Why does criticism of sexism only focus on the women?

[Myrkhoos]

5 minutes ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

What do you mean by materialist? How would you define it?

Well something along the lines of naturalism, physicalism, all that exist is a form of some western understanding of matter, in a broad sense I mean. Things like that which a lot of atheist/secular people seem to believe. A world without ghosts and the afterlife basically

[TruthSeeker0]

4 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Well something along the lines of naturalism, physicalism, all that exist is a form of some western understanding of matter, in a broad sense I mean. Things like that which a lot of atheist/secular people seem to believe. A world without ghosts and the afterlife basically

So you're pondering if a social contract  is possible with a western/athiest/secular worldview?

[LogicalFallacy]

On 5/14/2020 at 3:30 PM, Wertbag said:

Ms Jones would not come into the discussion, she's an extreme example. 

 

Yes, we call them outliers for a reason. 

 

The truth is that for every female outlier in terms of strength and combat, you can find many more examples of females just getting smashed in combat and strength by comparatively average males. I'm not sure why this is even an issue (For some people). Most females at the top of the elite echelons in sports have no problems recognizing that they are generally outstripped by their direct comparisons in the male categories. 

[TruthSeeker0]

On 5/12/2020 at 12:33 AM, Myrkhoos said:

I agree. I would only say that altough women could not acquire wealth or power themselves historically they WOULD HAVE enjoyed the power and wealth of their families. As you said, the wife of a nobleman was vastly higher in rank than a peasant man. 

      And it would be naive to think women did not influence men in their highest political decisions altough not always recorded by history. Just because they did not hold official power does not mean they did not hold ANY power whatsoever, even if it was lower.

So, what's your point? That having influence instead of equality in all respects is somehow equality? 

[TruthSeeker0]

On 5/11/2020 at 4:18 PM, Wertbag said:

One problem I see is trying to fit all men into one category.  There is very little that can be said to be experienced by all men, everywhere, equally.  You are comparing the poor peasant farmer to the Emperor of Rome. As both are men they both must be part of the patriarchy.  The Queen of England is at a disadvantage compared to the trailer park drug addict, cos he's a man.  Stereotyping is bad and almost always wrong.   

 

The privilege that actually matters is wealth and power.  For a lot of history many women have been blocked from acquiring wealth, and therefore limited in their power.  Likewise men who grow up with no wealth, lack power and will equally struggle in life.  Since 1950 there have been 75 countries lead by a woman and currently there are 29 countries with a female leader.  In the Western world women can educate in any subject, are seen equally under the law, can hold any position and rise to be the foremost experts in any field.  Its not perfect and it never will be, but the advancement that society has made is dramatic.  Today is the best time to be alive and the most equality we've ever had.  We can only hope the rest of the world eventually follow suit, but religion will probably stop that from ever occurring globally. 

 

In my family my wife earns considerably more than me.  She has higher level education and could progress to high corporate levels if she wishes (the stress and lack of work/life balance puts her off).  She has not suffered discrimination or been disadvantaged over her male co-workers.  Maybe that is atypical around the world, but I think its probably closer to the norm, in that those women who are getting it done and progressing their careers aren't the ones making the noise and complaining.  The media focus on the loudest feminists which can give a lop sided view that their personal experience is globally the same.  A woman saying "I'm fine, thanks" is not news, but one saying "Patriarchy!  They are all against me!" makes for drama.

Your words, right back at ya: "One problem I see is trying to fit all men (women) into one category.  There is very little that can be said to be experienced by all men, (women) everywhere, equally. "

 

I'm sick of men making claims about how life is for women or what women, or feminists think, or claim.  I don't walk around making generalizations about men and what they do and do not experience, or about what subgroups of men who identify as such and such think, or protest. 

I'm also tired of men misunderstanding patriarchy and how deep it has its roots in society. 

 

Y'all ain't women. Stop saying feminists are this or that or feminists think this or that or feminists claim this or that. Stop the generalizations. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

22 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Realistically working towards personal and collective happiness.

 

"We-ism" vs. "Me-ism".   Love your neighbor as yourself. 

[Myrkhoos]

11 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

So you're pondering if a social contract  is possible with a western/athiest/secular worldview?

Well yes and I offered a solution that many people seem to already  innately agree on. A type of utilitarianism. 

[Myrkhoos]

Well. All is well I hope with all.

[Myrkhoos]

On 5/16/2020 at 6:44 AM, Weezer said:

 

"We-ism" vs. "Me-ism".   Love your neighbor as yourself. 

Agreed. Especially because I think the "self" is a social relational concept rather than an atomized concept. In other words there is no ME without WE. I would only add that if the other guy mistreats you without sign of stopping after being made aware,  to quote the gospel, treat him like a pagan and a tax collector. You should not let yourself be used and abused.

[Wertbag]

3 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Y'all ain't women. Stop saying feminists are this or that or feminists think this or that or feminists claim this or that. Stop the generalizations. 

Yeah, we agree. The term feminist is vague, anything from equality to female domination. There is no one writing female doctrine that all must follow. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Agreed. Especialky because I think the "self" is a social relational concept rather than ab atomized concept. In other words there is no ME without WE. I would only add to your quote, but only if he does the same thing. Otherwise, to quote the gospel treat him like a pagan and a tax collector. You should let yourself be used and abused.

 

This old man is not quite sure what you are saying.  Can you use common words to describe what you are saying?  Or is predictive text not spelling what you want to spell?

 I always saw that passage as saying to love yourself.  It is at least implied.  Taking care of (loving) yourself doesn't allow others to use/abuse you.  And you are no better, or no worse than anyone else.  Another, and I think better phrasing of the golden rule.  

[Myrkhoos]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

This old man is not quite sure what you are saying.  Can you use common words to describe what you are saying?  Or is predictive text not spelling what you want to spell?

 I always saw that passage as saying to love yourself.  It is at least implied.  Taking care of (loving) yourself doesn't allow others to use/abuse you.  And you are no better, or no worse than anyone else.  Another, and I think better phrasing of the golden rule.  

Sorry for the mistakes. That quote combined with the love your enemies quote has been used against me, being interpreted in various ways, to allow abuse to happen and do not intervene. Example do not be firm with your abuser because you would not like someone to be firm with you. Or obey your spiritual father without question because in obedience you show utmost love for yourself and others. That is why I think that quote needs further qualifications. It can lend itself to abuse.

[TruthSeeker0]

7 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

Sorry for the mistakes. That quote combined with the love your enemies quote has been used against me, being interpreted in various ways, to allow abuse to happen and do not intervene. Example do not be firm with your abuser because you would not like someone to be firm with you. Or obey your spiritual father without question because in obedience you show utmost love for yourself and others. That is why I think that quote needs further qualifications. It can lend itself to abuse.

This is the worst type of abuse

[◊ Weezer ◊]

12 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

 That is why I think that quote needs further qualifications. It can lend itself to abuse.

 

Thanks for explaining.  It is really interesting how we get "programed" into thinking about things.  And, like myself, just assume everyone sees it the same way.

[Myrkhoos]

18 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

Thanks for explaining.  It is really interesting how we get "programed" into thinking about things.  And, like myself, just assume everyone sees it the same way.

This is something that really interests me at the moment as well. The power of the human mind for such things. No wonder. That big brain of ours must DO smth.