manipulate wages is not libertarian. In a free society, all interactions outside of those practically necessary for the preservation of this relatively free state are to be done in a manner that is free of coercion and violence. This includes employee-employer negotiations.
>>75
"Also, you act like equal pay is some horrible travesty being forced upon employers."
Forcing an employer to do something against his will with his property is a violation of his property rights, regardless of whether or not you see this action as morally right.
"I'll summarize it: You pay one person less than another, you limit their freedom."
Employers and employees both have a right to engage or not to engage in trade or in employment as they wish, provided it is voluntary. Forcing employers to do something with their property, or to manage it a certain way, regardless of whether or not you see it as 'moral' or not, is wrong. The only exceptions to this are that you are not allowed to use said property in a way that violates another individual's rights. For example, you would be allowed to purchase a gun. You would not be allowed to use said gun to shoot someone, or use it to force them to do things. This would obviously be against the law. As long as said activity doesn't cause direct harm to another individual, it should be allowed, within reason. This obviously includes the right to engage in voluntary trade with other individuals, provided it is voluntary from both sides, employer, and employee.
"Someone makes you pay people without bias, they limit YOUR freedom."
Yes they will. Part of your freedom is the right to property. The right to property entails the right to use and disposal, as you please. To tell someone they cannot do something with their property if that action does not harm another individual, is violating their right to use and disposal of said property (their rights to property.) A right is a freedom of action. You are violating said freedom of action when you violate their right to use and disposal of said property as they see fit.
"Conclusion: humans living in societies limit their freedoms inevitably."
An employer who discriminates against his employees is not limmiting their freedom in any way. It is not their property, and it is thus not their choice to decide what to do with it, until it has voluntarilly shifted hands from employer, to employee. The employee is not forced to take the bargain with the employer, and is free to take his labor elsewhere if he pleases. Since it is not the employees freedom of action that is being limmited, his rights are thus not being limmited, and he is thus free. Your ideas are wrong.
"If you have a model where people's freedoms are not limited, yet they still coexist as some sort of cohesive group working for a common good, PLEASE LET ME KNOW."
>>82
"I dunno, I'm but 17 and the upper echelons of feminist thinking and social sciences are undiscovered for me."
You might want to try out the writings of that Marxist Betty Friedan.
"All I know is that I don't approve of feminism just because it is labelled 'feminism',"
Really? It sure seems like it.
"but that things need to be done."
Yes. Restrictions on business and private action need to be removed entirely. Employment should be made entirely voluntary. All minimum wages need to be removed. All obviously unnecessary laws regarding private transactions and business should be removed, such as laws that force employers to pay employees specific wages, or to pay wages they may not agree with to employees. We need to restore Capitalism and private property rights.
"Affirmative action - stupid."
I agree.
"Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes."
Part of your freedom is the right to property. The right to property entails the right to use and disposal, as you please. To tell someone they cannot do something with their property if that action does not harm another individual, is violating their right to use and disposal of said property (their rights to property.) A right is a freedom of action. You are violating said freedom of action when you violate their right to use and disposal of said property as they see fit. This idea is incompatible with liberty. Wage and price controls in general are a violation of individual rights, and should be abolished at once.
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 4:21
>>108 When you void part of a person's ability to earn a living because of their phenotype, you void your own birthrights. If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 6:56
>>109
"When you void part of a person's ability to earn a living because of their phenotype, you void your own birthrights. If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future."
No individual has the 'right' to business with another person. Business is something engaged upon by voluntary consent by both parties. If, for whatever reason, another party does not want to do business, or changes his mind, it is his right to do so.
"If libertarians think that discrimination is a right, I am not a libertarian. This may change in the future."
It has nothing to do with whether you are pro-discrimination or not. How does one have the right to property if they don't even have the freedom to negoatiate wages with other people uninterrupted or intruded upon by the government? The ability to trade freely and peacefully with others in a voluntary manner, whether you discriminate or not is a basic human right. If I was selling cookies on a street corner, and there was a kid I didn't like who came up and wanted to buy a cookie, should I be forced to sell it to him regardless of my dislike? Obviously not. It is my property, and I can withdraw from the bargain at any time I wish. Deals between private individuals must be entirely voluntary at all times. Anything short of this restricts the right to property - a basic human right.
