restrictedxaccess

[restrictedxaccess]

Or...hot take:

Maybe women choose to shave and wear makeup to mirror their perception of beauty which they want other people to associate with them, because some women *like* their look to be appreciated or admired.

if now during the quarantine you have stopped wearing make up and shaving because 'nobody's going to see it anyways' maybe it's time to admit that you never did those things 'for yourself' in the first place and that it has always been about the pressure that society puts on women to conform to a certain standard of what is considered beautiful or desirable

[restrictedxaccess]

“The dictionary was written by white people.”

Funny, because according to many sources, racism as  "prejudice plus institutional power” was initially proposed by:

Patricia Bidol-Padva

So when white people write something, it has no meaning, right?

[restrictedxaccess]

Most importantly...I didn't know they sold buckets of hi-chews. Who needs to shut up and take my money? 

[restrictedxaccess]

Take away being: There's nothing physically stopping you from either route, but you'll get to the top faster if you take the steps that require a little effort. Of course, doing so requires that you don't let gender stereotypes determine your path.

‘Step In Inequality’ by art director and graphic designer Kazunori Shiina

[restrictedxaccess]

“ anti-feminist women look around at the world and see men dominating fields of leadership and think that this is fair and good. “

 Not so much “fair and good” as “understandable when considering that women statistically tend to make different career choices than men”. While men and women both worry about work-life balance, women do tend to leave the work force more often either for reasons of family,health, or their perception of their workplace or working status. Women are more likely to experience life-based career interruptions:

 http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/10-findings-about-women-in-the-workplace/

 Women are less interested in senior leadership compared to their male counterparts. They’re also more likely to switch from a “line” role to a “support” role during their careers, which reduces their likelihood of promotion as CEO’s tend to come from ‘line’ roles.

The issue is a little more complicated that just “misogyny/patriarchy/sexism”, and chalking it up to that may actually complicate the issue further.

 Companies are more committed to gender diversity than they ever have been, but employee perception of this differs. Women are more likely to believe that they face greater challenges to workplace advancement due to their gender. That doesn’t mean that they can’t advance or will be discriminated against because they are female, it means only that this is what they *perceive*.

https://womenintheworkplace.com/  (Download the study)

 While this is just me spit-balling, it’s entirely plausible that the perception of sex-based discrimination or challenges is also a deterring factor in women’s desire for advancement or desire to remain in the workplace. In the absence of actual experienced discrimination, I can’t imagine any other reason for this perception other than the cultural narrative that women have been fed.

“ anti-feminist women think that women are just inferior to men and that is why there are less women in leadership roles in society. “

Now that’s just silly. What anti-feminist has said this - and when you find them, point them to what I just wrote above.

“ anti-feminist women hate women, including themselves, because they believe women exist to fulfill a subordinate role to men.

feminist women recognize that society is rigged against us.  “

 You’re going to need a lot more evidence to support that stretch.

anti-feminist women look around at the world and see men dominating fields of leadership and think that this is fair and good.

anti-feminist women think that women are just inferior to men and that is why there are less women in leadership roles in society.

anti-feminist women hate women, including themselves, because they believe women exist to fulfill a subordinate role to men.

feminist women recognize that society is rigged against us.

[restrictedxaccess]

Color is a spectrum, sex is not, and gender fluidity is a fashion statement.

While watching a video over the Bret Weinstein/Evergreen State State College incident, it dawned on me:

A lot of the same people who state that gender is a spectrum are the same people who refer to non-white races as “People of Color”, and anyone not a person of color is, well, white.

From a scientific standpoint, color is a literal spectrum. Yet it is treated as a binary by many of the same people who will tell you that gender is not binary. 

We know that sex is, for the most part, binary, barring genetic abnormalities outside of the XX and XY sex determining chromosome combination. 

 Gender, as some will tell you, is a social construct. One is identified as male or female or, in some circles, somewhere in between. Your gender is usually is determined by your sex, but a biological female may not act or feel like a female. They may in fact act and feel male.This is what we call ‘trans gendered’. 

