Are you a feminist?

[Nat Turner]

Of course they should have the same rights. They're people, and because of that, they deserve the rights that people get.

Sure, because you can label every homo sapien "people" they should have the same rights. I can label dogs and people as "mammals", so should mankind and dogkind have the same rights too? We're all mammals.

 

[Nat Turner]

That you can't compare the difference between males and females to the difference between animals. Especially considering that we all start off as females, and that the difference, genetically, between different species is far larger than the (almost non-existent) difference between genders.

No, we don't all start out as females. That's simply false. Our DNA never changes. There is a major difference between different genders because there are multiple major organs that are not shared. Our brains work differently too, and there's many scientific papers to back that up.

Besides, how are you always arguing for no restriction of freedom but then saying it's okay to legislate against women?

I'm saying it's wrong to have legislation that blocks discrimination against men or women.

 

[CptStern]

Sure, because you can label every homo sapien "people" they should have the same rights. I can label dogs and people as "mammals", so should mankind and dogkind have the same rights too? We're all mammals.

so you're saying that different people should have seperate rights? based on what exactly?

A difference in chromosomes is a very major difference. There's tons of genes packed into them.

and? I fail to see your point

I'm saying it's wrong to have legislation that blocks discrimination against men or women.

so you're saying that discrimination is justifiable because of biological reasons?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, if your civilisation is based on including all mammals then sure.

However, you may quickly find it quite hard to organise such a society. Dogs would end up with a status similar to people with serious mental diseases - unable to interact in many ways with the rest of society. They would have to be looked after all the time. There would also be problems if you were forced to arrest the dog, since it would not be able to give evidence.

Hang on, I can't believe you're comparing women to dogs. I'm thinking Yuri is right about you just making arguments like this to baffle people.

No, we don't all start out as females. That's simply false.

Yes, we do all start out as females. Check your torso: do you have nipples? Well done - this is evidence that you were once a lady. All human embryos are female at the start.

 

[Nat Turner]

Well, if your civilisation is based on including all mammals then sure.

However, you may quickly find it quite hard to organise such a society. Dogs would end up with a status similar to people with serious mental diseases - unable to interact in many ways with the rest of society. They would have to be looked after all the time. There would also be problems if you were forced to arrest the dog, since it would not be able to give evidence.

Hang on, I can't believe you're comparing women to dogs. I'm thinking Yuri is right about you just making arguments like this to baffle people.

No, I'm comparing people to dogs. Also here you're discriminating based on mental capacity, which may be fine actually.

 

[Nat Turner]

Yes, we do all start out as females. Check your torso: do you have nipples? Well done - this is evidence that you were once a lady. All human embryos are female at the start.

No, your DNA is what makes you male or female. Not your appearance. Anyways, this is irrelevant. People and fish look the same too in early stages of development.

And your thing about nipples is wrong. All men have nipples - so nipplage is also a characteristic of men.

 

[Nat Turner]

so you're saying that different people should have seperate rights? based on what exactly?

No, everyone should have almost equal rights. But it should also be fine for private individuals to discriminate (for employment for example).

so you're saying that discrimination is justifiable because of biological reasons?

Yes, it is. Vast biological reasons make it fine to discriminate. How come we can slaughter pigs (intelligent mammals) for food but not people (intelligent mammals)?

 

[CptStern]

No, everyone should have almost equal rights. But it should also be fine for private individuals to discriminate (for employment for example).

it is fine because it is a private organization

Yes, it is. Vast biological reasons make it fine to discriminate. How come we can slaughter pigs (intelligent mammals) for food but not people (intelligent mammals)?

look can we stick with one species at a time? you cant compare animals with humans ..according to most 1st world nations animals are considered property, they have NO rights ..it's just not a valid comparison

 

[kaf11]

I certainly am.

 

[Sulkdodds]

1. Stop double/triple posting.
2. You are wrong. "The sex of a particular organism may be determined by a number of factors. These may be genetic or environmental, or may naturally change during the course of an organism's life." Wikipedia.
3. You are wrong. "In both sexes, testosterone promotes the growth of skeletal muscles, the muscles that are connected to the skeleton and enable a person to move. The muscle-growing property of testosterone is called its anabolic effect.

