Feminists struggling may be a case of trying. Their tendencies to use front
men, Fallacies ad hominem attacks, emotionally loaded but empty rhetoric
while constantly moving the goal posts is well known. As it is, when all
else fails, they settle for the tried and true tactic muh-harrassment. But
more than just defective reasoning & # 8212; if you can even call that & #
8212; much of what feminists argue involves having their cake and eat it
too. (And in most cases, this involves a very large amount of cake.)
In this article, we'll focus on a particular feminist gaping hole "logic".
Aside from radical feminists hate men explicitly, most feminists deny the
accusation that they despise, hate or hold people in contempt. "This is the
patriarchal system" or something like that. The men "are not naturally bad,
it is society and the environment" or "toxic masculinity" or something.
Apart from the interesting point that this is pretty close to a confession
that they despise men, in general, as in the real world today, it would at
least be a consistent position.
Coherency and feminists don t go together well. Feminists can not so
radical that men are naturally good, but they then set up what is
effectively impossible criterion for men to be really good. It's what I'll
call "The Feminist tautology" for virtually all male behavior drop games in
it. An individual man may be able to escape conviction if flagellum and
quite kind. But the male is damned if they do and damned if they do not. No
matter what, they are evil.
Men Make Bad Prove men are evil
Men are evil proof
We'll start with the obvious. If men something wrong more than women, this
is proof that men are terrible. While the paint with an awfully broad
brush, it makes sense.
So men commit nearly 90 percent of violent crime and almost three quarters
of all crimes. Men are more likely to harass others online (although men
are probably more likely to be harassed), driving while intoxicated and
receiving a Darwin award. Most wars were launched by men. Etc., etc., etc.
Of course, feminists have done much to exaggerate the avarice of men. The
State of abuse Partner of knowledge project, which consists of more than
1700 studies revealed that domestic violence is pretty close to 50/50 and
if anything, women commit more likely (although men do more damage).
Indeed, lesbians couples seem to be the most violent. Women commit most
child abuse. The "1-5 women are raped on campus" canard has been completely
refuted. Some of the types of crimes gap is due to a massive (63 percent
according to Professor Sonja Starr) sentencing disparity.
Even differences in aggression are less than previously thought when you
take "relational aggression" (ie ostracism, dissemination of secrets and
lies, etc.) into account.
And unlike "there would be no war if women were in charge" crowd, a study
by the University of New York "... analyzed 28 European reigns queen from
1480 to 1913 and found a increase of 27 percent in wars where a queen was
in power. "
Yet while feminists torture the data in search of bogus plea, the general
thrust of their argument is correct; men commit more crimes and violence
than women.
Men do good Prove Also men are evil
MORE PROOF men are evil
But once we turn to the other side of the equation, things start to become
a bit more, well, problematic. After all, should not be a male reached
credit the male gender?
Apparently not. After all Larry Summers was forced to Harvard to note that
the reason why there are fewer women scientists may be due to factors other
than discrimination. Why more women attend college than men? We do not
care! Why are not women also represented in engineering and science? Sexism
course!
The difference between the yield men and women in the upper echelons is
actually much greater than most people think. Yes, in the past women were
sometimes locked out of those opportunities. But the gap is still solid
today when these barriers were removed (and often reversed.)
Charles Murray made a historiometric study of the greatest figures in
mathematics, science, literature, art, technology, music and medicine from
800 BC to 1950 for his book Human Accomplishment and found that 97.8
percent of big names were men. Murray also noted that men have won 96
percent of Nobel Prizes between 1900 and 1950 and 97 percent between 1951
and 2000 (apparently increased over the last 50 years sexism 20th century).
No woman had won the Nobel Prize in economics until 2009 and none had won
the Fields Medal in mathematics until 2014.
Regarding the management positions today, this article EverydayFeminism.com
brings home this point,
Among Fortune 500 companies, women are only 5.2% of CEOs and 17% of members
of the Board of Directors. Among the Fortune 1000 companies, women are
still only 5.4% of CEOs - and 8.1% of high-income taxpayers.
Women have gained in record numbers in the elections midterm of 2014, but
only 20% of the Senate and 19% of the House are women. At the state level,
only 24.2% of legislators are women - and only five women governors.
Only 16% of directors, executive producers and producers, writers,
filmmakers and publishers of high national films increasingly are women -
and only 28% of talent out of the broadcast television screen are women.
Women are only 30% of doctors, 13% of engineers and 9% of management and
14% of senior IT management positions.
This site is a feminist, so we know that they must first lament
that "Unfortunately, many cultural conversations around women's leadership
does not include solutions to these shortcomings. "And the reason for these
gaps? Well, obviously "the kind still holds women back to work. "The song
of a note of male oppression is sung again.
But briefly consider in more detail. If we need a "solution to these
shortcomings," it is understood that men and women's success should be
50:50 or so that (although it has never been at any time in the story
ever). Indeed, feminists say this kind of thing all the time, feminist
theory infers that men and achievement of women should move in tandem.
Therefore, the success of the men and women of success are not independent
variables, but directly subordinate to the other.
So let's define success arbitrarily men and 100 women's success to 50.
There are two ways about it. The first is that both should be 75. In this
case, men are just hogging some of that sweet achievement for themselves,
but not cost anything to society.
But feminists say that women "free" and the end of discrimination will
improve the economy and increase the progress and overall achievement.
Science, progress, not the future itself "is too important to leave to
men. "
Thus, we expect that if the implementation has been so-called natural
balance, achieving men remain at 100 and women's success would rise to 100.
What this means, oddly enough, is that men are doing wrong when they do
well.
The only way feminist approved to be a good man
If this were true (spoilers: it is not) successful men is actually only 50.
It would be 100 itself, but because men can not do better than women
oppress, subtract 50 is out men 100. in other words, half of the men
achieve was simply abducted women. Women, on the other hand, must be 100 if
you add the 50 flight back.
Thus, in the upside down world of feminist, women were indeed, or at least
should have been primarily responsible for technological achievements,
scientific, artistic and medical humanity while men continue to be
responsible crime, poverty, environmental degradation and war.
A feminist who has been called on this grant could not quite quota and it
is only supposed to be about 50/50. But the same logic would apply. Then
the realization of men is only about the cause of any shortfall in the
achievement of women.
The result is the same. When talking about sex in all, when evil men, they
are bad. When men are good, they are also bad because men only possible way
could do better at anything that women are discriminated against because
they are against them.
Again, a single man who consumes adequate amounts of soy itself and
subordinates fairly punishes his own sex can be considered tolerable by
feminists and their ilk. But in the end, the masculine gender has been
damned by feminists with original sin to be wrong, no matter what. And
unless you are under the belief that men and women are effectively the same
and the differences can be completely mitigated (in this case, you are
stupid), then that original sin is unfixable. There can be no salvation nor
redemption. Men are evil. By definition they should be and there is nothing
that can ever change that.
When looking at the question in this way, men would be wise to ask a simple
question: What exactly is the point of trying to appease the people with
these views?
Read more: "Womyn" needs a lesson in etymology evil Patriarchy
No comments:
Post a Comment