 Transgendered is, in a way, a misonomer if we accept these definitions, because while a transgendered person may be one sex, they will mentally identify with the other sex. Imagine looking in the mirror at your sexual characteristics and going “that shouldn’t be there”. Like living in a Freaky-Fridayesque body swap nightmare since birth. If we describe sex as physical and gender as psychological, this makes sense. However, one’s reaction to their physical sex can and does result severe visceral rejection in some. Trans-sexed would mean something entirely different, so I can’t apply that word, but it should really be considered that a true trans typically does not believe their physical body reflects what they feel to be their true *sex*.

I’m striving to differentiate transgendered from gender-fluid with this description, because, from my understanding, the “gender fluid” experience is vastly different. Gender fluid may mean “I’m male but with heavily female characteristics”, or “I vary between the two gender characteristics”. By the latter definition, I would qualify as gender-fluid as I’ve always identified as “masculine” for a female. I’m not gender fluid - I’m just a big, strong, masculine female - but I thoroughly enjoy being female. We call that a “tom-boy”.

 Gender may be heavily influenced by sex, but one will not always display 100% of the gender characteristics of their sex. That does not make you a xe, xim, zer, or xbythingamijig. You’re still male or female, and you will be identified by your physical sex, or perceived physical sex, because that’s how the human brain functions when compartmentalizing the characteristics of another person. Even “gender neutral” individuals still tend to identify more with one sex than another, even if they won’t admit it. None of this is new. Frankly it’s like trying to identify as a tom or nancy boy with different terminology in the hopes that you won’t be stigmatized, and somehow it’s become fashionable.

Point being, after consideration of recent events, I find it laughable that we as a society have managed to compartmentalize a spectrum such as skin color as “binary”, yet have expanded a binary such as “gender” as a spectrum. Two steps forward, three steps back. 

The worst of it is, unless you identify as one of the “trendy” human characteristics, is socially unacceptable to provide your viewpoint on it - and somehow that’s “progressive”.

[restrictedxaccess]

Some countries convinced their people that it was better to kill their children and themselves rather than to be captured by an enemy combatant.

So... the melting down of children's toys...not such a big deal in comparison.

The existence of commercially available childrens toys, luxury consumer leisure goods for people who neither work nor have a full understanding of money, is basically the ultimate symbol that your society has Made It.

That it would even occur to anybody to melt a child’s toy down into scrap for a war effort and see such a thing as heartwarming is among the most disgusting and shameful ideas my mind could process.

[restrictedxaccess]

This particular case was not murder. The was no aforethought or calculation to the death of of the rapist. 

The man had followed the sounds of his daughter screaming to the sight of a 47 year old man who had undressed himself and the rancher’s daughter and was in the act of raping her. The father understandably lashed out at the man in an attempt to protect his daughter.

After the fact he called 911 and begged for emergency assistance in an attempt to save the rapist’s life. In the dispatch recording the man could even be heard saying he’d put the guy in his truck to get him to a hospital because dispatch couldn’t locate the property.

 This all happened over 5 years ago, but you can easily pull up several news sources even today which provide all this information.

[restrictedxaccess]

It is a general statement, but it's often used with an implied "full stop". That would mean some people use this general statement to say hitting women period is bad, even in cases of self-defense. Coupled with the knowledge that female violence against men isn't perceived with the same weight by our society in general as male violence against women, it's an understandable reaction.

Why is there so much resistance when someone says, “hitting women is bad,” like why can people not accept this as a general statement

[restrictedxaccess]

Your carnivore pet is not “vegan” just because you feed it vegetables

We have a word for that already, it’s called “animal abuse”

[restrictedxaccess]

There are only two genders.