In males, testosterone surges occur twice in life. The first surge comes several weeks after conception--the moment when a fertilized human egg implants itself in a woman's uterus. It is testosterone that turns an unborn child--which is always female at conception--into a male." Some article.

Yes, it is. Vast biological reasons make it fine to discriminate. How come we can slaughter pigs (intelligent mammals) for food but not people (intelligent mammals)?

Well, people don't taste very nice. We're very rubbery.

With that out of the way, we can have an argument about the ethics of eating animals another time. Right now, what can be said is that the difference between pigs and humans is A. bigger than that between males and females and B. NOT COMPARABLE.

The way all mammalian species work is with a male version of the species and a female version of the species. There are male dogs and female dogs. Thus, the differences inherent in the relationships between the two cannot be compared to the differences between species, because a single species encompasses both male and female versions. Both versions are required for the species to survive. In many cases/ways, there are far larger differences between two males than between two females.

I'm wondering why you chose the name you did, by the way. He wasn't a nice person.

EDIT: In fact, your posts have made me internally debate the ethics of eating animals! And also consider many so-called self evident truths that our society is based on! However I still believe women should be treated equally as men! However also, I shall continue to eat animals because I am hungry and animals often eat each other in the wild! Perhaps in future I will eat only animals that would eat ME!

 

[kirovman]

Hell no I'm not feminist. Men and women are biologically very different (unlike different races), so there's no problem discriminating in legislation. If you can discriminate between animals and humans, then you can discriminate between men and women. Major biological differences mean something.

Are you aware that's the same arguement Hitler used, only substituting sexes with races?

Something along the lines of "If you can (biologically) discriminate between men and dogs, you can discriminate between Ayrans and Jews."

 

[Mechagodzilla]

OH CRAP
Godwin's Law has been decimated by the fact Nat is actually acting like an honest-to-god eugenicist.

 

[Hazar]

oh snap, it's varg!

/me wubbles

all for equal rights here

 

[VirusType2]

Right, I've been gone for a while, so I don't know if there's already been a thread like this (and I'm way to lazy to use the search button), but here goes..
Are you a feminist?
By feminist I mean feminist in it's 'real' meaning, not the radical kind of feminism that some people advocate. For me, feminism basicly means that everyone, regardless of gender, should have the same opportunities, the same salaries, and be allowed to live their lives without oppression and fear.
It's an unfortunate but true fact that in todays society women are opressed, wether they notice it or not. Women are often discriminated in the job market, and tend to recieve lower saleries than men, even though they're doing the exact same job (in Sweden, for example, women earn about 30% less then men). Women are also the primary victims of sexual violence, both physical and mental, and are also most affected and pressed by the sick beauty ideals that exist everywhere in the western world today.
Women are also generally given less mental space (I'm not sure if that's the right word, but what I mean is that their opinions are given less weight then those of men, and that men tend to ignore women when in a discussion) then men, and are less listened to. This is something all men contribute to, knowingly or not.
So, being a feminist is to recognize that all this happens and is a problem, and to actively try to fight it, both by trying to better oneself, and by enlightening other men and women about the problem. So, are you a feminist?
(and I'll be very surprised if anyone answers No..)

oh, and please excuse my crappy english. I haven't used the language in a while

I actually feel that women have the advantage in the workplace, in school, when they get pulled over by police, and things like that. However, I'm not so foolish to say that they have equal opportunity in the highest ranks of the workplace, especially goverment, but I think they definitely can get jobs easier, unless that job is CEO or president of a company or country. But in jobs that don't require a skill, for example; cashier, fast food, and retail (which is a large portion of jobs in America) I feel that women are often given these jobs over men, thats how I've seen it for the past 15 years, but whether it is true or just my imagination is unknown.

Other than that I agree with everything else you said. I went ahead and voted feminist because I agree with the bulk of what you say. Equal for all yes.

