Posts made by YoungGun

Please re-add me to the group if it comes back as well!

Thanks to Trump supporters, all we have is our taxpayer money being wasted on Trump vacations, no major progress done in the first 100 days, a whole bunch of political tension among Americans, a shitload of scandal, and Republicans revealing their hypocrisy and incompetence because they couldn't reform healthcare despite controlling all 3 branches of government and basically admitted Obamacare was the best solution to healthcare despite bitching endlessly about it and sabotaging it back when they were out of power pretending they had a better healthcare solution when in reality they were just solution-less obstructing complainers providing absolutely no value to Americans while getting paid to do nothing.

Oh yeah, and the Republicans used the nuclear option to force an anti-gay judge on the Supreme Court who follows in the tradition of that homophobic bigot Scalia.  ::)

Stop talking facts brianboru72!  You're destroying the thread starter with truth and exposing him as an idiot fanatic!

@wrestling82:

alol you're delusional.  "Most people"?  What kind of polling did you to come to this ridiculous conclusion.  Besides your incredibly small sample size of your personal friends which you believe somehow represents everybody in the US.

I'm not black and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat if she ran as would many of my friends.  Only jealous haters, people trying to have the edgy/contrarian opinion, or hyper-Republicans bitter that she leans left dislike Oprah and even though huge chunks of America are petty like that (re: Trump's victory), that's still not the majority of the country.

I can't stand Trump, but Oprah is way too emotional and self centered as well. I can't believe people can't see through her ego trip veiled as altruism. Sure, she does a lot of good, but she is NOT presidential material and we've already seen enough of American President Celebrity edition for the past 8 years and Trump's short but drama filled run.

Even if everything you said about her was true, she's STILL be a better Presidential candidate than Trump (and many other politicians).  You're acting as if we have so many better options who ARE "presidential material".  So I would vote for Oprah easily.  Pretty much against any Republican since they all had homophobic platforms, which is just the tip of their shit covered iceberg.

@amicusets:

@YoungGun:

Only jealous haters, people trying to have the edgy/contrarian opinion, or hyper-Republicans bitter that she leans left dislike Oprah and even though huge chunks of America are petty like that (re: Trump's victory), that's still not the majority of the country.

It seems you have yet to learn a very important lesson about living in a democratic republic: majority rule doesn't matter. It is all about getting to 270.

I already knew that.  You're now talking about something entirely different.

I was replying to your comment of "but here in the United States most people-even black women are tired of Oprah."

Instead of blaming women for their failings, you blame some made up crap.     You believe women have no agency.

Because according to you, people raise themselves apparently.  Everybody has individual accountability for themselves of course.  That's a given.  But society as a whole has accountability as well.  We all affect one another.  Not surprising though that you have no sense of social responsibility and don't understand the basics of how life works though.

@raphjd:

@YoungGun:

@raphjd:

Your only point is no female US President.   The rest of it is a bunch of crap.

You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused.   Typical SJW bullshit.

You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.

There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else.  So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify.  That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making.  AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right.  You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc.  Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points.  It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.

As Trudeau said, it's extremely difficult to get women to run for office.

If women wanted a woman President, it would happen.   There would be nothing men could do to stop it.

This is where you blame "patriarchy".

Now refute my points.

There's nothing to refute.  You still haven't given an alternate explanation to why enough women don't want women as President. I said the reason is patriarchy.  You have offered absolutely no other explanation and want me to refute…what?  We both agree that not enough women have wanted a woman as President (or want to run as President).  I obviously don't have to refute the parts that we already agree on.

This is exactly why I don't believe you understand what patriarchy is or at least the definition I am using.  You're not being active in THIS argument.  You're arguing with demons from your past, instead of addressing the points that I specifically raised.

SUMMARY

Conclusion = This country hasn't achieved complete fairness or equality and isn't even close to it

Conclusion based on evidentiary support that this country has had no female Presidents (unequal outcome) which is a ridiculous statistic assuming this country was "fair" in gendered politics.  Therefore, this country is not "fair" in terms of gendered Presidencies

WHY IS THAT?

Both of us agree = Less women run for politics and women don't automatically vote for women
I would add = Overt and subtle sexism plays a role as well, but let's just stick to the above explanation which we both agree on anyways

*** You seem to stop here in this argument.  I am already at the next step (which I already addressed and you ignored):

THE NEXT QUESTION: WHY IS THAT?  Why don't women run for politics or why don't women vote for women?

