Do Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?

Come on dude biaaatch! Try not ta be fuckin straight-up up in some shits man! Chill tha fuck down n' try ta smoke da marijuana cuz itz tha only thang dat you can do fo' realz. And also RELAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX

As Nyara❤ said, women have to worry a hell of a lot more about getting molested/raped than men do, because often, men feel like they have a right to do certain things, that it is acceptable despite the fact that it is not. The whole "He started groping her because he thought she was coming on to him" thing is a great example. A lot of men (which is to say, not the majority by any means but also not the extreme minority; too common but not excessively common would be a good way of putting it) believe that they can touch a woman any way they want, as long as the woman shows the slightest bit of attraction. This is not the truth, not in any way. It's simple - if a woman likes a man, it might be okay for the man to kiss her, but that does not mean that she is okay with the man shoving his hand down her pants. The guys that don't get this need to be corrected; rather, the attitude that leads to such behavior needs to be fixed before the person actually does something wrong. In short, people need to be taught boundaries, and the problem that concerns women is that a lot of men either are not taught about such boundaries or do not believe in them.

There is a lack of respect for women in today's world, whether people want to admit it or not, and that is the cause of many of the problems facing women.

For example, slut-shaming and blaming the victim (of rape). Telling a woman that she needs to carry a gun or pepper spray when she has to walk to her car in the dark is not the same as telling a woman not to wear "provocative" clothing in public. The former is a form of safety, and it applies to both men and women; the latter is something that applies only to women, and it is implies that, should a woman be raped while wearing revealing clothing, it is her fault and not the fault of the rapist. To put it another way, if a person is murdered while walking in a park after dark, it is acceptable to say that the person did something stupid, but it is not acceptable at all to say that it is the murdered person's fault more than it is the murderer. Blame the attacker, not the victim. After all, if I raped a person, could I use as my defense the fact that I was able to overpower the person and therefore they should have gone to the gym more often so that I could not have overpowered them?

I stopped caring for femenism or feminist movement as whole. Fuck it.

It's a bit tricky to quantify. By one hand, you can't say it's a yes or not, full or none, it's more about degrees. Yet, you can't quantify it in a perfect way the degree as you can respect certain things about womans and others nope. Still, considering degrees is the closet approximation we can aspire to practical effects. I don't think the negative extreme is too common, those who feel with the right to rape on certain circumstances and so. Nor I think most mens posses enough disrespect to make a relevant harm. But I think you can say there are at least a 5% whose disrespect can cause a relevant harm, maybe not rape, but yes hurting in a way or other, repeating various times (until feminism or practical nature makes them see their error or change their believe). Now let's say that 5% meets at least 10 womens along their life without ever realizing their error or caring about it in the first place, that makes the 50% of womens will suffer a bad episode soon or later in their life.

Now I think that 5% is at least a bit higher (let's say an 8%, but if you want to take 5%, take 5%, I'm not gonna discuss it). Just like I think a guy will meet more than 10 womens along all their life, so, even with such small numbers, you can see how much damage can be done. Now we can say "but the 94.5% remaining is pure and saint". Error. While on that 94.5% I think you can encounter a fairly high number, let's say a 33,3%, of mens whose fully respect, the remaining 61,2% lacks respect at some degree and at least half of them can still make some bad things.

For example childbearing. That 33,3% of mens fully believe on equally childbearing, passing neither half of the time or thinking about they be the housewife in a equal position to their wife (so the final organization is taken without biases but rather as a full team). Well, the 61,2% feels they should help at home, that's a good thing, what isn't a good thing is that 61,2% isn't considering childbearing at the same position. How? Well, there's a difference between helping at home and being of charge of half of the home tasks, most womens who marry a guy of the 61,2% have to make them remember to help them, press, pressure, teach them and so, while they should do those things unasked like the gals are doing already! Now the 5% with serious disrespect will never consider helping at home at all and the 0.5% remaining will force to be attended like a superior being.

A 33,3% found it's completely fine no matter the scenario that a girl have sex before marriage with as many mens as she wishes as long she's fine, the girl isn't a whore, just like the man for doing the same isn't anything negative. Well, 61,2% think a girl can't be "loose after certain point" while mans can be as loose as the wish, and if a girl is loose enough to "pass the line", she's a whore, while the guy can pass the line as much as he wishes and he's fine (or even applauded as I seen before, I applaud them both if they feel happy and didn't damage, to be honest, but most guys will never applaud a gal for that). The 5% thinks that womens must be pure and saint rather accepting some degree of "looseness", with some hate on it, and the 0.5% remaining will hate them for being whores in a serious degree. Let's consider that when a guy consider a girl a whore, they loss respect for her, so it's important.