 

[Yuri]

Varg!

I call what I am "Equal opportunist." I hate the word feminist. People aren't called masculinists when they want to be stewards on planes or something, are they? People aren't asianist or africanists. People just want to be treated equally.

But I guess yes.

 

[VirusType2]

Varg!

I call what I am "Equal opportunist." I hate the word feminist. People aren't called masculinists when they want to be stewards on planes or something, are they? People aren't asianist or africanists. People just want to be treated equally.

But I guess yes.

Yea my first thought was to say Im not feminist I'm humanist, my second thought was ,"WHYZ IT GOTTA BE FEMINIST" Geez they want so much power they are even taking the word for feeling equal opportunity for all!!111

I mean the very thing they are fighting for is equality but then they wouldn't like it if we called it Masculinist's!

 

[el Chi]

...but I think they definitely can get jobs easier, unless that job is CEO or president of a company or country. But in jobs that don't require a skill, for example; cashier, fast food, and retail (which is a large portion of jobs in America) I feel that women are often given these jobs over men...

Lucky them.

 

[VirusType2]

Lucky them.

Yea I know. It was intended to sound like that, even though I voted feminist. But still, say that to the Hundreds of thousands of unemployed males and they will agree, "lucky them!" with no sarcasm when they say it though. :dozey:

Again, note that it is an observation by me and I provide no factual evidence of what I say ( I could be wrong )

 

[NeptuneUK]

chromosomes.

XX, XY. the Y is tiny in the male. jus a lil bit of genetic code.

but the Xs in the female are genetically identical. more genetic code, but less active DNA. its wierd. the XY has a few dissadvantages in the fact that it allows many genetic diseases to exist. ftl.

none of it is relevant to anything anyway. jus some wierd facts

 

[Canadian Gunner]

Nuts, I voted no by accident. I'm all for equality as long as it's still equality. Not sexism against men. (which some of that extremely radical feminism is imo.)

 

[Raeven0]

I despise the name "feminist", but I grant that all sentient beings (notably, this excludes embryos) deserve the same core rights.

Show me a catfish that practices philosophy and I will let it vote in popular elections. Unless, you know, I can't even get across to it the concept of candidacy. Then it would probably not be eligible.

 

[Icarusintel]

I like lesbians, does that count?

 

[Nat Turner]

Are you aware that's the same arguement Hitler used, only substituting sexes with races?

Something along the lines of "If you can (biologically) discriminate between men and dogs, you can discriminate between Ayrans and Jews."

There are no major biological differences between races.

nice try...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

...and there are no relevant differences between men and women when it comes to the vast majority of careers.

Oh no different genitals.
Honestly, you give the impression that you haven't even seen a woman.

How about this: we get chimps to do all our jobs.
They're more human than women, so it's totally sensible.
Hell, you could marry a chimp and exclude women altogether.
Clearly you are a thinker of our time.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I believe that feminism is so increadibly confused that it's pointless to ask this question.

 

[Nat Turner]

...and there are no relevant differences between men and women when it comes to the vast majority of careers.

Oh no different genitals.
Honestly, you give the impression that you haven't even seen a woman.

How about this: we get chimps to do all our jobs.
They're more human than women, so it's totally sensible.
Hell, you could marry a chimp and exclude women altogether.
Clearly you are a thinker of our time.

You're talking about differences of intelligence, not biology.

 

[15357]

I'm more of a humanist than a feminist: I recognize problems for all minority groups not just women.





this is a non-issue and complete nonsense ..you cannot judge on gender alone, I've met a few women in my lifetime that could probably wipe the floor with 90% of the men I know. Women can be just as strong as men. Take the construction industry for example; the argument is always that women cant physically do the job ...well have you ever been on a construction site? you wont see anyone carrying 150lb bags of cement, or a 300lb door frame. Some women are just as capable as men and some men are just as incapable as women.



no offense but it's a sad world you live in

Uh...... That was what I meant, but my lack of ability to uh... describe it in better words probably twisted the meaning..........



