Do Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?

Ignoring statistical error and properly considering a variable tolerance margin that works with respect of raw numbers, there shouldn't be any reason to don't have a roughly 50/50 aside society. So if that isn't the case that means something is wrong with the society itself or triggered naturally by sexual dimorphism, or both. Society is affected by geopolitics, too, so that factor should be outweighed in the variable tolerance margin.

I can't tell them wrong to those who believe (mental) sexual dimorphism is the cause, neither agree or disagree has been confirmed by science, so each one can hold their own belief about it. Though we call sexists to those who hold a (non-scientific) belief about it in the name of prejudice. More often than not, that belief is unconsciousness as people involuntary absorbs cultures pertaining their gender and the opposite, making it hard to realize you were doing arbitrarily differences in the first place.

As for society comes, you can say it was neither triggered by the previous point or neither "it's fine like it's now anyway, so why change it?". For the question, I can only say that it's not fine for everyone like things are now, it's just fine by those who naturally fit the stereotypes or are actually getting benefits from it. For example for most fathers (those who doesn't wish to pass much time on home) it's a benefit to don't be forced or defaulted to take care of children, just like it's also a benefit for the few mothers (who wishes to be the main carer) who benefit from being defaulted when their partner wishes to share or their be the main carer.

The same applies to most demographics anyway like race. Now, it's wrong for employers to always seek the best candidates ignoring demographics? No, it's ok, but they are just accepting the current situation rather attempting to fix it. I'm not gonna force them to be part of the solution as long they are not part of the problem, though.

It's a good tactic to get quick good outcomes, but it's a bad tactic to get good outcomes in the mid and long run. Why? If blacks are truly equivalent in potential, then that means you're doing nothing to try to rescue those talents and promises from their worst inherited past. While contracting someone sightly less capable will yield most likely a worst outcome, in the mid run he'll yield the same and in the long run their descendants will yield better for society, too. You can say "screw society, I'm alone on this" and ok, your right to do so.

You don't even need to look at demographics to actually help to empower and make an inclusive (non-elitist) environment. By just picking sightly worst options from time at time and giving them an equivalent chance you're doing the work. After all, if we're truly equally, we'll yield the same results if we're given the same benefits and opportunities. If our benefits lacked because our born background, then receiving an increased help at opportunities to make it up isn't unfair or evil (after all, a few generations later you'll have no more issues).

Now, people discriminate all the time for arbitrarily things like weight, name, born place and so. It also happens with gender. We have an instinct to avoid what is different and to classify people as groups, as that helped us in nature in the past (specially against other humans). So discrimination can and does happen, and it was proven countless times. Empowering helps to balance that unavoidable fact. Discrimination against gender will end when outcomes becomes equal and stereotypes will lack any reason to exist anymore (consciousness discrimination from radicals will become more two-sided, too).

As I understand it, roughly, the idea is that, when a significant number of people no longer are surprised at the job a man or woman has, then there is no longer any need to push for equality, and right now, that is not the situation. A lot of people will still say "A female brain surgeon?" and "A female firefighter?" and "A female President?" with shock and indignation. Hell, even to this day, some people believe that women are worse drivers than men. As long as that still exists, women should push for "equality," which is to say that they should strive to eradicate such untrue thoughts. And the same is true for men; some people still don't like the idea of male nurses or male flight attendants or assume that all men in such fields are gay. People have to push for such ideas to be removed from the collective consciousness.

Equality of outcomes is not something that can be done in a free society. If a company wishes to hire 50/50 males and females then by all means they have the right to do so but most wont. It isn't just that say in a company that has 80/20 in favor of males that it is males who are fitting the qualification more so than females. Keep in mind that they might not even get enough applicants to even do 50/50. They could lower their qualifications to attract more applicants but it isn't possible to do that in many area's of the economy. You could also try raising the qualifications of females but in a free society they already have the freedom to go for such male dominated jobs. Why should you or anyone try to convince people that they should go into a job just so that the world looks all organized and pretty to you?