My explanation = Agree with feminist argument that patriarchy exists = social structures/systems that give males more power in this area of life which include culture, traditional gender roles, social programming, the old boy clubs and other male dominated networks, lack of historical female role models in politics compared to males, outright sexism, etc.

• Thus, females are discouraged and/or not encouraged to WANT to try becoming President
• When the minority of females do want to become President, other females have been programmed to not want/trust/believe/etc. females should or can become President

Your explanation = So far nothing.  I'm still waiting for your answer

2. Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45.  If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1.  However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.

Even if somehow I think patriarchy would be erased simply because females got the legal right to vote (a claim that is so obviously flawed to me, because that's like arguing gays don't get discriminated against just because we can legally vote), 0/16 is still a ridiculous significant statistic.  It's not as big as 45, but it's still a terribly meaningful stat when females aren't even minorities!  If you look at it as a simple statistics problem (which is more objective than people voting since it's based on random chance), the chance of 0/16 "heads" or "tails" with a fair coin is:

0.0000152588

http://calculator.tutorvista.com/coin-toss-probability-calculator.html

In other words, the odds of having 0 female Presidents in a fair environment is close to 0% and at best rounded up big time is 1%.  In other words, something is augmenting pure luck.  One can argue females are innately biologically inferior when it comes to politics and/or patriarchy exists (an environment that gives males advantages in the political arena).

3. You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious.  Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?

There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution.   It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.

Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.

I did consider the point, and I follow your logic.  However, the difference between us is this:

A possible explanation you have given for Presidential results is that the "best" males of our population (in terms of being able to win in politics) are more competitive than all the females in our population.  That is possible.  But then I must ask…why?  What causes those pre-dispositions for both males and females?  To me the answer is: biology and environment.  For those who are religious, they may feel there's spiritual or God-given programming too.  But pre-disposition comes from somewhere right?

And in the case of politics, which is a non-nature-based talent/skill and is completely social (people voting for people, people influencing people, etc.), that's why much of the "merit" or "qualification" involved in that must necessarily be environmental and not biological.  That means the inequality is at least partly and largely coming from society itself.  Which means patriarchy exists.

**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has.  **

I agree with you on that.  But at the same time, where there's smoke there's often fire.

Given both the historical context, the incredibly extreme nature of the statistically unequal and highly improbably outcomes, and obvious facts that all societies (even the more egalitarian ones) contain people with different statuses, powers, and privileges–it requires a ridiculous amount of naivety and benefit of the doubt to assume that we have somehow achieved complete equality among the 2 genders.

If indeed the unequal outcomes is the product of PURE LUCK, then one needs to come up with amazing explanations for all the clear indicators of inequality and have them make sense.  When you can do that, then I could get more on board with the argument of ridiculously improbable luck.

@raphjd:

Your only point is no female US President.   The rest of it is a bunch of crap.

You have no rebuttal to my points so you claim that I'm confused.   Typical SJW bullshit.

You demand that we ignore the lunatic fringe, but fighting against gender equality is mainstream feminism.

There are actually more points, but the President point alone invalidates your whole argument so you definitely need to defend that if nothing else.  So far you have not, which means you've formed opinions based on a truth you clearly can't even justify.  That betrays a lack of objectivity and a trend towards bias and emotional decision-making.  AKA that's why I claimed you've been programmed by the right.  You should have thought through all the arguments on all sides, and if you haven't, then at least admit when you haven't and be willing to admit when you're wrong/uninformed/etc.  Instead you want to play games and try changing topics when you can't defend points.  It's a credibility-destroying tactic and shows you're arguing out of ego or agenda instead of truth-seeking or higher values.

@raphjd:

I'll talk with you, since "raphjd" either lacks the intelligence to stay on topic (I could see going off on a tangent here and there as we all do that, but when it's pointed out to him and he is literally just repeating himself over and over again–then there's nowhere for us to go) or knows he can't counter logical arguments based on truth, so he's just relying on reciting the same talking points which have little to do with the points that I brought up.

I'll ignore the personal attack.

You have no points that are worthwhile and you have no answer for the things I have talked about except "the patriarchy".    "The Patriarchy" is you answer for everything.

