The Next Rosa Parks?

[o_O.Q]

SuperNova said:

o_O.Q said:

 

"Your own example of men going to war is already no longer as big of a factor because women wanted the right to fight for their country just the same."

really? wanted? so why aren't they fighting to desegregate men's and women's sports?

or did you really mean to say that its not that women wanted the chance to fight alongside men in the past, its that now that the emphasis in combat has moved more to the use of machines women are coming forward

yeah... you're resorting to some type of slight of hand there, so i think i corrected it a bit there

 

"only that the male patriarchy refuses to acknowledge and take corrective action on those that women have. When women didn't have the right to vote, who made that decision?  Men or women?"

men... gloria steinem for example was a CIA agent.. she didn't rise up and push this movement, she was following orders and anyone who has done their research knows that

and come on dude isn't your narrative that men had all the power before? so... wouldn't men have to decide that they wanted women to have more rights and change society? you can't have it both ways

 

"Also, anybody that thinks feminism ignores the plights of men doesn't understand feminism. "

well as far as i know the goal feminism has always been to achieve equal rights between men and women... what are you saying the goals of feminism are from your perspective?

'and come on dude isn't your narrative that the King of France had all the power before? so...wouldn't the King of France have to decide to have himself decapitated by the revolution in oder to establish a democracy? Can't have it both ways.'

Not a single opression in history has ever ended because the opressor suddenly realized the error of their ways and was happy to then give up their privilige. It has always taken fight, uproar and bloodshed to establish a new status quo. People have been had to be forced to reconize other people rights time and time again. Just because an opressor has the overwhelming amount of power in a society, that doesn't mean strengh in numbers isn't a thing.

Also I'm not sure what you think you corrected with your first point, but you come off as borderline insulting to every female soldier in history, the way it's currently phrased.

"'and come on dude isn't your narrative that the King of France had all the power before? so...wouldn't the King of France have to decide to have himself decapitated by the revolution in oder to establish a democracy? Can't have it both ways.'"

the king of france supported his own decapitation? are you denying the support women were given ( by men ) when they moved for emancipation? that's not really a sensible comparison

it shows though the concept you have of men in the past and probably now as evil oppressors only out to keep the poor women down that you would compare them to the nobility of the past... there's no acknowledgement of the benefits women gained (despite their inequality) from society

"Just because an opressor has the overwhelming amount of power in a society, that doesn't mean strengh in numbers isn't a thing."

well i personally don't buy the argument that women were oppressed over men as i have already laid out in this thread... society has always been oppressive towards ALL members and it will always be oppressive towards ALL members

i would even go as far as to say that a society CANNOT exist without being to some extent oppressive because a society is a structure that represents what is common across the majority of the people of a society at some point in time or some type of metaphysical idea such as "all men are created equal"

which means that it has a template for things such as behavior that all are expected to abide by, and because people are inherently different from each other some people are going to fall short

the problem i have with these ideas that feminist and communists for example keep pushing is that they don't acknowledge any of the above and act as if a perfect society can be made if we just stamp out individuality which is insanely delusional and i don't think many of them even understand the ideas they claim to be advancing

like "equality"

 

"Also I'm not sure what you think you corrected with your first point, but you come off as borderline insulting to every female soldier in history, the way it's currently phrased."

i'm speaking generally, that doesn't mean disregard for the sacrifices women have made in the past but what i'm saying is that we have to take a rational approach with regards to history and the narrative of "men =oppressors/power, women =victims" is not a rational approach

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 04 January 2018