If that doesn't help you, there is a form there where you can ask questions, and they post them up there on said page. Go to the "ASK YOUR QUESTION" area, and you will likely get a nice educated libertarian reply to whatever qualm you were having with libertarianism. You will need an email address.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 9:24
>>107
Why is that post so long? Your answer to everything is:
Step 1) Become an employer
Step 2) Job opening
Step 3) Hire Person1 - Offer pay, tell noone else what it is
Step 4) Hire Person2 - Offer pay < Person1, tell noone else
Step 5) Pretend it's okay, despite Person2 knew no better
Step 5) ??????
Step 6) Profit!
You are trying to claim that bias/discrimination is okay as long as the person either doesn't know about it, or has no choice because all other employers are doing it. People don't spontaneously decide they want to be payed less than the next person. When this happens consistently to people who have something like gender in common, it is called discrimination.
Also, that link doesn't answer my question.
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 10:29
>>111 Facts, reasoning and data leaves me defenseless and gladly ready to change my mind. Thank you.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 11:31
>>111
Mmm, nothing like ordering answers like a Happy Meal from McD's.
Too many penis-loving, l33t-speaking children on this thread..
fem·i·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fm-nzm)
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
I can't believe these boys' penises are getting hurt just by the NAME of something that is good. So what if it has 'fem' in it? It's still good. Don't get your penises caught in a knot.
Umm, thanks? XD
No need to rub it in, some people just don't know how to be mature and non-hostile like cavemen.
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 12:50
>>115 Kumori is at it again, what with her "commie-sources" and "dyke-reasoning". You "libertarians" are obviously not insulting her enough. Then again I doubt your 'insults' will ever rattle her for a second. You can measure a human by the accuracy, credibility and intelligence of her critics, to a degree.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 12:58
>>82
>Allowing women to prosecute employers if they pay inequally - fuck yes.
Uh, excuse me, but since when does everybody in a company earn exactly the same amount of money? Even men in the same position will usually earn different amounts.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 12:58
>>115
"I can't believe these boys' penises are getting hurt just by the NAME of something that is good. So what if it has 'fem' in it? It's still good. Don't get your penises caught in a knot."
It has nothing to do with the name. As a libertarian I have strong aversions to any kind of increase in government power, for whatever reason.
Haha, you have Internet in the kitchen? What the fuck.
>1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
>2. The movement organized around this belief.
Reality check plz.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 13:23
>>118
There are libertarian forms of feminism you know. Despite what Jerry Falwell would like you to think, all feminism isn't limited to baby killing, man hating, Marxists.
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 13:39
>>120 You do not have a penis any longer. Laughing Audibly While Revolving on the Closest Horisontal Plane oh Diety of Mine!
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 14:04
>>120
Forcing tolerance and social equality onto people through use of the government doesn't sound very libertarian.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 14:06
>>122
You're a fucking idiot. Did you even read the post?
I don't let insults build a wall in front of me. As long as I'm speaking the truth, providing facts, and backing myself up, I really don't have anything to worry about. Especially from Internet twats like >>96>>99>>101 , since they dig their own graves.
"Haha, you have Internet in the kitchen? What the fuck."
Actually, in the living room. *sigh* Kids.
">1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
>2. The movement organized around this belief.
Reality check plz."
Reality check.................done.
I won't move a micron from my stance on feminism.
Name:
Xel2006-08-23 15:21
"Those whom use insults have a primitive mind." Well, this isn't the most serious of forums. I think that if insults are backed up by some objective scrutiny of a failed post a little amusing slander isn't that bad. Using prejudice against a person's phenotype or his/her various alignments can go out of hand, however.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 19:22
Cry more, bitches. You don't get jobs in management because women are simply too retarded for that, and this thread clearly shows it.
At least you can fuck Xel in the ass with a strap-on.
Name:
Kumori2006-08-23 19:48
>>125
Amusing is one thing, but balant idiocy is another when the moron doesn't have backing.
>>126
I find that to be quite a troll since women are more educated than men in this day and age, more women also get through college than men. The only thing stopping women now is the glass-ceiling effect when it comes to higher positions.
...