Why did feminists fight against gender neutral sex crime laws in the UK?  THE PATRIARCHY

Why did feminists fight against a gender neutral retirement age?  THE PATRIARCHY

You excuse away everything feminists do to prevent true gender equality.    You ignore all examples of female privilege, while screaming that everything oppresses women.

Not all criticism is a "personal attack".  Sometimes it's constructive criticism or entirely on point observation.  But apparently your strategy for dealing with anything you don't like is to "ignore" it.  You admitted it.  So of course this is not a discussion or even a debate.  You want to talk about certain things and ignore the points I brought up.  And now I'm doing the same to you.

My whole point was that this whole topic got started because you claimed feminists don't suffer from genuine inequality.  When I countered with evidence, instead of addressing that (because you couldn't), you ignored it (your go to strategy with dealing with inconvenient facts), and then created entirely new conversations which never addressed the original tangent topic that YOU started.  The original topic of this thread had nothing to do with any of this.

So clearly, you're bringing a whole bunch of new topics into this thread which is okay, but it's probably better in terms of organization to finish the original debates first before opening entirely new massive topics up and creating chaos and confusion.  But I suspect that's your life strategy when debating with things you're wrong about and/or you're confused about things yourself so your thoughts literally jump illogically from topic to topic without you actually thinking through the ramifications of your ideas and conclusions.  It is what it is.

Learn something from this or don't and continue thinking you're right about everything in life.  But we've gone as far as we can go, and you've clearly made up your mind that you're way of thinking is the only valid way of thinking and that anything else should either be ignored, dismissed, etc.  You have no room for personal growth with that kind of close-mindedness, arrogance, and delusion.

@Scoobydoo077:

Lol go look at Scandinavia, they already have done the raise people up without issues, support them, education, all that. Letting people just be themselves and follow whatever career path they want and guess what? Women and men even with all that are still choosing different fields, women out ranking men as nurses 20-1, while still more men end up in sciences, the same sort of numbers and things we see today. Nothing is stopping women but the biological factors which you choose to deny. Men and women are different. Your arguments are the same misinformed gender studies drivel always seen on tumblr.

I'll talk with you, since "raphjd" either lacks the intelligence to stay on topic (I could see going off on a tangent here and there as we all do that, but when it's pointed out to him and he is literally just repeating himself over and over again–then there's nowhere for us to go) or knows he can't counter logical arguments based on truth, so he's just relying on reciting the same talking points which have little to do with the points that I brought up.

So you believe gender inequalities occur due to natural biological differences correct?  I would argue there's a lot more social and environmental influence overall and certainly much more than you probably realize.

First off, there's no denying that there are differences between males and females (as a whole).  Gender studies don't even dispute that.  So let's take that out of the equation.

We should both be able to agree that gender is shaped by BOTH biology and environment.

Biology determines an individual's sex (reproductive organs) and other biological factors like their hormones (which influence their personality, physiology, etc.).

However, environment shapes just about everything else (too):

Your values, beliefs, education, tastes, biases, family, experiences, opportunities, etc.  All of that are factors no individual has direct control over.  You don't choose who teaches you what when you're a baby.  You don't choose the peers that you hang around and how they shape your conception of self, health habits, personal psychology, etc.

If males and females were raised in a vacuum where everything was all conditions were 100% the same (a true level playing field), that would be thing.  They don't though.  Different people have different opportunities in life.  We're all shaped and impact by history, politics, economics, social systems, etc.  All these non-biological factors influence who we think we are, what we think we're capable of, what opportunities are available to us, the people we meet, etc.

Feminists would argue that among these environmental factors is patriarchy.  This really can't be denied by having 0 female Presidents and females getting the ability to vote WAY later than men (among many other metrics).  Even later than African-American males whose ancestors came from slavery!  History has not treated the genders equally, and that has an impact on the present which is independent of biological factors.

You brought up Scandinavia.  But do you not think males/females are not brought up with a specific cultural with their own gender roles, identities, traditions, etc?  Scandinavia may be 1 of the most liberal and progressive areas of the world compared to most other countries, but that doesn't mean it has achieved true equality or is free from the influence of patriarchy.

Nothing is stopping women but the biological factors which you choose to deny.

I won't deny that biological factors MAY play a role, but there's no doubt that the environment plays a role as well and probably the bigger one.