So, yeah, to answer the question, I don't think most men severely disrespect womens, but can't say they are so rare that you'll never see one on average.

As for the rest of the message I stick with what said Shaggy. As for the mens suffering more abuse, well, that's false, but mens does suffer more violence, that's right, thanks to sexism, too, as mens disrespect other men's right to live without violence (and girls, too, though by fear, they don't harm men often). One thing aside violence I think sexism is doing so much harm to males is with the Family Courts, as males receive the custody of childrens a lot less because the severe bias that supports females for that as "they do that naturally", that's a thing we should work now, too, but we're lagging to do so and it's bad.

This type of generalization of the issue doesn't help at all. You talk about boundaries as if all women had the exact same boundaries, as if there is certain type of human behavior that should be made illegal. There are most likely plenty of women who find the type of behavior you describe as being bad totally enjoyable. And no, i am not saying even most or half of women are like that, and no, i am not saying that it justifies men behaving like assholes, because some women like it. What i am saying is that generalizing an personal issue into a supposed 'problem' that all women face is not the way to go.

And no, i do not support men doing those type of things you listed to women, without consent. I personally think men who do those type of things are fucking assholes. My advice is that if you are groped by a man without you giving 'some kind of clear consent', you should kick them in the nuts as hard as you can.



The type of problems you and both Nyara listed are nothing compared to the real injustice and inequality women face in places like Africa, Asia or the Middle-East.



Not only that it doesn't matter if it applies only to women, it doesn't imply that, or if you think it does, then you are missing the point. You should answer the question cruz asked.

Do you think that if i buy a burglar alarm, i support burglar culture?
Do you think if an airport uses metal detectors, that airport supports hijackings with metal objects?

The answer to both of those questions should be obvious, it is no. The exact same answer you get when you ask: "Does telling (or suggesting) women to not wear "provocative" clothing in public support rape culture?" No, it doesn't.

You do not live in a vacuum of happiness, you live in a reality where there are people willing to hijack airplanes, that is why we use metal detectors to catch them. There are people willing to steal your stuff, that is why we use burglar alarms to deter them or to catch them in the act. There are people who are willing to violently rape you, that is why it is good thing to do your best to be prepared for it. Don't walk alone in dark alleys, don't wear too revealing clothing if you think you might be raped because of it, buy a maze, a tazer, a gun.

We do not blame the victim, rape is 100% the rapists fault. But to cover your ears and eyes about it as if it didn't exist when you can actually take measures to ensure you do not get raped is ridiculous. And then when we make suggestions how women could actually be safer, you take it as if we are blaming you for something you cannot be blamed for.

A person who owns a ferrari and locks his/her car when leaving it in the city does not support burglar culture, he/she understands reality and that people steal.

A person who owns a ferrari and doesn't lock his/her car when leaving it in the city might become a VICTIM OF A BURGLARY, he/she also is an idiot.



You don't even realize that you proved your own point wrong here about us blaming the victim. Even you say and i fucking quote: "it is acceptable to say that the person did something stupid" and he got murdered. But at the same time you are saying we cannot say that exact same thing about women when they get into trouble. You for some reason think we blame women for getting raped, the same way as if we did blamed the murder victim for getting murdered in your example.

Why is it acceptable to say that a person who got murdered (lets say for being at the wrong place at the wrong time) did something stupid, i mean all he did was walk in a park, but not ok for us telling rape victims, that maybe they did something stupid before they got raped (even though nobody is saying that in reality)?



No, you cannot. It is against the law to rape someone. Just like it is against the law to steal, to murder and to hijack planes, but guess fucking what. There exists people who are willing to break the law and that is why it is appropriate to defend yourself against it!

All women have the exact same boundaries unless they voluntary decide to left them (with a clear consent). You can't go in the live kicking people just because some are masochist, for example. There's a clear boundary you shouldn't pass unless you get a clear green light (and a blink isn't a green light). It's a glad you think a men can't do that, but just like you think gals have "variable boundaries", some guys thinks the same and sets their personal line in a harmful place.