Lets take elementary school teachers for example. The vast majority are female. Does this mean that males can not do the job? No its more to do with they choose not to. Is it wrong for people to have the freedom to choose to do what they wish to do? As long as people have that freedom you are not going to see equality of outcomes.





You nor anyone else can say that taking a chance on someone now will lead to better results in future generations. It simply isn't possible to know that. Better education is something that would help everyone. However you could give everyone the same benefits and opportunities but you would still not get equality of outcomes in a free society.





Discrimination is not something that you or anyone can end. It is something that is worth trying to lesson but equality of outcomes will not lesson discrimination nor will lessening discrimination lead to equality of outcomes.

Treating all people equally regardless of sex, race, culture or whatever has nothing to do with equality of outcomes. It has to do with equality of opportunity and is certainly something that is worth going after, but in a free society it is something that is already achieved.

A lot of retorts I've seen lately is American feminist this, or American feminist that, (a lot of bigoted ones are from the far more Liberal Sweden and Canada imo) so I present you this.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

Remember kids, questioning feminism should be illegal and equal to racism, homophobia and xenophobia.

[edit]
Ever read something extremely ignorant off a Feminist site that it made your blood boil?

People might still be surprised by the idea of a female Fireman or a female U.S President (I don't know where you're getting Brain Surgeon from) but its not an indignant shock of someone who beilieves that such a think should not exist. Rather its something more on the level of "Cool, you don't see that everyday."

The second part of your post about feminists needing to eradicate "untrue thoughts" is a big problem that I have with feminism. There's this dystopian belief that is becoming more and more prevalent in our society that there are certain "bad thoughts" and "bad ideas" that people should not have, and just as often they elect themselves to the thought police who are to regulate what is and is not acceptable for other people to say and think. I don't have the words to express just how much the fact that there are people out there who really think this, scares me.

You know what, if you insist on living in a world where a certain group of people get to decide what everyone else is allowed to think and say then I think that group should consist of me, and a few people who think that same way I do. (BTW I like the way people though about things back in the 19th century better than the way they think today so that's what we're going to go back to.)If we didn't live in that kind of society where people are allowed to say anything they like even if it frightens and offends others then you bet your ass that women would never have gotten the vote, the right to divorce their husbands, or the right to birth control. So if you're going to going to advocate taking away my right to say that woman are terrible drivers or that male nurses are creepy, then I'm going to advocate that you don't get to vote anymore and that you go back to the kitchen where you belong and you are not allowed to even think that you belong anywhere else!

Unless you are God and possess the powers of Omnipotence and Omniscience then who the fuck are you to know what is or is not THE truth? This is the reason why we have things like freedom of speech and why we place the scientific process on such a high pedastal because no matter how smart you are or how much you learn humans are flawed creatures and just one bit of information that you don't know (and maybe never will know) can show you that your whole worldview and everything you think you know is complete bullshit.

Certain actions, I agree people should be prevented from doing. However in a free democratic society there cannot be any restrictions on what people think or say. If people thinking that women are bad drivers is making you nervous, then become a scientist and do some research to find out if they are. (even if you find out that women really are worse drivers please publish the study anyway because there is way too much academic fraud as it is and its undermining the public's trust in the academic community)

tldr: Take a page from Socrates: The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.

Also stay the fuck away from my right to free speech.

While I tend to clash pretty hard with the modern political correctness movement (which likes to call itself "feminism," so I'll just use that term), I feel like playing devils advocate with the "impure thoughts" remarks.

If you think about it, there is no evil; only stupid. Of course, I don't mean stupid like lightly referencing ghostbusters in a conversation on higher morality (there is no Dana; only Zuul) in the immature sense, but stupid as in logically fallacious and/or unknowing. Furthermore, I'm not just getting at the fact that "oh, right and wrong are social constructs," but rather that even as constructs they're nonsensical.