The reason why I don't think the argument that biological factors ALONE prevent women from wanting to go into politics, certain occupations, etc. is because they obviously don't.  Hillary has run for President.  She didn't stop herself.  People/voters (the environment/social factors) stopped her–not her biology.  There was nothing "natural" about that.  We know plenty of women who are very capable in politics, economics, etc.  So clearly even if one argues that females in general are biologically less inclined to enter these arenas as a whole (which is an argument I might be able to accept), you can't say that it is THE SINGULAR FACTOR influencing their decision-making.

Also, anthropologists and historians have already found societies in other cultures or in the past where women ARE political leaders or that tribal societies had achieved much more egalitarian social systems.  It wasn't until the more militaristic patriarchal tribes started taking over that the dominant social systems of today were established.  These are environmental and social systems--not biological.

We all know social influence exists.  Anybody who has ever been influenced by a salesperson or great speaker, who has done something that they didn't necessarily want to do themselves but because somebody else influenced them to do it, etc. knows this.  The very language we speak and the concepts that we understand (even "objective" subjects like math) were taught to us by people.  Not by biology.  Somebody had to teach us.  And so you're kidding yourself if you think all the people in the world are the way they are due to biology alone.  All of us have been shaped by our environments and by people.  You can't be human without being a product of our an interdependent society.  Only feral humans living in the wild because they were abandoned as babies or something can claim they are mostly the product of pure biology versus social influence.

@raphjd:

Women in the west are not oppressed.  They are privileged.   I have constantly shown female privilege and you ignore it so you can claim that women are oppressed without any giving any examples.

Women elsewhere are oppressed, but feminists care about them as much as they care about men.

Other western countries have had women leaders.  So maybe no decent woman has run for US President.     We already talked about the video of Justin Trudeau talking about how hard it is to get women  to run for politics.

Are you saying we need to do what Trudeau did and make 50% of the cabinet women regardless of experience and expertise?

I already addressed all this.  Go back and read what was said and actually try to understand a different viewpoint (that you are clearly unable to grasp) instead of mindlessly ramming down your own already refuted points over and over again.

At this point I have to assume you are either trolling or not smart enough to understand what is being said, and either way I'm not going to be wasting much more time on this.  I think you're stuck in the victim-based perverted right mentality and you literally can't grasp any reality outside of that.

without any giving any examples.

Just gave the President example above so way to lie/be wrong once again.

We already talked about the video of Justin Trudeau talking about how hard it is to get women  to run for politics.

And what was my answer to that?  Were you paying attention?  Did you grasp the concept?  Patriarchy conditions females to not run for politics.  Whether it's overt social pressure (like females actively getting discouraged from participating) or subtle (traditional feminine roles for example), that right there shows the existence of environmental influences.  Because unless you believe there is a biological basis for the Presidential inequality, that means it's SOCIAL.

Cause and effect.

So maybe no decent woman has run for US President.

Thank you for helping to prove patriarchy exists.  That's the feminist point

Are you saying we need to do what Trudeau did and make 50% of the cabinet women regardless of experience and expertise?

Not at all.

What feminists are asking is that why in a world where females make up a slim majority, and where females and males enter this world with relative equal capabilities, that you get widely different results in politics as well as economic, social, etc. spheres (patriarchy)?  If it's not biological, that means it's social.  That means it's learned, created, passed on, programmed, influenced, etc.  That means individuals and societies collectively influence females to end up in a weaker position than males (if we're looking at overall stats; naturally different males and females perform better or worse based on individual ability and circumstance, but if we're summarizing entire social groups based on trends then that is a fair statement).  Those individuals and societies are composed of both males and females, so again feminists aren't blaming men for females problems.  They're blaming all of society for that (which of course includes women)

Something prevents females from wanting to go into politics

Something prevents females from gaining "experience" (you also reveal your hypocrisy with that statement, since Hillary had far more experience than Trump, so you clearly don't value that when it comes to political merit)

Something prevents females from gaining "expertise"

If it's not patriarchy then what is it?  Give an explanation.  Even if we go with your assumption that nobody is oppressing females (which means they are oppressing themselves which again proves patriarchy exists) and that they actually have some sort of magical privilege or advantage in life, then how do you explain 0 females Presidents with all their "privilege"?  You're being completely illogical.  Women are SO privileged that they've never held 1 of the most powerful political positions in the country and the world!!!11!!1!!1!

SO MUCH PRIVILEGE!

Wait, we have to vote for a person just because they have a vagina, regardless how crap they are.   If women wanted Hillary to be President, she would be President since women are the biggest voting block.