And also that people should be paid per productivity, not by hours..... but a non-issue, I'd guess.

 

[Gunner]

Uh...... That was what I meant, but my lack of ability to uh... describe it in better words probably twisted the meaning..........



And also that people should be paid per productivity, not by hours..... but a non-issue, I'd guess.

Paid per productivity, are you insane? you want europe to explode? The only people that would approve would be the japanese or south koreans. The rest of the world's work force would get shafted.

 

[15357]

Paid per productivity, are you insane? you want europe to explode? The only people that would approve would be the japanese or south koreans. The rest of the world's work force would get shafted.

It'd be more fair, would it not?

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Originally Posted by CptStern
I'm more of a humanist than a feminist: I recognize problems for all minority groups not just women.





this is a non-issue and complete nonsense ..you cannot judge on gender alone, I've met a few women in my lifetime that could probably wipe the floor with 90% of the men I know. Women can be just as strong as men. Take the construction industry for example; the argument is always that women cant physically do the job ...well have you ever been on a construction site? you wont see anyone carrying 150lb bags of cement, or a 300lb door frame. Some women are just as capable as men and some men are just as incapable as women.



no offense but it's a sad world you live in

this is a minority you are talking about. Generally males are stronger than females. Generally you see men working at building sites and generally you see men and women competeing seperately in the olypmics. Thus according to these generalities, why should there be anything wrong with associating general gender roles for females and males?

 

[bliink]

Actually, where I live (in sydney australia) theres a pretty good mix of male and female construction workers. I mean, not 50% even, but perhaps 40% on some of the sites I've seen are female. Pretty hot looking ones too, actually. My friend's theory (which I think might be right) is that most of the people doing municipal roadworks & construction are backpackers- its work that suits someone who doesn't necessarily have a skillset and who might not be around for the long term.

They aren't just turning the "Slow" / "Stop" traffic signs either. I saw one digging in a trench and another installing some pipes/concrete (I couldnt quite see)

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I live in the same place I havent happened to see the same thing. I rarely ever see females working in construction, or plumbing or carpentry.

The issue here is, why do MORE men work in construction sites, and why are there MORE female who sell make up at myer store outlets for example?

Because generally, men are phyiscally more adept at performing construction work, and generally females are more adept at being agreeable and selling makeup to other females. If I apply for a job as a make up salesman, should I be insulted and feel discriminated against because I wasnt accepted for the job based on my gender?

Anyway, my view is that, males and females should be given equal rights as human beings, not equal rights based on their gender.

 

[drunkymonkey]

Sure, because you can label every homo sapien "people" they should have the same rights. I can label dogs and people as "mammals", so should mankind and dogkind have the same rights too? We're all mammals.

Yes, they should actually. Sexual organs do not warrant a change in opinion about people.
Dogs are not the same species as us. Nor are any other mammals, apart from us.

 

[Nat Turner]

Yes, they should actually. Sexual organs do not warrant a change in opinion about people.
Dogs are not the same species as us. Nor are any other mammals, apart from us.

Why does it matter that we're the same species? That's just a label.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

And also that people should be paid per productivity, not by hours..... but a non-issue, I'd guess.

What numbers is saying is that, if a women has huge baps, and the job involves standing really, really close to a hydraulic press, then logically it'd be a bad idea to put the two together.

DE'BAPPED!

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Crushenator 500]

Omg Varg!!!!

 

[Hazar]

then he dissapears again ;(

 

[Llama]

Equality is good. Favourtism towards one gender (unless in very special curminstances) is bad.

 

[ríomhaire]

Why does it matter that we're the same species? That's just a label.

This rock should have the same rights as me, after all, 'life' is only a label.

Nat, unless you are deliberatly trying to cause conflict you must...hell I dunno. You surely can't be serious with your ridiculous arguements.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Yes, the issuie here is the definition of those labels. Thus, obviously as there are major biological distinctions between humans and rocks, rocks are treated differently to humans. This proves Nat Turners orginal point that due to the biological differences between the sexes, we should be treated differently. Way to go in proving his point riomhaire.