Now you can still fall back on Socrates's catchphrase, "All I know is that I know nothing, and even that I suppose I do not know,", and make the point that it's not really possible to remove all foolishness. Solvable or not though, it's still the root problem. In the apology Socrates also said, upon being told he was deliberately harmful, that noone knowingly chooses to do Wrong. Now I'm using this out of context to an extent, as he meant that all choices have reasons, but consider this; if it is necessary to be deliberately acting (as opposed to doing something accidentally or unconsciously) in order for an action to be considered wrong, doesn't that mean it's impossible to do really do wrong? The fact that it's a choice means that there was reasoning behind it, and the fact that it was chosen means it was believed to be justified, and the fact that it was considered justified means that it was not considered to be evil, and that it therefore isn't truly evil, because for an action to be evil the actor know their action is wrong as they do it.

To be to blame for something, you have to have had a choice in the matter, and while I've stated no choice can be evil, plenty of choices can be stupid or logically wrong. Hence why there is no evil; only stupid. This means that, in a way, peoples thoughts do come into play.

Now I wholeheartedly loathe the hive-mind safezone ideal most social media-blaming feminists crave, and like you I believe no thought should be forbidden, however, I think it ought to be taken further; all "bad" choices are a result of having bad reasoning, so in that sense I wouldn't just say "no thought should be forbidden," but rather that thinking is infact a responsibility.

Evil/Bad = After knowing certain act or attitude causes harm to others, you still do that for your own benefit alone.

I agree that most sexism comes from ignorance, but it is also true that some of sexism comes from deliberate bad attitudes. Most people will do bad things in their life because we are not angels, seeking the greater good. Most people will also do good things, as we are not demons, only thinking in ours alone all the time. Now a bad action is subjective, because it depends of the persons knowledge and points of view. We use different methods to know if certain person is doing something for ignorance or evilness, seeking hints and evidence of their thoughts.

Now, as for the ignorance part comes, it is truth that it is impossible to know everything. That is why people uses beliefs to fill the gaps, for example we tend to believe what we're hearing from our professors and parents, because it is impossible to check everything we're told. Increasing knowledge will reduce the gaps, but it is impossible to fill all the gaps... in fact, it is impossible to fill even the half of them.

What we do then? People uses different rhetorics to make their beliefs, for example at selecting who is trustful and who isn't. To make a strong change that will cover the unavoidable gaps we have to push a change on rhetoric. Now, to what rhetoric? Beliefs are subjective, so it is natural that will exist different positions, and clashes will happen, that is unavoidable. What is not subjective is the practical effect of certain rhetoric, and that is the tool we use to push changes on it. Even if it is impossible to prove all those effects in scientifically ways, we use and interprets hints with things like polls (and that is what hints us that Finland is importantly more advanced in gender equality than the U.S, and the U.S is importantly more advanced than Greece, that Greece is importantly more advanced than Iran, that Iran is importantly more advanced than Nigeria).

What gives the back is that, though not proven scientifically, most people have actually seen, or experienced those things. Now, most people does not mean everyone, thus disagreements appears. Now some people would have experienced negative things related to it, but they related those experiences to other factors, increasing disagreements. And finally, what we can and do fight for, is that some people beliefs that changes are impossible and status quo is unavoidable (thus relating their experiences as "I should just try to ignore this"): changing that rhetoric from impossible to possible is at our hands and we are archiving success on a myriad of different, small things, slowly changing the big picture.

In the case of other problems, suffered by minorities, then first comes the experiences of the affected people. Then, comes to the rest of the population to believe or not that person. Of course the affected person have higher changes to be believed if it has hints and evidences to back its experiences, but it is impossible to possess them all the time. Actually this also applies to anything % of population who has not experienced the negative things the remaining % has done.