And men are too retarded to take care of themselves and feed themselves properly without a doormat wife.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 20:58
>>127
Bullshit. The reason men and women make different amounts of money disproportionately favoring men is because all the worlds greatest entrepreneurs were men. Bill Gates, Mr. Walton, all men.
Men are more aggressive, and I think it has something to do with the fact that they are willing to take risks more often, and do unsafe things that they are such better entrepreneurs.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-23 21:31
>>128
Yeah, the statistics are blown way out of proportion due to the fact that the top most richest people are men. Taking the top layer of rich people off, would, I think, reveal that men and women aren't all that unequal.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-25 20:37
>>127
lol @ extremist feminists. I always knew you hated men at your core.
"And men are too retarded to take care of themselves and feed themselves properly without a doormat wife." -Radical Feminist
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-25 22:39
This thread is filled with teenage boys who hate women because they can't get laid.
"You're a fucking idiot. Did you even read the post?
gb2/sucking falwell's cock/"
Yes actually I did. He was trying to say feminism is compatible with liberty, and it isn't. I was pointing this out. Feminism is not consistent with liberty.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 0:44
>>131
This thread is filled with women who are too ugly to make $100 an hour lapdancing and feel vindictive.*
fix'd
>>132
And you completely missed the point that there are different KINDS of feminism. Some of these are compatible with liberty. Such as individualist feminism.
>>135
And you completely missed the point that >>1 was making, that 'feminism', according to the dictionary, is anti-liberty. You have yet to address this. Unless, of course, you feminists aren't going to advocate government intervention into the economy or personal lives of citizens in order to attain your goals and promote your feminist agenda, which is incidentally what the majority of feminists have been doing over the years.
>>134
Good link! Friedan was a bitch, and it doesn't surprise me that she was so anti 2nd amendment, anti self-defense, and anti gun. Liberals tend to be that way - and Friedan was a Socialist/Marxist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 7:37
>>137 Dictionary is not same as reality. If dictionary was true then today conservatism not suck as much. Government is not anti-liberty if not preventing people things. Cultural tweaking not necessarily involve regulations. Equal rights are not issue, boundaries in minds unscalable without arbirtrary influence.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 8:00
>>137
Okay. So as said in the first post, the dictionary definition of feminism is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."
Excuse me, but where the fuck do you see "FORCE THEM INTO EQUALITY!" in there?
Does achieving this equality require the use of government force then, as >>1 suggests? NO.
That is certainly one (and incorrect) way of doing it, but not the ONLY way. Another way, the liberty compatible way, is simple advocation. Do you know what advocation means? It means to encourage and support.
Individualist feminists 'advocate' feminism in the same way I 'advocate' people not being complete and total idiots. As much as I might encourage and educate them into being an intelligent and rational person, it is still their choice to remain a complete and total idiot. Just as you can't force someone to be intelligent, you can't force them to treat the sexes equally, but in the mean time you can certainly tell them that they should without making it law. This is what liberty minded feminism is about, changing society WITHOUT government force.
Amazingly, the first poster had a link to one of these liberty minded feminist groups, Ifeminists.com, but apparently didn't take the time to read what they were about.
>>1 came to find feminism to be anti-liberty by definition simply by his own stupid and narrow thinking. Don't understand? Let's try an example.
In the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, it states that the militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Necessary? Oh, that means we MUST have a militia, which means every single person MUST own a gun and train with it regularly whether they want to or not. But that would require government force, oh no. I'm in favor of people being able to own guns for themselves if they want, but this is obviously not what being pro-gun is about. Because there couldn't possibly be any other way of looking at it, I have detemined that being pro-gun is just anti-liberty and fascist bullshit.
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
As we can see, the feminist movement has very vague implications in that it could be either individualist or collectivist. However, clearly, the trend is to be the latter rather than the former. Just look at all the affirmative action and equal pay laws we see. Forcing employers to pay women the same wages as men against their will is pretty a pretty fascist/communist thing to do. You can 'advocate' individualist feminism all you want, but the vast majority of feminists achieve their agenda via legislation - aka ramming it down our throats through government.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 8:29
>>140
Agree, it isn't -necessarilly- fascist, but often enough it is that I don't think it would be inappropriate to label most feminists as fascists/socialists. Yes its a generalization, but its a largely correct one.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 8:44
>>140
The post was just to challenge >>1 and >>137 who seem to believe that feminism cannot be pro-liberty.