What's wrong?  Don't you like using your movement against you?  Feminists create bullshit "oppression" to stay valid, because they have no real issues to complain about.

I'm not talking about Hillary.  I'm talking about 45 Presidents and not one of them have been female.  You have yet to explain why this happens.  A statistic this ridiculous isn't just "luck" or "coincidence" at that point.  If it's not patriarchy, then what?  Give an alternative explanation at least.

Yeah, "trolling" again.  More pathetic left bullshit because they can't have a debate on issues.

I'm leaning towards "trolling" because you literally spent the majority of your posts ranting about the same things without addressing the points made.  You're not having a genuine discussion or trying to understand other viewpoints.  It's not a true debate when you're basically ignoring the topic and complaining about something completely different.

Example (summarizing your arguments)
Me - Females suffer from inequality
You - No they don't!  Males suffer from inequality. Liberals suck
Me - Males suffering from inequality doesn't mean that females somehow don't also
You - Males suffer from inequality.  Liberals suck
You - Males suffer from inequality. Liberals suck
You - Males suffer from inequality. Liberals suck
You - Males suffer from inequality. Liberals suck
You - Males suffer from inequality. Liberals suck

Like what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  I can't have a debate with somebody who does not use sound logic.

@raphjd:

Your "reality" is clearly in a feminist mindset.

You ignore everything I have pointed out that shows female privilege, while not giving me anything showing that women are oppressed in the west.  By "oppressed" I mean something real, not crap like "birth rape" and "man-splaining".

The Chair of the council I'm on is a woman.   Oh NO, she's oppressed by the glass ceiling.    :crazy2:   In fact, of the 5 council officers, only the Secretary is male.  The other 4 are women.    Damned, you are right, women are oppressed.   :blind:

I have pointed out actual things that show female privilege and all you have is crap like "stare rape".

Our reality differs not just in politics but in how you literally can't even "see" certain things.  Your mind is literally ignoring things I've said entirely, interpreting things completely differently from how I mean them, etc.

I didn't ignore female privilege.  My position is just that male privilege is greater than female privilege at this point.

You ask me about how women are oppressed, but you have yet to answer how it's not sexist that we've yet to have a female President when half the population is female.  So the person doing the "ignoring" is you.  You're selectively focusing on certain facts and not others.  We all do it, but be self-aware of it and less hypocritical about it please.  The things you accuse others of and hate liberals for are the same thing that you yourself is doing!  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not deliberately trying to be a selfish hypocritical douchebag and that you're a delusional person who lacks self-awareness and logical consistency instead lol.

I never brought up birth rape, man-splaining, OR stare-rape.  That was stuff YOU brought up in order to de-legitimize the actual real sexist issues.  This is why I say we don't live in the same reality, and why I think you're delusional.  If I ignored some of the things you said, it's because you were basically just talking to yourself and bring up tangential points that weren't particularly relevant to the conversation that we were originally having.

Somebody mentioned that you were trolling, and now maybe I'm starting to come around to the fact that maybe you're purposely being as delusional and contrarian as possible for shits and giggles.  So yeah I'm pretty much done wasting both of our time.  We're just not going to agree and that's okay.  :cool2:

I can see from our conversation that we are not operating in the same reality.  Our perceptions of reality are too different, and personally I think you're way too biased and programmed to get out of the self-reinforcing echo chamber you're now trapped in.  It is what it is.

I guess the message that you're sending to everybody is that we should all take the lower road instead of the higher road since others are doing it and pursue are most selfish immediate short-term interests.

I'm just going to have to disagree with your values that hateful demagoguery should run wild, and we should be siding with the non-American foreigner who supports pedophilia instead of 1 of the highest rated educational institutions in the world who's already brought way more value to the world.

@TheNewt:

@aadam101:

I don't think Trump has a chance against Oprah.  Oprah can get women to vote for her.  Hillary couldn't.  Oprah can also get pretty much every minority group.

I'm not sure where you are from; but here in the United States most people-even black women are tired of Oprah.  Even my friends that are bisexual and gay and black told me how they would not vote for Oprah if she runs for President.

alol you're delusional.  "Most people"?  What kind of polling did you to come to this ridiculous conclusion.  Besides your incredibly small sample size of your personal friends which you believe somehow represents everybody in the US.

