MrCrowley wrote: Yeah, well he was a part of that group (freethoughtblogs) but was kicked out/banned because he voiced his opinion that the atheist/skeptic community was spending an unproportionate amount of time discussing feminism problems in atheist/rational communities, and pretty nuanced ones at that. So he was famously booted from a community calling itself freethoughtblogs for voicing an opinion.
Yeah, I saw his videos on that:
girlwriteswhat also chimed in:
I remember being told by several members that if a women is walking on the same side of the street as you at night, you should cross over because she may feel threatened by your presence.
This overemphasis on making women
feel "safe" is what irks me. Girlwriteswhat goes over it in several videos, women are statistically the least likely members of society to suffer violence, but regardless they are the most concerned about violence and receive disproportionate amounts of attention and resources because of that.
I said that's like asking a black man to cross the road because you feel threatened. Didn't take me long to get banned from their either
Proud of you
This was a long time in the making, going back a year or so, and even involving Richard Dawkins in what became known as 'Elevatorgate' (I hate when people slap 'gate' on to the end of controversial events).
I remember that.
Obligatory Mitchell and Webb link.
well I am trying to point out the obvious - she's a feminist and an attention w####...
obviously she can't use logical reasoning - if she was intelligent she wouldn't be a feminist in the first place
so why do you waste your time on writing about her??
Fair enough, by giving her attention we are playing into her hands so to speak - but demonstrating the modern feminist agenda of "professional victimhood" is worth exposing.
I think we can all agree that a lot of the progress women have made in society (I mean things like getting the vote) have been positive measures. The problem we are discussing here is whether we should continue to enforce more positive measures. This means we need to decide whether there are any positive measures left to enforce or whether both genders are now 'equal' (in a rough sense, no need to go back to our discussion on innateness). I think we still have a bit further to go. You think we should stop here.
My question is, what more do they want? They got the vote without the corresponding social obligation to be drafted in defense of their democracy. In the West we have much more women than men being churned out by the education system designed to accomodate them (and yet
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17888 ), society bends over backwards to give them equal opportunities without giving them equal responsibility. The schools and workplaces that are now women-friendly serve only to alienate our own gender, I think the pendulum has already swung too far and any disadvantage women might feel, real or perceived, is their own fault.
The reason I'm so vocal about it (on this forum and in most social circles) is because it took me years to realise they're
not all sugar and spice and all things nice, and I wish someone had pointed it out to me sooner.
Don't marry!
you would need a mountain of evidence to have me convinced that the entire movement is the same
Find me a genuine issue they're addressing in the West, as opposed to going out of their way to find ways to be offended about imagined inequalities.
Women have a right to their backward reasoning and double standards in personal relationships, if individual men are willing to suffer them then it is their choise which they also have a right to. What I object to is having their hypocrisy backed by the same government that takes an annoying large slice of my income every month.