As for your point that many, perhaps most (I'm not sure if this is true) take the collectivist and anti-liberty interpretations. Well, so the fuck what? That's WHY you advocate the individualist type of feminism, to drown out all the communists. Or do you just want to let them have their free reign and be unchallenged? Or are you scared that calling yourself a feminist will make someone think you're a Marxist? Oh god no, now you'll have a chance to actually educate someone!
For all the feminist hatred going on in here, there sure do seem to be a lot of pussies around.
Saying you're not a feminist because many other individuals who call themselves that don't agree with your ideas of it is just stupid and funnily enough, collectivistic thinking.
Name:
Xel2006-08-26 10:58
>>139 Guffawing Audably Oh Divine Entity That Belongs to Me no feminists are like that and you have no penis.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 10:59
"Saying you're not a feminist because many other individuals who call themselves that don't agree with your ideas of it is just stupid and funnily enough, collectivistic thinking." Fucking non-fail. Have an internet.
I believe the majority of these guys just hate feminism because of the name itself. It has 'fem' in it. They judge the book by its cover without understanding what it means and what's inside.
fem·i·nism (fm-nzm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
I don't see anything wrong with that.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 12:11
Feminism also sucks because it attempts to bring "equality" to the United States - but we already have it. Feminists see "men" making more money on average than "women" - note the quotes - since these are generalizations. Thus the women percieve there to be an imbalance, and show statistics showing that women make less money to some degree on average than men, yet fail to see that the incomes are blown far out of proportion by the fact that so many of the worlds richest people are men, thus slanting the scales in their favor. They they push for further "equality" which naturally comes at the expense of men who are already payed more or less fairly.
Not to mention all the dumb feminists who vote for female candidates for office just because they are female - avoiding the fact that they are then just as anti-men as the anti-women crowd who would vote against said female candidate solely on the grounds that she is female.
Here is where you all say "but not all feminists are like that, lol". This is true, but the thing is is that the vast majority of feminists are. This would be like me saying "liberals have no regard for the 2nd amendment". Obviously, there is some degree of truth in this - though it is a generalization. Likewise, the same concept applies to feminists and feminism. While there are some good ones, unfortunately "feminists" are generally bitches like I mention above, and this leads me as well as many others I know to resent them as a group.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-26 12:14
>>139
Too bad, facts are that fascist feminazis outnumber the "individualist feminists" by such a huge degree, that many of the generalizations I have about feminists are more or less accurate.
Nowhere in the definition of 'collectivist' does it say I would be judging people by groups. Collectivism mentions leftism, and collective ownership (communism/socialism), but fails to give any mention of judging people by groups. You fail.
>>151
The modern feminist movement doesn't really have anything reasonable to counterattack, since women have equal rights. Feminists should shut up, or at least work on a country that ACTUALLY* abuses women. The USA isn't one of these countries.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 10:22
>>156
The US is hostile towards pregnant women and mothers. Women are also raped exponentially and abused by their own comrades in the military. Refuted.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 11:35
>>157
The US is not hostile toward pregnant women and mothers. It is not allowed in our nation to rape or abuse women in our military - this is illegal. Nice try.
"2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity"
You = collectivist
Quit being a baby and just admit to it.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 12:40
>>160
That is only one definition. There are two. One of them would entail the certainty that I am, at least to some degree, politically collectivist, and one would not necessarilly. Given that this is a 'politics board,' I think it is pretty reasonable to make the assumption that you would be referring to the political definition, which I did. I am not a 'collectivist' in a political sense.
Furthermore, if you can't draw a probable conclusion from past events, and notice similar traits or aspects of past actions, and predict what will happen when similar things manifest themselves in the future, you are just a dumbass.
If 999/1000 feminists you know advocate expanding the government, and one more feminist comes up and begins to argue with you, what do you suppose he will advocate? There's nothing wrong with noticing certain traits that tend to accompany others in individuals, and drawing generalizations of people like this.