I'm not black and I'd vote for her in a heartbeat if she ran as would many of my friends.  Only jealous haters, people trying to have the edgy/contrarian opinion, or hyper-Republicans bitter that she leans left dislike Oprah and even though huge chunks of America are petty like that (re: Trump's victory), that's still not the majority of the country.

I'm sure it must be absolute fucking hellish for women to get the vast majority of tax money for their social and medical issues.

Except they don't.  At least in the US

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-tax-expenditure-budget

This is where it seems like you and other conservative extremists are living in a delusional bubble where you've heard and repeated the same talking points over and over that you haven't actually done basic research to see how finances are being allocated.  Fractions of the federal budget and tax money is being spent on social issues in general let alone specifically to women.  For you to claim that women are getting "the vast majority of tax money" is just completely wrong and embarrassing.  There's a disconnect from your extreme perception and the reality of what is actually happening.

PATRIARCHY!!!!!!!!!    Blame everything on penis.

Patriarchy doesn't blame everything on men at all.  You just proved you don't even understand what it is you're bashing.

Men do bad things it's because they are men.  Women do bad things it's because men exist.    Yea, yeah.   I've heard all this bullshit before.

This is why I said you have a chip on your shoulder. You're bringing in baggage from past conversations into the present one and instead of actively listening and understanding you're making assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and misunderstanding things all across the board.

LOL.  Men should cuck for women, but we can't have our own movement for equality or we are women haters.   Feminists claim that by fixing everything wrong in women's lives, everything in men's lives will automatically be fixed as a consequence.

What female issues in the west are there?  NONE, except the made up shit by feminists.

You are ignoring the reality of it.  With all the laws in the west about equal pay for equal work, there would be, if you listen to feminists and liar/cuck politicians, millions of lawsuits and prosecutions every day for violating the law.   It seems like you only know what is taught in gender studies, by a feminist extremist.

I'm not ignoring the problem.  Like I said before, there are tons of problems going on in the world all at the same time, and it's kind of impossible to tackle them all.  Clearly, you're incredibly passionate about men's issues which is fine.  As a male, I'm glad.  I see you as completely complacent, indifferent, and hostile towards female issues on the other hand.  You keep dismissing female problems, so if anybody is doing the "ignoring" it's you.

For me, I'm not trying to ignore or minimize male problems.  But as a male, I personally have not experienced any significant problems due to my gender.  Female problems seem comparatively worse, and thus in the hierarchy of injustices, I'm giving more attention to feminist issues.  That's just me.  I'm not saying you can't be more pro-male issues than pro-female issues.  I just don't like that you feel you must COMPLETELY DISREGARD female issues.  It's so one-or-the-other with you.  You've got way more of a scarcity mindset than I do, but it seems you're going to stay extreme on this issue, so it is what it is.  Maybe things are that much worse in Europe than in the US when it comes to men's issues.

Men earn more because of their career and education choices.   If a woman is sitting on her ass at the reception desk at the local council office complaining about men earning more, she could always apply to become a street cleaner or garbage person who make more.  Men in full time jobs work more hours than women in full time jobs.

This isn't true a lot of the time, so this is a blindspot for you.  There's plenty of examples where females earn a lot less for the same position and arguably offer more value.  You can watch any reality show based on political dynamics and you can see how various social groups (including gender) clique up and make decisions based on demographic differences rather than merit.  If you don't think that happens in the real world, you're naive and delusional sorry

Also, a big reason why females don't pursue higher career and education choices is due to patriarchy once again, so you again supported my earlier point.  Historical gender roles continue to exert social pressure (which can also take the form of political, economic, militaristic, etc. pressure) on people based on their gender.  One just needs to look at the transgender bathroom issues to see just how much society policies people based on gender identity.

So again, the historical structures and institutions that were created long ago continue to exert significant affect over people today regardless of merit, desire, etc. and that limits people's opportunities, choices, empowerment, etc.  I think you don't understand that concept.  If you dismiss it without trying to understand this perspective, I can already tell you that we're just going to have to agree to disagree, and hopefully one day, you'll "get" it

No matter how you work it, except in HR, you won't get a good job with a gender studies degree.

It's embarrassing that you're trying to argue sexism against females doesn't exist based purely on gender, when you're already arguing that sexism against males exists based on gender.  If it happens 1 way, obviously, it's going to happen the other way too.

http://time.com/4398888/doctors-gender-wage-gap/

In medicine, women choose the softer jobs, like techs and nursing.  These are the lowest paying jobs in medicine.  While brain and heart surgeons make the most and these 2 fields are almost completely men.