Do you know that the western media reaches everywhere, right? Do you know that western feminist are also financing campaigns on all the world, right? And yeah, they are also giving supports to us, feminist in other parts of the world, to talk louder and stronger as we're backed now. Well, it was like that until anti-feminism started to kill western feminism and Internet made extremist a lot more louder, thanks for slowing the process anywhere else, like if it weren't lagging enough already.

Note: If you really care about that while hardcore hating western feminism, then you should make an effort to directly help on those places.



A person who buys a bulgar clock is not supporting bulgar culture, but most likely isn't doing anything to stop it anyway as he's just accepting it. People hates idiot people, thus by increasing the burden because idiocy you're also giving a moral burden to the victim, even if it's unintentional. With that said I think it's right to try to accept the current situation and adapt around it while this changes, but I wouldn't harass a person if he/she doesn't want as it our fault for creating, promoting and so, even if it's unintentional, the crime. At most you should be warned you're on more danger, but let people take their own decisions without judging them so badly (even if the worst happens).

Of course, on this applies the classic "Individualism VS Socialism". Nothing to say, it's a believe, so you can believe in that and I can believe in what I'm doing. Though I don't think things should be taken to extremes, I think there's always a portion of individualism and socialism on everything.



Let's make those who doesn't respects those laws we believe they are right to respect them. Most people isn't law abiding actually, so by just saying something is illegal you aren't reaching too far. The reason you don't see people broking laws is the fear to the punishment and/or they actually respect and believe for what is certaiin law for. Fear is a good deterrent until we change the core, though.

Again, all this is the classic clash between idealism and conformism. Idealism aims to improve until things are perfect, while conformism is your classic "that's how the world works, deal with it". Of course conformism have it's positive things, specially when ideal wasn't reached yet, but it shouldn't overshadow the strive for idealism. Well, that's a believe again, can be wrong just like it can be the inverse.

Which literally means that NOT ALL women have the exact same boundaries. If you think there doesn't exist women who like to be groped or cat called without their clear consent, you are mistaken. And again, i am certainly not claiming these type of women are the majority, of coarse they are not, but to say none exists is simply false.



Yes, i totally 100% agree, but to suggest your boundary to what is ok and what is not ok is same for all women is simply false. It is factually false.



Again, who are you to judge what is a green light for what for all women?

Sure you can say 'in general', but don't make it as if it was the absolute rule.



And i totally support you telling the men to back off or to kick them in the nuts if they break your boundaries.



Yet still the loudest and the most exposed feminist talk about video games and cat callings. I live in Finland and browse a lot of internet, but i have never heard of a western organisation that supports womens rights outside of America that recognizes themselves as a 'feminist organisation'.



Giving advice to a person does not equal to judging the person. Also 'accepting' a problem does not mean you create or promote the problem. Accepting something just means that, accepting it, living with it. If buying a burglar alarm does something, it the very least tries to defend you from the problem. You do not promote it by defending against it.



Belief without rationality or logic is faith, and faith is useless to solve anything in reality for society.



And if fear is not good enough then we use force. If you are not willing to live by the rules of cohesive society then you can leave that society or face the punishment from the society for breaking the rules that we have agreed upon.

>men's suffer less abuse
1. Stop saying "mens" and "womens".
2. Not only is that wrong but most of the time they don't have outlets to seek help help against their abusers. In some cases men are the ones who are arrested when the call for help in Domestic violence cases despite clearly being the victims. Call centers for victims question men and then either victim blame or assume they're being dishonest. Men in general suffer more harassment, physical violence and well violence in general. Give me studies and papers proving your point that men are not harassed, not harassed as frequently.(Either way you're just disparaging men, but to show me)

You're being extremely dishonest and avoiding the problem at hand. You're blaming all men when you say "teach men not to rape" while excusing female abusers and shaming male victims. It helps no one. A person who more than likely will commit the crime will be not care about legal repercussions, or that someone is telling them it's wrong. It serves no purpose (other than to shame) and is preached by normal non radical feminist. (again my argument is that people are more than eager to point at radicals rather than actually addressing the issues with feminism)
Men on men violence/harassment/rape isn't caused by sexism, but people's attitudes towards it is. (thus you defending the "teach men not to -" argument)

As for child bearing, getting upset that a man doesn't value "childbearing" is kinda pointless. The reasons are numerous, not specifically based on perceived gender roles. Speaking of "childbearing" it's fine to point out men don't have any reproductive rights.
Feminism is not about equality, neither legally or socially.(Again not saying advocating for only female rights/advantages/privileges is a necessarily evil) Thus the topic.