Note: At Kage. You have the right of freedom of actions as long you are not doing things considered evil by our society, and this does not limit to laws alone, and this does not apply to good or bad alone. You also have the freedom of speech, but that is because words themselves are not actions, and laws try to avoid huge % of false positives, a thing impossible when we enter in the world of non-actions. Your freedom of speech is there, but then you are not morally allowed to say anything you wish as you can cause unfair damage with your words. Moral is subjective and relative, but then again, we're referring to societies moral pressing on you and we're talking about the constant changes that should or not should be done in that communal moral.

Basically there is a difference between the you can and you should not. You can call me a lesbian scum, but you should not, for example. The laws/policy banning certain words and stuff are aimed at pressing the should not, as the punishments are minimal and also almost impossible to pursue (though I still don't agree with them, but that is called empowering). Law works under the base of what is practical.

I perceive that feminists are divided into many categories. some in the "safe place for sensitive people" camp and some in the "screw PC, i'll say what has to be said" camp, and yet still others in the "screw anything not female by my own standards" camp (which honestly to me is one of the worst variants).

i don't agree entirely with the safe place for everyone ppl because they regulate so much, and insulate so much that change will never actually happen outside of those small circles. the insulation makes them content and unmotivated to change society.

i don't agree entirely with the "screw everything PC, i'll have it my way" group either. there are things that really should be thought through and carefully constructed in order that people actually will want to be associated with the movement. these people are the type that slow down the progress that the more moderate people are making, due to retalitory and reactionary counter-movements as seen in the mens-rights activists groups and the pro-rape groups and all sorts of terrible reactions

And i sure as hell do not agree with the "screw anything who disagrees with my ideas and anyone who's not female by my own standards" the're like the second group... but exclude some other women who have been earnestly working towards an improved society because they don't fit in with them. they also ignore men who were born assigned-female-at-birth by consistently labelling them as women despite their protests. (isn't this just equating being female to being natal vaginas? isn't that the opposite of what feminism is supposed to be trying to do?)

anyways these are a few of the problem groups for feminism. terms like feminazi come from impressions given by these groups. are they representative of feminism? I don't believe so. 2nd wave maybe, but not today's feminism. Should it be called feminism if i'm implying that it's trying to address issues such as the double standards that affect both men and women? that's really up to the person to decide what to call themselves. the principles should be the same in there.

Am i a feminist? of course. currently, there are many uneven divides in our society where women are at a disadvantage. at the same time there's some other divides where men are at a disadvantage. however, there are more stacked up on the other side, and this is why feminism is named that. it's named after the more disadvantaged party. not that men are at an absolute advantage. it's never that simple.

But as you said, that's your belief. The fact is no one thinks they're evil, because their actions follow their beliefs. The only people who wake up and say "I'm going to do evil today!" are cartoon villains.

If you think it's possible to see someone as evil while they believe their actions to be justified, where is your line? If someone's been raised to be a terrorist since day one and they hurt others under the belief that it's good, is that an evil person, or rather, an unknowing person?

No matter if they reasons are justifiable by themselves, it is evil if their unique justification is to benefit themselves even if that causes unfair damage to others, and yes, it is extremely common. What are you actually meaning is that nobody is only evil, and yes, that is right (well, from the 110 billons of humans on history, actually who knows if existed dat pure evil one). Evilness is relative, but only to the person itself. Detectives, lawyers and more staff in different things in the world job's is to determine what was that person's thoughts while doing certain actor looking for hints and evidence slipping the bad person's mind (because people lies).

For example I know for certain that my dad never helped with my childbearing not because he believed that was a work only for woman, but because he just were able to slip that responsibility because it was socially accepted to do so (taking unfair advantage). How I know? Because he said to believe that fathers should must work the same time and effort on home and with the children as mothers, that he fully respects women's right and stuff. Yet his actions are obviously only those who benefit him, of course. That does not mean he is pure evil or something like that (he is more kinda neutral), but that is an example of a deliberate bad action, that is extremely common.