As the article above explains, there's more at play than those factors.

Feminism has nothing to do with equality, since they always fight against equality.   Despite what Chanty Binx said at that men's health lecture, she and her group fought to oppose equal parenting laws in their part of Canada.

AGAIN, you are cucking for feminism.  Feminism does not care about gender equality unless it's something they deem good for women.   They are butthurt about the so called glass ceiling, but ignore the glass bottom that men are under and they refuse to go down to.

I think you're misunderstanding what kind of equality academic feminism is fighting for.  They're not fighting for net equality like communism.  They're fighting for equality of opportunity, where merit can thrive and thus individual ability will thrive more, because people of whatever genders won't be kept down by prejudices/pressure against them due to their gender specifically.  The original basis for feminism isn't to manufacture net equality which leads to other inequalities.  It's more about fighting against discrimination based on gender rather than make sure males and females have equal stats all across the board.  Of course, individuals on both sides misunderstand this and take things too far, but extremist fringes exist in all movements.

I've been debating feminists for 30 years and they can never show a single issue that directly benefited men, while having no benefit or that harmed women's privilege.

Since all mothers are women, then all males have benefited from women being more empowered.  It's sad you're stuck in identity politics rather than seeing how we're all interconnected and in this together.

By the way, it's telling how you're supposedly so passionate about these male issues and all the crimes of liberals/feminists/etc. but you have yet to condemn Milo's pedophilia who you created a whole thread to defend.  Ridiculously biased much?  It doesn't seem you really care about injustices or morality at all, you've just brainwashed by far-right ideology like an embarrassing puppet, and you're not longer able to see things from any other perspective.

You can feel free to disagree with different viewpoints, but you should at least be able to understand it.  All you've been doing is ramming your same talking points over and over and using different examples while glossing over the constructive criticisms being made.

@timtims:

Except she isn't running for president. It was a throwaway statement and has already been confirmed as such from an associate.

And if I was an American, I wouldn't vote for her. Equating a celebrity's front-facing personality with their abilitiy to be a capable president/head of state is just an unintelligent assumption.

It's a mute issue because as you said, she's not going to run.  But I would vote for her, because she's somebody I can trust.  Politicians haven't done the most stellar job either, and I will take a celebrity like Oprah over the entire Republican party at this point which still have anti-gay agendas within their platform.  Until they correct that, they have lost all credibility to me as politicians who care about their gay citizens which is a form of incompetence in my mind.  It's so basic to treat your own citizens with civil dignities and protections, and if you can't do that, then why would a celebrity like Oprah possibly be worse?  She's built her brand off of empathy and appealing to a wide range of social groups, so that alone is incredibly compelling let alone her facing off against weak, unethical competition.

Go back and reread.  When I said how feminists never fight to bring men up to the same rights/privileges that women enjoy, you said because it was about women, not men.

Oh okay I see what you're saying.  Well yeah obviously feminism isn't exactly the same as egalitarianism.  Feminism is the subset branch of egalitarianism that focused on issues that affect females (because females have unique issues that affect them just like males have unique issues that affect them).  But men should be concerned about female issues, since they are our wives, daughters, neighbors, fellow citizens, etc. and because if we want females to care about male issues, then we need to be concerned about theirs.  It's in all our self interest.  So when you talk about "special issues," it sounds like you're doing this in a very disconnected way as if males are doing this humongous favor to women and it's such a burden on us, when really it's in our self-interest to care about society and human virtue.

Obviously everybody could be doing this better.  Feminists may need to care about male issues more.  You obviously need to care about female issues more.  I may need to care about male issues more as you are pointing out.  And so on.  But to act like we shouldn't care at all about certain issues because our own needs aren't being met to our standards?  That seems overly bitter and unproductive to me.

Since you admit you aren't clued up on the topic, then don't try to tell me about it.    You clearly only know the cuckery of feminism, while ignoring the reality of it.

I'm not ignoring the reality of it.  We're all ignorant on certain things, and that's why discussion and debate can be good because that gives us to clue each other in on our weaknesses and blind spots.  Instead of being offended, insulted, and butthurt about it, it's a chance for us all to grow, get educated, and help each other out.  Criticism can't definitely be bad, but sometimes it IS constructive.  Fragile egos are an insecurity and a weakness not a strength.