Mens suffering less abuse from girls than girls from mens. On average mens suffers more violence (specially physiological). Yeah, it's also by sexism that men on men troubles happens (not the only cause, but it's one of the causes), as guys are teach that other guys aren't frail, they should be rude, macho men playboy and so, thus lacking respect for the integrity of their own gender. It's actually sort of promoted by girls, too, as some expect guys being like that. Girls doesn't respect too much guys neither, though they don't resort to violence often because fear (and it's wrong)

The "teach the men to don't rape" ISN'T a moderate cause, the moderate cause is to teach men to be more respectful with womans on average. It's a request to make those who're already respectful to assist at making everyone else respectful as well. I know extremists does harass male victims and it's wrong, and I know they defend female abusers and that's also wrong, but moderates lacks voice on magazines and Internet for the nature of the mediums and some signed pacts with the devil (extremist) to get a voice on them (thing I'm completely against).

As for childbearing it is important, in fact, I think it's the whole most important point (even on the places where the problem is worst). It's the reason female are still winning less as they can't work as much as males or have harder problems getting promoted or anything because they must do childbearing, while for the males, childbearing is optional. Why? Well, you can talk about natural inequality and there ends, as I believe on natural equality. Neither inequality or equality was proved by science neither and there's enough rhetoric/empiric evidence to support both sides (but we don't have scientific answer yet). Most likely the real answer is between both sides.

Both should consider childbearing equally, and heck, it's best for everyone, too. Childbearing is an amazing thing that a lot of guys losses because their pride, sexism (of them and/or their partner) and more reasons. But currently if a guy doesn't want to do childbearing, the girl is forced to do so alone or never consider having a child (guess why natality rates are dying).

And yeah, on courts and so we are fighting here to stop the inequality on males rights. Those judges who are unfairly biased and badly done laws aren't done by feminist but just by sexism (sexism applies both sides). You'll never see that on Internet because the frikking extremist waste all they day to shout there rather go directly to action. The frikking same happened on the first and second wave, yet moderate activism was successful even if was far less louder (news were filled with porn haters, dick haters and so, lol).



What I meant with that is that at doubt, assume a general boundary. If someone doesn't share that general boundary will make you know (or you can ask beforehand). For example with transgenders/transsexual when you're in doubt about how to address him/her, ask it, how that person prefers to be addressed. This is the same, just ask it, it isn't that hard, or is it?



A general boundary is needed because if you get the personal boundary of someone wrong, quite an easy thing to archive, you can make a lot of harm. You can ask or the other person will make you know if you can do more.



Again, a general boundary is needed to avoid a lot of problems, traumas and so. It's so frikking hard to ask or wait until getting asked?



And then you're called a whore (some says idiot) by a lot of guys because you didn't prevented it and the guy with the nuts kicked is often making everyone feel sorry with him, like she was the bitch who harmed him. It's delicate sometimes as some womens abuse of that and some guys are getting an unfair burden. I think we can all agree it's better to prevent it happening in the first place, for example if a guy is used to ask and be more respectful it's hard somebody will believe when a girl accuse him as other girls will defend him.



Yeah, feminism on Internet is pretty much fucked thanks to extremists (and girl's only/female magazines are cancer since their born). It's annoying, but an obsessive extremist can have as much twenty times more activity if they pass 20 hours a day on it rather the usual 30-60 minutes of moderates. Internet also tends to highlight extremes (against and for), too. Anyway, as for organizations comes most of them work at some degree outside their country, it's kinda tricky to found, though, as a lot of the support is physical, money and so rather transparent via Internet. Your best bet is to found government sponsored organizations for international aid and work from there.

Thankfully the most relevant feminist activities are outside Internet like class teachings, office classes, international organizations supporting municipalities to do campaigns, sponsored ads and events to promote equality and so.



Yeah, but the problems comes you're only limiting yourself to accept it.



Rationality alone isn't science, it's by rationality and empiricism working together you have science. True to be told, neither the against or for movement lacks some of both, as we can't prove yet neither natural equality or natural inequity, so, yeah, it does involve faith on it (not blind faith as there's some empiric and rationality on it, but inst flawless, thus not science), if you're unwilling to ever consider things that contains some faith on it, it's fine, there isn't too much to say about.