To your question. It depends of the person's environment. For certain there does not exist "terrorist clans" where you are only exposed to that since you born. Most terrorist organism begins they recruitments with teens, who yes, they are still forming and stuff, but they also have already mixed knowledge and thoughts to know what causes harm and not. Those movements are often justified by the "the end justify the mean", but then nobody is saying that mean is positive, just that they fight for a greater end that justifies it under their point of view. That may not be evil, in fact it can even be noble, but often that mentality set corrupts people as it gives them more power and freedom of action that they can manage without abusing. Being corruption a developed desire to satisfy your desires passing over the others as you have the power to do so now.

If he said he upheld a belief, but it contradicted his actions, that simply means he believes it's justified to contradict himself or that he simply doesn't know what he's saying. Either way, it's non-deliberate or believed to be justified.



It was a hypothetical example; you're dodging the question and simply posing your own.

The fact is if someone blows themselves up in the middle of the street, they probably thought themselves to be rather righteous given that they sacrificed their own life. You could argue that they're doing it for the sake of nailing however many virgins they believe are waiting for them in haven, but if anything that proves they believe themselves worthy of going to haven for their deeds. If they simply wanted to get some action it's far from hard to rape in the bad areas of the middle east through non-suicidal means. So of course everyone thinks themselves to be justified.

My original question, put more simply though; if one does not know hurting others is wrong, are they evil for doing it?

Like I said, no, they are not evil, though they can be irresponsible for avoiding thought and knowledge (specially today where even a poor family on Nigeria have access to education and information) or may just have bad luck depending of the situation. Again, like I said, obviously my dad's actions are justified for himself under the basis of his own benefit, but that is an egoist and bad justification, as he clearly knew the damage he done. I think it is extremely absurd to think knowledge alone "will eliminate bad actions", what it does is to eliminate stupid actions, but most people will keep lying and manipulation their small world for their own benefit in a degree or other, in fact, even better, as knowledge will give them more tools to exploit.

Why humans are like that? Mere natural selection, most the animal kingdom is like that, too, but most animals are importantly less smarter, so their damage to other is lesser, too. I'm going to pursue those who are evil (knowing they are evil by hints they gave, and proving their evilness with evidence), and I'm going to inform more those who are ignorant, just like I will press them to don't be irresponsible in avoiding studying about this or other relevant topics.

I'm using the word "stupid" in a sense stronger than what you seem to believe; I don't simply mean "uneducated" or "knowledgeable", but rather "lacking in understanding."



You seem to be making grammatical errors and things of the like when you weren't doing so beforehand; I'm not pointing this out to invalidate you, but rather to ask if I've struck a nerve. In conjunction with you throwing out a personal example that quickly, it's a potential which affects conversation. I suppose my concern isn't incredibly genuine, but I would like to know if you're having any tangential thoughts or if something is bugging you before posting further.

Edit; What was the downvote for? I'm asking if this is bothering you.

ITT: Femishits being destroyed.

Edit: Upvoted you, Chat.

A lot of discussion here, I want to just give my own simple experience.

Like most ideologies they don't really consider themselves wrong because to prescribe to an ideology they are convinced that the ideology is correct. I went to my college campus's feminist club and I asked them if they would ever reconsider their viewpoints given factual evidence and they said they'd deny it anyways because the data would be tampered and biased. Simply they'd deny the evidence even if it was conducted in a "subjectively" objective manner. I know it sounds like a contradiction but I say subjectively objective because to me it is an objective way of doing things but to them it's not.

Long story short, like most ideologies they don't consider themselves to be wrong. It would take extreme amounts of convincing and even a reality slap to make them reconsider their viewpoints. Kinda why Republicans and Democrats rarely change their positions unless given money or they lose an election. But personally I don't think that money would really change their position. It would take an extreme reality fault to their viewpoint to make themselves realize that they are correct.