Feminism is only about gaining and/or extending female privilege.

I'd imagine females and males have certain advantages and privileges in different areas.  For example, we know that females tend to dominate more domestic areas of life based on gender roles.  Males tend to dominate just about everything else.  The reason why feminism is more prominent than male issues, is because in general, men have the more important advantages and privileges.  Of course, this is a generalization and a stereotype, which we must of course be careful about.  Clearly there are many men who are less advantages and less privileged than many women.  So it's a case by case basis

But if we're talking about the arena of politics for example (zero female Presidents, more men in Congress, females not being allowed to vote until late, etc.), or economics (men getting paid more than women on the whole; more male businessmen; the old boy's network; glass ceilings, etc.), or social issues (females being coerced by society into certain gender roles and expectations, the shit many females go through with rape or relationship abuse, etc.), let's be real…as a whole, the female problems tend to be worse than males.  Again, would you prefer to have been born a woman?  I know I wouldn't!  That's hardly the attitude of somebody who hates men

So no, it's not about gaining/extending female privilege.  It's about leveling the playing field and creating a more merit-based open society, which I don't think is a bad thing or against men.  It's against inequality and unearned privilege, which is a good thing for society and men as a whole.

Feminism does nothing about gender representation in jobs, except demand quotas in the good jobs, while totally ignoring the shitty jobs or the jobs where women dominate.   Throughout a number of threads, I have pointed out countless issues that feminists ignore that men face while focusing on issues where women already have privilege.

Again, because obviously feminism is about focusing on female-centric issues within the egalitarian umbrella.  It's like bitching that science doesn't cover economic issues.  That doesn't suddenly invalidate science.  They're specialized niches within the whole system and we should be learning and concerned with them all.  Your mental framework where you feel that we must choose 1 or the other or that helping 1 hurts the other is my big complaint with you and you keep ignoring it.

Feminists created gendered issues against men, like man-spreading, even though both genders do it and the wort examples that feminist can find of men doing it is nothing compared to the worst examples of women doing it.

Of all the issues, personally I find this petty and small.  But feminists don't create "man-spreading" which even other guys get annoyed with (including myself).  They're pointing out something that happens.  And yes both genders do it.  Maybe you meant feminists created the term "man-spreading"?  Let's be real, men do it more in the sense of males spreading their legs wide open as a form of dominant body language.  In my experience, males tend to take up more room than females, and at least where I live, it's not really an issue anyways.  This is the 1st time I've even heard of man-spreading.

Again, harping on extremist feminists or going off your own experiences (which while relevant are still limited in the scope of things), isn't really productive and is just like when debaters cherry-pick extreme examples to try making oversized generalizations about bigger issues.  Let's be more honest about these issues please instead of trying to "win" some debate.

"Feminism is in many ways a subset of egalitarianism deconstructing female issues specifically."

And there you go, you said it again, feminism isn't about gender equality, but rather about women.

Okay yes, now I get what you're saying.  I think where we disagree is that you're acting as if women are demanding "special privileges" or something, when the non-extremists ones simply want the privileges that males already enjoy, which is totally fair.  If you want to call females wanting the same things as men "special privileges" then that's where I thought it demonstrated an entitled attitude where you think it's okay for society to justify unearned privileges, a world that promotes injustices over merit, etc.  That's not in men's self-interest overall, so that's why I don't consider that a "special interest" for females.  Just like "male issues" shouldn't be dismissed by women or good feminists either.

You don't have to be British to understand or know about the issues I brought up.   The only thing needed is not to be a feminist cuck to understand that feminists are doing nothing to end those special privileges, because gender equality and all that.

That's fine.  I was just giving you full disclosure that this is going to be new ground for me.  Again, feminism is focused on female issues.  It doesn't mean they ALL don't care about male issues either.  It's just not they're focus, because it's hard to fight about ALL of the world's problems all at once.  Just like you're clearly not fighting all that hard for female issues or liberal ones.  It doesn't mean that feminism is against male issues or gender equality though.  That was the entire point of all this.  We all have areas that we like to focus on more than others.  We should all be learning from each others' problems and supporting them once we get educated on them.  Not actively dismissing them and thinking that helping other causes automatically hurts our own.  We're all in this together, and if we want to be divided and hate on one another then let's not be surprised when society divides and falls apart which hurts all of us.  That's all I'm saying