And then, force can only be applied when someone is busted over any (practical) doubt, so it's far from being flawless and more far from being a solution as it doesn't prevent the crime in the first place.

Hol cr-p, so many walls of texts!

I can't really bother in existing discussions, but I do like to add this:

You think that a human female has the same worth and value as a human male to society and in general as a being?

If you think yes, you are a feminist.
If not, you're a sexist basically.


I'd rather be a feminist.

Two questions:
1) What causes a woman to be raped? Apparently, according to you, if a woman does not wear provocative clothing, it decreases the odds of her being raped. This implies that rapes occur based on the clothing a person was wearing at the time. Do you believe that to be the case? Do you believe that if a woman was wearing a miniskirt when she was raped, then the miniskirt actively encouraged the rape in some way?

The way I understand it, rape occurs frequently between people that know each other, that are at least somewhat familiar. A man jumping out of the bushes and raping a woman does not occur nearly as often as a man forcing his date to have sex when she does not want to. Furthermore, rape is not about having sex; it is about having power over another person. A rapist does not rape because he/she is horny; the rape occurs because the person wants to wield power over another. So, taking these two points into account, how does clothing figure into the picture at all? How can dressing like a puritan protect a woman from being raped when her classmate may pull her into an empty classroom and rape her after class one day?

2) If protecting oneself from rape is what people must do, then what exactly must people do in order to not be raped? Or, as you put it, how can someone with a Ferrari keep it from being stolen? Simple answer - don't buy a Ferrari. It's the only sure way, after all. Or you can only keep it in your garage and never take it out. Go to a big city and risk it getting stolen? That's insanity! Better to never touch it, never let anyone else ever have a chance to steal it. I mean, even if you lock your car, someone can still break the window and hotwire it.

My point is, telling women not to wear "slutty" clothes so as to lower their chances of being raped is a slippery slope, one of the slipperiest. Why don't women just stay in the house and never leave? Why don't they put barb wire around themselves and carry a gun on each hip and a dozen knives all around their persons? That would make sure they never got raped; hence, at least according to what you are saying about provocative clothing, women that do not arm themselves to that excessive extent and that refuse to never leave the house, are virtually asking to be raped. Or, at least, could have done more to protect themselves.

To try to wrap this up succinctly, if you were suddenly hit from behind, knocked unconscious instantly, and then had all the valuables on your person stolen, how would you feel if I laughed and said, "Should have worn a helmet"?

I don't believe we have the same value, same rights or some social standings based on a myriad of things, not just gender. So yeah, fuck me, I must be a total scumbag, right?

The whole all or nothing attitude is what makes people like you intolerable douchebags. I guess everyone who disagrees with the United States foreign policy is a terrorist, right?



Yeah nice sources. Also no, it's not the main, or even relevant in most cases. Most violence is caused by and on those in "lower" economic/social classes. Being uneducated/poor will have more of a effect on your behavior than some some social mantras of perceived masculinity.




Yes it is a very non-radical statement that's been echoed far and wide by feminist and self proclaimed lovers of equality. And even then it's still a one sided affair that demonizes males and ignored male victims? Why is hard for you to understand this? Moderates are not under represented in Feminism or media. Crazies like Valerie Solanas are ignored and their existence is often forgotten. The fact is there's been many policies and laws passed that harmed men and boys, not by extremist but by "moderates" who things for the sake of women and their well being. Even now there are college Professors, Activist, and policy makers who believe prosecuting female abusers is wrong, or that false accusations are not only not a problem but that men who accused should be punished regardless.(because that somehow helps all women come out against their accusers?)




Wage gap is a myth and has been debunked time over and over again. If you're going to use factoids to make a point I'm not going to respond to you.





Name one piece of proposed legislation that feminist groups have tried to pass that addressed male suicide rates, males challenges in custody battles, male's reproductive rights, male's genital integrity, lack of help for men who've been raped/abused/assualted in DV cases, etc. etc.
I can only recall 2 cases involving inscription, but failed. On the other hand I've seen many cases where feminist law makers/policy changers have turned down things like allocating more resources to male victims of domestic violence (over 40% of all cases) because women need those resources more despite almost half the victims being men.