Furthermore, you are inconsistent in your criticism. If I was sitting here bashing Bush, and I said 'neo-conservatives are corrupt assholes' based on some things I think I know of them - you wouldn't give a fuck about it one way or another, and wouldn't say shit, regardless of the fact that I am making a generalization. Now as soon as I say 'feminists are feminazi bitches who want to ram their agenda down my throat,' you have something to say about it, and call me a 'collectivist scumbag.' Hmm.. inconsistency, and bias.
So? I don't see how this proves what you are saying. The NRA existed long before our gun rights were under serious national attack, and the simple fact that the NRA exists doesn't mean that our gun rights -are- under attack. (I'm not saying they aren't, just using this as an example.)
Give me a *specific* link to an article proving that the USA generally hates women.
"It still happens."
So? It is illegal. Your average american isn't 'anti-women.' We have equal rights for women here. Buy a firearm, stop voting for democraps who will disarm you, and learn to protect yourself.
If we didn't have all these anti self defense people in office, nobody would think twice about you shooting a rapist who was trying to assault you. Quit whining & learn to take care of yourself.
"1/100 men are raped and 1/10 women are raped in the military."
Well, your buddy Xel seems to think that men raping women is resultant from gender inequalities that *men* experiance. In fact, I believe I remember him going so far as to say that *any* intelligent feminist would know this. Hmm...
Furthermore, this doesn't prove that your average american is 'anti-women' or 'hostile toward women,' for that matter, and thus does not prove that your generalization is accurate or just.
"The Pentagon tries covering it up."
Not because they hate women, they cover it up because they don't want to look bad, or get caught.
Even if some of them were covering it up because they were just out to get women, its still only a minority of 'americans' so saying 'americans hate women' is really pretty inaccurate to say the least.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 14:18
>>161
Human beings are naturally a collectivistic group. I won't deny having collectivistic thoughts myself, I am human also, but I try to limit this as much as possible out of respect for the individual. Being an individualist certainly isn't easy.
Yes, if that 1 out of a 1000 feminist came to me, I would probably expect them to be like the others. But that doesn't make judging them right and I would withhold my judgment of that person until I know more about them individually.
Yes, drawing generlizations of people is a bad thing because it is intellectually lazy.
Liberty friendly feminists might not be the majority of feminists, but they are a sizeable minority. Certainly not one out of a thousand. I suspect you yourself could be one if you could just get over your group hatred and respect the individual feminist more.
As for your last paragraph: This is the perfect example of what I am saying. This is the first mention of neo-cons and you call me inconsistent and biased because you assume you know how I would react and basically making up shit. Once again you make generalizations because it is convenient for you. But ultimately you are simply arguing with yourself and your own prejudices.
Name:
Xel2006-08-27 14:35
>>161 So we care about if a sub-group of humanity is >50% good or not? It's impossible to make definitions like that. So we make cultural or political changes that chip away at what is unacceptable. I am against government intervention, even in order to strengthen gender equality. So I support socio-cultural changes instead, which is why I'll never side with social conservatives under any circumstances. Feminists don't need political changes now. They need equality, and *now*. Since official equal rights wasn't enough, they become angry and frustrated because they face rigidity, slander and a very nebulous yet powerful and almost ubiquitious enemy. It is horrible to be harmed and opposed by a faceless, non-entity enemy, whether you are a feminist or a pro-gun activist.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 14:42
>>164
And with that said and done, this thread should now come to a close.
Name:
Xel2006-08-27 15:09
>>165 "No, because one feminist was a marxist and we need to complain a lot more."
Name:
Kumori2006-08-27 15:41
>>166
Be careful, don't wanna attract any unwanted attention. :3
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 15:41
>>164
"I am against government intervention, even in order to strengthen gender equality."
A different horn than you were tooting from earlier.
"So I support socio-cultural changes instead, which is why I'll never side with social conservatives under any circumstances."
Like granting them reparations in the form of rights? (abortion) Screw that. They shouldn't have any special rights they wouldn't have ordinarilly. Reparational rights is not fair.
"They need equality, and *now*."
We have equal rights *now*.
"Since official equal rights wasn't enough, they become angry and frustrated because they face rigidity, slander and a very nebulous yet powerful and almost ubiquitious enemy."
What do you mean they aren't 'enough'? Equal rights is what people deserve, and they have them now. Everything is fine and dandy. I won't be 'rigid' when I don't see them trying to get something *more* than *equal* rights.