Firstly, I will mention that gender is not a social construct, and almost entirely biological and the basis of it is indeed genetics. Gender roles may slightly vary in expression based on social constructions such as culture, but gender roles are ultimately rooted in real, measurable, biological differences between men and women. I’m going to give an example; there are more men than women in STEM fields because men are generally more biologically inclined toward science. There are more women in social and philanthropic fields because women are generally more biologically inclined to them. And I do have evidence on this scientific claim;

One of these points of evidence being that gender is as old as the beginning of the life of species. The sexes are, without being hyperbolic, as old as life itself. Across virtually all species genders are evolutionally designed to fill specific roles and invest in different mechanisms to perpetuate their genes. To pretend that humans are an exception to this is absurd.

My second piece of evidence for this; It is a near, if not all in all, universal feature of world cultures that there are innate differences between genders. All cultures were and often are prone to dividing the subject of labour between men and women; women doing more child rearing and men engaging in hunting and warfare. This can also be derived from the fact that men are biologically stronger in their upper body area, hence more capable of hunting and warfare.

My third piece of evidence is a common one. The disparity in cognitive abilities between men and women (e.g. men are better at 3-d spacial analysis and women are better at picking up social cues) are observed in other primates.

A fourth point can be made revolving around androgens (“male” hormones) and estrogens (“female” hormones) have a lasting effect on the development of the brain. Their effects are not simply transient.

Next, the brains of men and women are visibly and measurably disparate. Among other differences, men have larger brains (even when correcting for body size) and females have more gray matter.

Now, regarding sex changes, because this I’m assuming would be brought up, women preparing for a sex change who are given “male” hormones improve on tests of 3-d rotation (a “male” ability) and get worse on tests of verbal fluency (a “female” ability). Women with higher levels of testosterone exhibit more stereotypically “male” behavior such as increased promiscuity, less inclination to smile, and even a stronger handshake.

A study also examined 25 boys who were born without a penis and then castrated and raised as girls. All of them showed male patterns of play as children and more than half spontaneously declared they were boys. This really is a knot tier to the entire discussion. The study itself.

People born with turners syndrome have one X chromosome and are therefore genetically neutered. However, people with turners syndrome that got their X chromosome from their father (which is biologically designed with female traits) show more stereotypically female behavior. Those who got the chromosome from their mother (which is biologically designed for male behavior) exhibit more stereotypically male behavior.

All these noteworthy pieces of evidence are bound to show that gender is indeed predominantly biological. Now, as for not supporting ‘genderfluid,’ ‘agender’ or 'genderfuzz’, people are free to identify as whatever they want, but it doesn’t mean it is biologically correct. So, as far as homosapiens and science intersect, there are, and always will be two identifiable and valid genders

[restrictedxaccess]

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/21-year-old-convicted-in-beating-death-of-former-4233272.php

http://abc13.com/archive/7796667/

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pearland/news/article/Jury-hears-evidence-in-Moralez-murder-trial-9312108.php  (Source includes elements of the autopsy report)

You find more sources if you search “Laura Wilkerson”, and you find news sources for the murder when you search her son “Josh Wilkerson”. 

Fun Fact: The Illegal Immigrant who slaughtered her son BRAGGED about it in prison.

If one brutal rape and murder could be prevented… think any progressives would think it was worth it?

They’ll curtail your civil rights, call you a Nazi, demand you prostrate yourself like a beggar before PEE OH SEE, and make you pay for the “privilege” through your eye teeth.

But you think they would support this wall if they knew it would prevent one child from getting murdered?

Fuck no. Why? Because the child was a white child.

[restrictedxaccess]

From legaldictionary.com:

  PEACE. The tranquillity enjoyed by a political society, internally, by the good order which reigns among its members, and externally, by the good understanding it has with all other nations. Applied to the internal regulations of a nation, peace imports, in a technical sense, not merely a state of repose and security, as opposed to one of violence and warfare, but likewise a state of public order and decorum. Ham. N. P. 139; 12 Mod. 566. Vide, generally, Bac. Ab. Prerogative, D 4; Hale, Hist. P. C. 160; 3 Taunt. R. 14; 1 B. & A. 227; Peake, R. 89; 1 Esp. R. 294; Harr. Dig. Officer, V 4; 2 Benth. Ev. 319, note. Vide Good behaviour; Surety of the peace.