You can't blame modern media, or the crazies. A lot of 1st world's feminist problems aren't caused by those 2. Again watch Karen's video or read some books by Christina Sommer's.



Rapist. And as you said it's about control for a lot of these people, so perceived vulnerabilities are a big factor.



In your previous statement you said that rape is about control over one's victims. So wouldn't encouraging more agency to people be more productive then assuming all men are rapist? Telling someone that it's a good idea to lock their car isn't shaming the victim nor does it encourage thieves to continue doing what they're doing since if they get caught they'll still be punished. You can't really shame all men into not doing something, mainly because all men aren't the same. Something being illegal or frowned upon won't do much to deter them. Preventing rape isn't easy, and being a giant shit head about it helps no one. I don't agree that one's attire is a significant factor in likeliness of being sexually assaulted, but letting people know that there's things they can do to prevent that situation isn't a bad thing.

The myth is that for the same job, you're receiving less (well, it isn't exactly a myth, but it's more an exception than a rule). What isn't a myth is that females are working less hours and are working on average on far less payed jobs than males. You can say that it's because females are like that by nature and end, can't object that because neither that affirmation or mine are proved by science yet, so we can both believe neither for the time being.

With that said, I think it isn't natural that humans are reproducing less that their replacement rate, and far, far far away from being natural if we consider humans' natural life expectancy. If you look at the causes you'll see a huge gap discrepancy between males and females desires to have children. You can see it's because "maternal instinct" that females wishes more to have children, but then, the polls says the inverse, most males wishes a lot of children for their life, but females rarely wish them now. Whatever you think about what is natural or not, you can't deny that our artificial society isn't faring natural on that respect for a myriad of reasons.

Wage gap is just a data to found discrepancies, now how you wish to explain them is up to each person (and using more evidence for the details, too).



You can believe whatever you wish until science prove something. Just don't expect people will stop calling you this or the other as you're doing the same.



Relevant it is, but yeah, it isn't the main. Though I wouldn't say poorer people is more violent considering how hard is to compile data about that in the first place (and how massively biases are most the studies). I've lived on poor, medium and medium high classes along my life and I didn't seen any change on violence, it was always there on the neighbor. Violence's main cause is actually the believe that things can/should be fixed by employing aggression (in my opinion).





In any case from what I seen on news and so I've seen attempts to make more neutral some laws and some focus on tribunal corruptions over there, though I don't remember with too much detail. I studied a bit UN Woman reports of the northern hemisphere, but didn't see anything too weird and unbalanced.

As for the male's remaining issues without law or campaigns:

- Male suicides gap ratio with female suicides rate seems to be produced by sexism alone. I would suggest to focus on why people wishes to suicide in the first place as that would save more lives in the short run as fixing the gap would only increase female ratios and decrease males ones. Though the only evidence is demographical, so it's hard to say something sure about this.

- Males challenges in custody battles are indeed an issue, though the law itself seems kinda fine. You have the jury system over there, well, that's a social issue then, also provoked by sexism as people still shares the believe that "females are natural mothers" and blergh. Even radical feminist are trying to get outside that image, though.

- Male's reproductive rights is a tricky thing that is still being discussed, changes in technology and society makes it really new thing that wasn't possible before. I don't think nobody will do a strong campaign for it unless a certain consensus is reached at least. Feminist would do an effort at discussing it more, though, as it's important.

- Male's (AND female's) genital integrity is part of the transsexual/transgender/intersexual/queer campaign actually. Would say sexual/gender minorities or whatever, but that's fake as pro-homosexual groups have been always reticent to support non-standar gender campaigns (it's a shame they are reticent). When those things would receive a support from feminism, it's a sad true that feminism on average were been always reticent to support sexual/gender minorities. What a shame.

- Yeah, should be more support help for males who're victim from rape and assaults. Though it's so extremely uncommon that I guess that's a priority you can leave for another day (though it should be addressed or patched in the meanwhile). As for abuse comes it's a way too tricky and hard to work on, but guys should be able to access more help as sexism reduces.

Note: Yeah, while there's a lot of unreported rape, that's also true that exist a lot of false reported rape. It's extremely tricky, though you can tell when it happened and when nope. It also applies to smaller scale abuses like I said earlier. Feminism is wrongly biased toward blindly defending the females on this, it's the biggest shame. Innocent unless proven wrong (by practical) evidence should be the rule.