Note: I'm not saying this because I believe in Feminism or not. I think it's irrelevant to what I say. The main takeaway is that people in ideologies don't consider themselves wrong unless you're willing to bribe them or give them a hard shot of reality. And some groups can't be bribed away from their ideologies.

Its not my rep I care about, but yeah, thanks.


I'd argue that if someone went against they're ideology for a bribe, they never truly believed in it in the first place.

I consider myself an extent-ialist. I believe the modern world needs feminism... to an extent.

I acknowledge women in a lot of places have had unfortunate, undeserved experiences from work place to everyday lives due to their looks, weight, and gender. I acknowledge a lot of opportunities in their lives are hampered merely because of their gender, and by, what they say, the patriarchy. This is why I wouldn't blame women for standing up for themselves to these injustices. I hate it when groups like these are unfairly bash them internet.

But I can't make sense of some of their ideals. More extreme (dare I say fanatical) feminists' approach to gender equality is, instead of fighting for themselves, is to degrade males and treat them lower than themselves to achieve this "ideal". I imagine this is what led to the modern characterization of feminist zealotry, only because of this particular audacious wave of feminists.

For one thing, I find this line of thought "teach males not to assault instead of women how not to get assaulted" overly unrealistic. Even guys are taught to avoid dark alleys at night because it's safe and responsible. Of course, we should all fight for safe streets at night, and it would be a joy when it is achieved, but for now I don't think fighting for women to be irresponsible with safety would be wise, realistically.

Triple post and a bug?
Important roles in society? That's not exactly uncharted territory for females. If you're talking about equal value, then that obviously contradicts things found in either of those articles. That's doesn't conflict with what I asked either.

The thing is we as individuals are not equal, but we do deserve some form of equal opportunity, not equal OUTCOME. When you lower standards for Firemen and Police officers for the sake of "equality" and political correctness you put real people in possibly very dangerous situations.

Artificial quotas in meritocracy are one of the most insulting and baffling things out there, so why would you support it for the sake of "equality" when it's clearly not?

edit
This shitty site can't even have 1 thread not break down after a couple pages.

My deleted post I guess:
http://time.com/3837530/un-report-women-may-need-different-treatment-to-achieve-economic-equality/
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/woman-to-become-ny-firefighter-despite-failing-crucial-fitness-test/
https://news.yahoo.com/german-parliament-approves-quota-female-directors-102801868--finance.html
http://www.wgal.com/news/feds-sue-pa-state-police-say-fitness-test-unfair-to-women/27224714

So it's not about having equal legal rights.
Or equal opportunity.

What is it that you really want?

EDIT # 2 because I can't bump.

Canada, once again showing that they too can be as Orwellian as everyone else.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-ruling-in-twitter-harassment-trial-could-have-enormous-fallout-for-free-speech

TL;DR
>man disagrees with Feminist on twitter
>he doesn't harass or threaten them in any way, simply disagreeing with their social justice tactics
>he's now fired because of this, and can face up to 6 months in prison

I remember linking a proposed amendment/law for the EU that suggested making criticizing Feminism illegal. Well it seems like Canada beat them to the punch.

Im not really sure if i identify myself as a feminist or not, but i do think women should be equal, and thats basically all i takes to be a "feminist".
Im a lot on Tumblr too, and i read a lot about their ideas of feminism and agreed with them, and i don't mean the.. over the top ideas that Tumblr is known for with that.

I do question myself a lot though, what do i want to achieve with feminism? Am i not already equal? And i am open to discuss about it.