From Dictionary.Law.com:

disturbing the peace n. upsetting the quiet and good order particularly through loud noise, by fighting or other unsocial behavior which frightens or upsets people. It is a misdemeanor, punishable by fine or brief term in jail.

AND 

breach of the peace

n. any act which disturbs the public or even one person. It can include almost any criminal act causing fear or attempting intimidation, such as displaying a pistol or shouting inappropriately.

From the North Dakota Century Code 39-10-06

39-10-33. Pedestrian on roadway. 1. Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway. 2. Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway. 3. Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of the roadway, and, if on a two-way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway. 4. Except as otherwise provided for in this chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

AND

39-10-30. Driver to exercise due care. Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person.

With the above laws and definitions, read the proposed law here http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/65-2017/documents/17-0351-01000.pdf.

“Peaceful” does not necessarily mean ‘physically non-violent’. It is not necessarily illegal to assemble in the middle of a roadway  - but you must first go through the proper legal channels to secure said roadway. This allows for traffic to be re-routed so that travelers can safely take other routes to get to their destination. Otherwise you risk a breach of peace, an interruption of commerce/education/business, and you also risk the public safety by creating a congested traffic jam that could lead to driver and pedestrian injury, as well as personal and public property damage due to accidents. In short, getting together with a group of people to randomly protest in the middle of a busy roadway is not peaceful. It’s also not legal in the state of New Jersey (and probably every other state), as it’s not legal for a pedestrian to walk in the middle of a roadway - FOR GOOD REASON.

TL/DR - you don’t have the right to protest in the middle of a highway whenever you want. That’s not “peaceably” assembling.

 Given that, here’s how we can break down the proposed law: Standing in the middle of a roadway while there’s traffic is illegal. If you are injured or killed accidentally while committing that act, the party that accidentally injured or killed you is not legally culpable, because you had no legal right to be there in the first place. Motorists are still required to exercise due caution. It’s not legal for them to just gun it into a group of pedestrians in the middle of the road way, even if those pedestrians have no legal right to be there. If, however, said motorist is exercising reasonable caution while trying to go around a person/persons in the middle of the roadway, and that person/persons jump in front of them to keep them from passing and get hurt in the process, it’s not the motorists fault. This makes perfect legal sense.

Aaaand it begins

[restrictedxaccess]

You just stated that men helped reproduce a child and followed it with a claim that women do the reproducing. Which is it?

I just ran across a rage post about “men’s reproductive rights” and honestly I’m just confused, I mean been a while since middle school health, but I seem to remember the way it goes is a man has an orgasm and a woman has a baby, that is to say the ladies do all the reproducing, so what reproductive rights can a man have? Or is this 100% a Men’s Rights bullshit code word about owning a woman’s uterus?

[restrictedxaccess]

The latter, but only due to the way the question is worded.

 A man who doesn’t want a woman in the classroom implies the man has no power to keep women out. He has no recourse for his bigotry. A toothless dog isn’t very intimidating.

 However a woman who allows no ideas but her own in the classroom implies the woman DOES have the power to censor others in the class. This is inherently detrimental to the learning process.

Can somebody tell me please?

[restrictedxaccess]

Frankly no anti feminist really *needs* to reference the treatment of women in third world countries to counter the claim that women in the west are under privileged, abused, or treated as second class. They need only to juxtapose the rights and privileges of western women with those of western men.

it's been my experience that anti-feminists who routinely point to the abuses of women in the Middle East, South Asia, and Subsaharan Africa are the ones who think they ought to be allowed to treat women as terribly as they want so long as they can point over there and say "See?! They have it worse. Take your lower wage and be grateful we're not mutilating you."

That’s not at all why people who are anti-feminist bring up women in impoverished, 3rd world countries. But to understand you have to be aware of a few things. Your argument, as you presented it says to me that you believe that we do have a rape culture in the western world that promotes and condones rape. You believe that there exists a wage gap thats due to sexism and discrimination in the work place. And you believe that women are socially and systemically oppressed. 