Many of the jobs that are dominated by men like say construction jobs are jobs that are better suited to men in the first place.

Come on dudes muthafucka! Yo ass needs ta chill tha fuck up n' EVERYONE'S OPINION IS GOOD BE HAPPY

I didn't think you were ignorant enough to say humans are not a sexual dimorphic species. And again, what I want is not "equality", but a unalienable rights for everyone, no legal advantages or inequalities(will probably never happen). However there will always be difference between different people, whether it be gender, ethnicity, place born, community around you, parent's social status, you mental being, how health you're born, etc. etc.

Also if I do believe someone is a moron if they have the all or nothing attitude. If you believe someone is automatically sexist because they don't identify as a feminist, then you're probably very ignorant and intolerant.

Since what moment construction worker is an awesome paid job. All the other jobs (machine management, architecture, most tools management and technical areas) aren't different between sexes. Most discrepancies are actually produced in all the sectors as females have less promotions and works less hours, though you'll see a massive gap in the finance's sector, science's sector (most areas), mining's sector, sport's sector and medicine's sector. Modern mining rarely employs manual work, so it's weird then, and as for the sport's sector comes, it's a tricky discussion, though considering the competitive nature it's fine, but some things like E-Sports or Chess can be fixed (like if my fingers were different to have a male and female divided tournaments!).

It's improving each year as more males participate at least some degree in childbearing, but males should understand that they must dialog with their partner and team up in childbearing. You can't leave the option as "default" for female and "only if voluntary and at degree he wishes/helps only if pressed" to males, it feels awful for most gals, too. It should be default for both and just then, organize how the family will be considering other's preference, personality and so like a team.



Most the dimorphism is concentrated in reproduction and brute strength, with a myriad of details being controlled by hormones. Even then, all those difference only produce aesthetic, health and reproductive differences (plus male's higher physical capacity that's rarely used today). Aside small difference in the hypothalamus, science has not found a single difference that's shared by most females or females from different demographics yet, suggesting those changes may be produced by society itself.

Brain dimorphism is extremely rare in mammals though, and when you found it is by the action of high impact of hormones, that humans (so far being studied) rarely affects that much aside the gestation, that barely produces difference aside the genitals and still invisible to science likely brain difference of self identification and instinct (to absorb the culture of your sex), considering transsexuals studies.

Of course studies aren't good enough or strong enough to suggest one side or the other, so you can believe whatever as brain dimorphism goes. I hold the believe that the natural differences are minimal enough to pass unperceived. You can believe the contrary and there ends the conversation.

Also, I was referring to the fact that if you call people moron, don't expect people will not call you the same.

It isn't hard, the problem is the way you lump all or even most men into the category as if they all acted outside your boundaries.



I do agree with this, but i seriously doubt cat calling or groping does 'a lot of harm'. Define 'a lot of harm'.



If cat calling or groping or other little things causes you trauma or serious problems then i would you say you have some issues.

And again, i am totally, 100% with you on changing society so that asshole men don't go over womens boundaries, but to over blow the issue into this supposed trauma and serious problems doesn't help the issue at all, it makes it laughable.



Why would you give a flying fuck what some random people you don't even know call you or think about you? Are they defining you? If some guy goes over your boundaries and you tell him to stop, but he doesn't then fuck what he or his friends think, right?

I am sorry, but it is starting to sound as if you are unable to live in a society where there are many people with different views on life. You let every little thing you don't agree with to get to you and then you make an issue about it and the rest of the world is in the wrong. You can't live in your bubble all your life (you can try though).



Maybe, but there is more than million problems out there, and unfortunately your problem is not the most important or the biggest issue out there. Not everybody can dedicate their time to every single problem that is out there. I get it that by promoting your cause you will increase the people who want to help, but to demand everybody to focus on your cause alone or even the most is wrong, because you yourself don't advocate or even support all the other problems we have in the world.



We are not talking about science here, and 100% perfect equality between the two genders can never be achieved, simply for the fact that we have different genders. By the very fact that nature and biology made us different we cannot achieve truly perfect equality, we can get pretty close though.



The very fact that force even has to be applied shows that our societies are imperfect. The very fact that we even have laws shows that our societies are imperfect, because people need to be controlled and limited if we want to live in peaceful society where we maximize the happiness and well being of maximum number of people. If everybody simply got along, if everybody simply respected everyones boundaries, there wouldn't even be any issues or problems.