The thing i have with todays society is just, that so many guys are so disrespectful. So many times people yelled after me that they wanted to fuck me, or called me doll or other catcalling. And that made me question how is the women in todays society viewed in general? There are still many, many people who objectify women, many sexists. But compared to other countrys, its like.. really really small matters. Not even worth mentioning. I don't thing men in general are scary, horny monsters but some really really are like this. Also i really hate the slut-shaming, i don't mean the kind of "Sluts" wo cheat on people that is obviously wrong, but i mean, the reall sluts, who make money with selling their body. Whats wrong about that? Its her right to do what she wants with her body. And many people just don't see that. Many women and men look down upon people like that, and i simply fail to understand why? Thats when i question how people are raised, because the way to look at that like this, has to come from somewhere. Also girls who clothe provocative, showing much skin are shamed, and when they get raped often blamed for being at fault, because she was seducing him? Also thats a thing that really really fucks me up. Somehow.. This turned into a vent. Im terribly sorry.
But i think what im trying to say is, that there are still things feminism is important for, yet i am not really sure how feminism is going to change these things?

Also, feminism today has done a lot of shit. And many feminists are just so.. extreme. And like everything, if its to much it turns into poison. They take men and paint them as the devil, when in general most men aren't even sexists anymore. (Even though sometimes i get the feeling many men still are, but once again i might just had been very unlucky in my encounters with guys.) They paint themself as more opressed as they actually are. We aren't being opressed in the western countrys, the biggest problem is still how we are viewed and sexism, but that in itself isnt opression anymore. We have many many rights, feminists have achieved great things and i am really really thankful for that.

But where feminism is needed the most is in countrys where it isnt as pretty for women as here.

Oh damn, it is the first time I came to the forums and oh boy, what a treat. Feminism.

I have not read all the comments until now, just some at the start, there are just too many.

I know I will get a lot of shit for saying this, but I hate feminism with a passion. At least the toxic and cancerous mutation that feminism is today.

Maybe I will repeat some thing that have already been said. I will leave my input, but most likely forget what I want to say as I write. I will to my best, though.

My ideal is that everyone is equal and should have the same rights, duties, yadda, yadda. This is all pretty and dandy, but we do have to keep in mind that the world and nature is an extremely unfair place. No one will be able to change that fact, unless we cease to be humans and become mindless drones who behave and do the same as the everyone.

What feminists do not have into consideration is that the world is unfair to everyone. Not just women, men, the poor, the rich, but to literally everyone. In fact, unfairness is quite a subjective thing. Some people will find unfair that they are tall and wanted to be shorter, others will find that is unfair that they are short and want to be taller. We desire what we can not have under our own circumstances.

Just like women have their own issues, men have theirs too. Women have perks and "privileges" for being women, just like men.

The great topic of rape is just an ugly mess. Rape is a crime just like any other, as much as we educate our children to not be criminals, some will be. As long there are laws, there are criminals too. Crimes should be prevented, yes, but you can not count on a criminal come to the realization of "Oh shit! They told me not to be a criminal!" as they are about to break the law. Everyone has the responsibility to preserve their own well being, that is your first duty as a human being. Waiting for some external force to take care of you it is just like behaving as a helpless child who can not help itself.

Rape is not taken seriously? Well, nowadays a woman can destroy a man's life with just a false rape accusation. Even after being proven to be false, the damage still stands and most of the time is irreversible. If the case was that rape was not taken seriously, I would most likely blame these modern feminists who just diminish its meaning by turning every single piece of bullshit into "rape" and effectively destroy its meaning.

I will not even comment on the wage gap and overall bullshit statistics, those dead horses are already beaten to a pulp.

To me, all these modern feminists are like old war veterans who lost their mean to fight. Looking to just instigate and finding ridiculous reasons to start a war in a long time won one. And are, ironically, too afraid to take the fighting where it is really needed.
It is way too easy to be a keyboard warrior who holds impossible morals in times of peace. Complaining about video games, etc is a serious women issues? C'mon. Even in that case there are two sides.
Double standards are a really funny thing too.

I have came to a point in this matter where I will just cut off people who have such extreme and irrational points of view. I just lost the heart to have discussions and interact with deluded people which everything is a crime to them.

I am sorry if I did not write this perfectly and came a bit in the aggressive side. English not being my natal language and being 6h14 am has this results.