Well have I got some great news for you. We actually don’t live in a society that promotes and condones rape. Rape cases, and sex offenses are taken extremely seriously. Rapists, true rapists are ostracized by society. They loose jobs on just the allegation that a rape occurred. There is a push from large woman rights advocacy movements that intend to make a woman claim of rape alone be enough to prosecute a man. With the assumption that woman, if given that type of power will never abuse it. The rape statistics are false too. The tests that determined the ¼ or 1/5 or 1/3 (rates of rape comparable to the Congo) was actually taken from a vague study of a mid-low sample given questions to women such as “has a man ever made you feel uncomfortable while trying to get you to sleep with him” in most cases a yes answer would be counted as a rape. Many women even claimed that they were not raped but the study still marked them as having been. A similar test was done to men to determine if men were possible rapists and it was scaled 1-10 unlikely to do to most likely. In this test anyone who marked 4 or above on a certain percentage of questions would be counted as possible rapist. Or would “rape someone” Well the truth really is that in our society we don’t stone the woman for having been raped, nor do we blame women. We tell them to be cautious, but thats hardly a sexist statement seeing as potential threats do exist, but it doesn’t make the women who suffered a true rape responsible. 

On the issue of wage gap - I don’t much really needs to be said. There exists a law which in the equal pay act of 1963. What it does do, is protect your right so even in the small chance your boss is treating you or someone else unfairly due to sex or race or sexual orientation, you can sue the company for violating your federal rights. The assumption that feminists have is that the difference in overall earned income is based on sexual discrimination, this is plain false. The difference is in many of the choices men and women tend to make as far as careers and time of etc. Men tend to work longer hours, they tend to take less time off and are more assertive about getting raises and etc. Though there is literally every option available for women to choose something in a science or Maths or engineering, given grants, and scholarships and etc. Universities are actually seeing a large increase of women graduating colleges more than men.

What some studies have shown relating to the differences in work preference is that women, if given the option to do what they like, rather than what makes money, will choose things like teaching ballet or nurse. 

https://youtu.be/l-6usiN4uoA (i’m linking to the factual feminist though there are several videos that i don’t have at the moment.

In many ways women are more advantaged in the western world. If not the most advantaged group of women in the entire world. Women are afforded theater rights and freedoms, their testimonies and claims are generally taken more seriously than those of men. Even so much as an accusation would be enough to label a man a misogynist. lighter sentences, the better end of the deal in child custody. Though feminists claim to fight against that because it’s a harmful stigma from “the patriarchy’, even though the tender years doctrine was pushed by feminists. It doesn’t help that it’s socially acceptable to go on national TV and say that your husband is a good for nothing waste of space. Or have an open discussion on campuses about weather or not men are necessary. 

So to really answer your question, you have to understand anti-feminists are not saying “women here should be happy to get treated badly because you’re not being stoned for being raped, at least.” They’re saying your non-issues? mansplaining, man-spreading, rape hysteria from over inflated statistics, the equal pay you already get. The fact that you can go to city council and ask for a “man tax”. and laugh at men who bring up a day to address mens issues. Means that you’re not oppressed.. you just like the favors that you’re given by having the oppressed label. 

Women in impoverished third world countries DO need our support and should be able to get educations and their cases of abuse need to be taken seriously. Not man spreading. Women in the western world maybe need to check their privilege?

[restrictedxaccess]

   We live in a time where many people lack the capacity to look at things in context. I’m not surprised.

“It has the “N” word” - boo hoo. It also has a boatload of ethical monologues and dialogues speaking to equality among men, and the evils of a time where a black man could not receive fair judgement in a court of law. I can’t imagine anyone who had ever read and understood that book ever wanting to see it banned from schools. It *should* be required reading in every district.

Banning How to Kill a Mockingbird because of racial slurs is like banning the 12-Step Program because of drug references.