"It is horrible to be harmed and opposed by a faceless, non-entity enemy, whether you are a feminist or a pro-gun activist."
What do you mean by this? I'm only their 'enemy' when they start pushing for more than *equal rights*.
>>166
I don't see what is wrong with complaining about people who push for something more than equal rights. This is what people as individuals are rightly entitled to.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 15:58
>>163
"Human beings are naturally a collectivistic group. I won't deny having collectivistic thoughts myself, I am human also, but I try to limit this as much as possible out of respect for the individual. Being an individualist certainly isn't easy."
I respect individuality. I realize not all neo-cons are corrupt, or that all feminists are unreasonable feminazis. Yet, when I see someone with said traits, of *either* kind, I don't think it is wrong to assume these things based on past experiances, assuming they have happened reasonably often enough. However, I will give the individual the chance to show that they are different.
Yes, if that 1 out of a 1000 feminist came to me, I would probably expect them to be like the others. But that doesn't make judging them right and I would withhold my judgment of that person until I know more about them individually.
"Yes, drawing generlizations of people is a bad thing because it is intellectually lazy."
No it isn't. Drawing generalizations of people while not taking the time to judge every individual on an individual basis that you meet, regardless of whether or not they have said traits would be lazy and 'bad,' but I see nothing wrong with generalizations.
"Liberty friendly feminists might not be the majority of feminists, but they are a sizeable minority."
Again, I have yet to meet one. Feminists I meet get judged as individuals though.
"Certainly not one out of a thousand. I suspect you yourself could be one if you could just get over your group hatred and respect the individual feminist more."
That depends. I will say I am for *equal rights*. Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'
"As for your last paragraph: This is the perfect example of what I am saying. This is the first mention of neo-cons and you call me inconsistent and biased because you assume you know how I would react and basically making up shit."
It was an entirely reasonable assumption. Based on past threads discussing the neo-conservatives, I didn't see anyone stepping up to say 'BUT NOT *ALL* NEO-CONS ARE CORRUPT!', or 'cheaters' or something along these lines. I forget exactly what the topic was about. This happens quite often that people critisize entire political movements or groups - and nobody says a thing about it - until feminists are the target.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 20:12
>>169
As long as you are willing to give them the chance to show themselves as an individual, that is good.
"That depends. I will say I am for *equal rights*. Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'"
Would you call yourself an individualist feminist?
"It was an entirely reasonable assumption. Based on past threads discussing the neo-conservatives, I didn't see anyone stepping up to say 'BUT NOT *ALL* NEO-CONS ARE CORRUPT!', or 'cheaters' or something along these lines. I forget exactly what the topic was about. This happens quite often that people critisize entire political movements or groups - and nobody says a thing about it - until feminists are the target."
If this was a regular board with registration and had seen me in such a thread, then yes it might have been reasonable. But here on 4chan, we are all anonymous, so it was just stupid.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-27 20:47
*yawn* this discussion is getting as lame and obring as that abortion discussion
Some poor guy started a thread which was about when it is moral to abort a fetus and aptly claimed it should be when the fetus's brain develops and can experience sufferring, but that thread was trampled all over by the extreme left and right.
"That depends. I will say I am for *equal rights*. Take that to mean what you like, but I wouldn't call myself a 'feminist.'"
"Would you call yourself an individualist feminist?"
Not really sure. One of the definitions of feminism is something like 'organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests', which could easilly be taken above and beyond equal rights. Based on that, no I don't think so. I am not a 'feminist', I'm for *equal rights*, which I percieve to be something different.
"If this was a regular board with registration and had seen me in such a thread, then yes it might have been reasonable. But here on 4chan, we are all anonymous, so it was just stupid."
No it wasn't. You were here, you very likely read it, and thus what I said was very likely correct and accurate.
>>171
"*yawn* this discussion is getting as lame and obring as that abortion discussion"
So why don't you just quit bitching and don't read it? Nobody is forcing you to stay here.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 1:51
>>172
Nope, never been in any neo-con bashing thread. But it's okay, you go right ahead living in your little world where you have to make up things to be right.
Name:
Anonymous2006-08-28 1:54
>>173
I think *you* are the one making things up to be right. Neo-con bashing seems to be one of this board's favored activities.