What does being a feminist mean to you?

Most feminist make a mistake trying to base their view around an egalitarianism philosophy while denying the lottery of birth giving rise to inequality among individuals.

A better approach would be to view issue trough the Veil of Ignorance, doing so give us a better perspective for example, women should be favored when considering violent crime now make sense, but having only one NBA where both male and female compete together trough means other then skill wouldn't since it would only serve to reduce the attraction of a match while providing benefit to only a small part of the population.

With that said, inequality of birth change over time and we should strive to achieve a society were there is not only true equality but also a growth in human endeavor, happiness, viability of the human race, etc. Making sure not to get into the trap of communism type utopia where equality is achieve trough recess of rights and ethics rather then growth.

That doesn't make sense, not in the least bit.

"Though the US has the highest rates of child homicide (8.0/100,000 for infants, 2.5/100,000 for preschool-age children, and 1.5/100,000 for school-age children"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174580/

Things like this scare me because the majority of women who murder their children often go free for long periods of time blaming it on men, mostly black men. And they seem to get away with it. There should be no favor or leniency in violent crime. If you commit a crime, thats all that needs to be said. Both men and women are fighting for equality, a woman wants a mans pay, a mans rights, etc, then serve the time.

If a ship is sinking, who gets saved first? Women and children. Where is the equality in that?

That's the point of the philosophy of the veil of ignorance, lets say your on a sinking ship where there is no save the woman and children first ethic who would you rather be a child? probably not they would all die pretty fast, women less so then children but their survival rate should be lower then men. Hence why its women and children first not because of equality but because its the solution that give the best total chance of person saved. If children and women first rule would end up killing everyone, then it wouldn't be the optimal situation, through the veil the situation is everyone die vs some men survive then it become the optimal one.

Just so you know NOW is one of the biggest feminist organizations around,so i think this is proof feminism and mens right don't have to be opposed to each other

I came across this and thought about your post. It elaborates on why there is a pay gap but, it dismisses that's it discrimination based upon gender but, a result of different choices.

I actually posted a similar video earlier in this thread.

That makes absolutely no sense. You say they have a lower chance of survival compared to men but a better chance to be saved? Wouldn't the person with the highest chance of survival be the one with the best chance to be saved?

If you take the instance of a ship going down. Most of the crew and navigation are men. So if you put all the women and children in the boat and none of these male crew members, how are they supposed to survive?

Least to mention, who says they have any better chance of survival than me? Nobody is immune to fire or drowning or bullets. I have ever right to be saved just as much as they do. It's a selfish belief in inequality to think that women are the crucial cornerstone of our species and that men are expendable.

I did say that running boat full of children would be a poor choice as if it would lead to only more death, I'll try to explain the concept better; The ultimate goal is that no matter who you are on that boat you aren't part of part of a group that will die more often then another group. If men were suppose to sacrifice themselves to save others then that would be against that goal. On the other hand putting only people who have maximal chance of survival on boat would create a subclass of people who would always die, children and adults with the worst nautical skill.

The optimal solution for this thought experiment isn't unique it varies depending on the situation; If the odds of anyone dying, that isnt in a rescue boat, is the same for everyone, then filling enough crew (if needed) to man the rescue boat + a lottery for the rest could be a solution. If the ship is sinking near the shore then everyone that is able to swim should try and reach the shore by swimming while the boat are reserved for non swimmer.

A oceanic ship sinking in colder water with help on the way in a few hour would lead to a situation where children and women in boat + men threading water waiting for rescue would be optimal as men are generally able to stay in cold water longer without dying due to more stamina and higher weight, fatter women that are able to thread water should join them.

In all those situation with no information on which person you are on that ship you can be assured that you wont be left to die or at the mercy of another group. The best scenarios would lead you to have 0 preference on which person to be on that ship as you know that your overall chance to survive would be optimal.

And I found this little gem.

Note none of the protesters are "extremist man haters".

I'm going to pick up Farrell's book of Amazon.

An interesting video, they do make some valid points but a lot of it is too mixed in with thier hateful yellings of people. That poor man just wanted answers for the suicides of his two best friends and was hoping that the talk would give him closure but those spiteful feminists outfront of the building are calling him trash, a rapist, sexist, monster. How is that fair? If someone was yelling in my face like that when I want closure over the death of my friends or family, I'd have knocked her ass out so fast. I'm not a violent person but nobody has any right to judge you.

What disturbs be even more so, is something that I mentioned in the police brutality thread that is well demonstrated in this video, and that is societies lack of respect to police. These people are blocking doors, trying to shut down something that falls under FREE SPEECH, and the police are forced to step in to keep these people out. But they are too tied up in their own selfish agendas that they show complete disrespect to these police who are just doing their jobs.

In all honestly, I'm not anti-human, but people make me sick.

Were we watching the same video or are you being sarcastic? They verbally assaulted the man, ruined his speaking engagement and were so rowdy as to require police assistance(And they demonized the police assistance, calling such assistance "male rights")

And isn't it hypocritical to uphold feminist groups, while calling "male right" groups hate groups? In a "society" where this is socially acceptable, do they really feel "oppressed" and if so, when will it be that females are free?

When females make up that 25 cent gap? Most of which probably stems from older women and their historic lack of earning power as well as education. We cannot change the consequences of the inequalities of the past.

I didn't watch the video, so I'm not going to comment much on it.
For some reason, it seems heavy feminists are pushing for male inferiority, and as such, trying to get MORE rights than men... Some even seem to think men are useless in the world, and there shouldn't be any men at all/ they don't need men at all (inb4 they try to create a futa or an asexual woman...)
I mean, there are extreme feminists, who want 'equal rights' and call men filth and abuse them/ say they should have less, and there are feminists who just want equal rights.
Extreme feminists are cancer

I'm leaning towards sarcasm. Mostly because he stated he'll be picking up Warren's book on Amazon.



To the extremists, men are the problem and the only solution to that problem is a genocidal policy to either reduce male populations to <10% of total population or to simply kill off all males in society.