Just like cruz already said, rapists.



In some cases it might, we don't know how many times a rapist decided not to rape for a reason x. I don't claim wearing provocative clothing increases your chances to get raped every time all the time, but to say it doesn't have any effect at all what so ever is false in my opinion.



It might, it is possible, it certainly is not impossible.



It can be the case, that is all i am saying.



It can actively encourage the rape in some way, that is all i am saying.



Everything you say here certainly is true, but to say only those two points apply and everything else doesn't is false.

I have never claimed clothing being the number one reason for rape, i have never claimed anything to be the number one reason for rape. All i have said is that there are many factors that you can take into account if you want to protect yourself from being raped. Mentioning these factors to women does not mean i blame the victim.



Nobody has to do anything if they don't want to. The Ferrari owner doesn't have to do anything if he/she doesn't want to. All we are trying to do is to help you to protect yourself from potential harm, that does not equal to us blaming the victim.



With your logic that you are showing here, the best way to not get raped is to kill yourself now. That way you can never be raped while you are alive.



But what if the gun you bought to protect yourself accidentally fires at you and you die because of it?

Look, if you want to live in a bubble where there is no harm, no fear, absolutely no chance of any type of harm ever happening to you, fine, you can live your life like that if you want to. But the reality of life on planet earth is that it is full of risks. It is up to you to choose against which dangers you are going to fight against and to protect yourself from. You will never live risk free no matter what you do, but i say it again, we who try to give you advice as to lower those risks happening to you do not blame the victim. We are helping the potential future victims. Period.



I would feel sad for being stolen of my valuables, but i would be happy for not being as stupid as you are.

You know why people in Beijing wear those masks on their face? FYI, they don't wear them to protect themselves against rapists, they wear them because of the pollution, because of the increased risk of health hazards. That is a danger worth fighting against. Wearing a helmet to protect myself against potential thieves who hit in the head area, is not a danger worth fighting against, certainly not in that way, and that is why i don't wear a helmet when i walk around the city. I do wear a helmet when i ride a Harley Davidson, because of the potential danger of falling or crashing.

I hope you learned something after/if you read this ;)

So your suggesting that women are being kept out of male dominated professions on purpose? That might be true in some countries but in places like the US for example you are free to apply for whatever job you wish. Employers are however free to not hire you if they so wish but if say you apply for a position which you meet all the requirements for but they turn you away simply because of you being a women then I would say they are losing out. However while I wouldn't agree with their decision I would defend their ability to make it.

Out of curiosity whats with that second paragraph? It has nothing to do with my comment which you quoted.

Guess where the demographics gap gets wider, that's the second paragraph for. In fact the gap is very close to perfect equity before the average first birth age (25.1 on USA) and from what I seen on France and a few other countries I been studied their demographics I've seen that the gap is lower as fertility rate is lower. Childbearing is extremely time consuming, so it's obvious who does the job will work less and get less promotion on their lifetime, finally reflected in the wage gap.

As for male dominant sectors, yeah, that's happening. Males (though most often, the old bosses) doesn't trust the capacity of females for certain works yet. The same happens with some female dominant sectors, too, but males ones are worth more money (and science is quite vital). It's kinda frustrating for both genders to get underestimated as it's very hard to promote or getting your job recognized in that way, some just desist of those works at the end because that (going against the stream is various time harder than going with the stream).

Of course I'm ignoring physical extensive works, but those rarely value too much and surprising enough you see quite a bunch of gals ready to take the challenge as well. Anyway, the issue just needs more time as more females (and males) can prove to be efficient for those works, the old grump bosses retires and so, though you can also accelerate it by reducing sexism (both sides).

I'm not really against their freedom to choose not employ (or promote) them, though. I think it's better to try to convince them of giving everyone an equal chance if they share the same antecedents and that's reducing sexism and just letting time pass by as more examples will appear alone. After all if I force them, that will not change their belief against it, and what I wish is the last, though some likes the "let's force" idea as it increases the speed of with good examples are created and makes the swift quicker, but I'm not in that wave.

Note: Gap is also reducing as both parents pass less time with the sons... I don't think it's a good thing, even if that means a reduction in the gap. The gap should be reduced WITH childbearing, not neglecting it as much as possible. Even if that means less money as males would win far less and females a bit less.