Heh... almost in the same breath the SJW crowd will demand my kids be taken away for having the wrong opinions, then immediately cackle that I'm a life-long virgin loser.Scorned life-long virgins usually do. This loser is no exception...
Well its a good thing I took the bare minimum social science classes and stuck to real science where the lab explodes if you do a shit study like that.
Heh... almost in the same breath the SJW crowd will demand my kids be taken away for having the wrong opinions, then immediately cackle that I'm a life-long virgin loser.
Google "mutually exclusive" some day.
Oh... and don't forget to take a crack at my dick size! Nothing will convince others your argument is correct than that!
You know your opponent has nothing when personal insults is all they have to throw.
I'd say that the questions meet your definition of hostile sexism pretty well.
It's the "scorn, fear or hatred" part. If you believe that feminism as a whole is a threat, an attempt to simply reverse the situation and make men subservient, then you're clearly afraid of women asserting themselves. It's not in line with what feminists say they want, and it completely ignores the possibility that feminism, like most things in life, is a multi-faceted concept with varying opinions.
And if you're a woman against feminism, you might not be sexist... but there's a good chance you're suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. It's like Latinos for Trump: you can always convince some people to act against their own self-interests. This doesn't mean that you're misogynist if you're a stay-at-home mother who has never had more than one sexual partner and opposes abortion, but there's a difference between choosing those paths and insisting that everyone else follow you.
Meh... this is just Sony/Feig/Ghostbusters all over again. "If you don't support us, you're a woman-hating misogynist!!"
The world is quickly tiring of the left's constant stream of false accusations.
ahh this same old liberal well. Everyone that disagrees with us is a xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, bigot, deplorable etc etc.
ahh this same old liberal well. Everyone that disagrees with us is a xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, bigot, deplorable etc etc.
Southern California woman experienced the dark side of multiculturalism during a United Airlines flight when the crew forced her to switch seats to appease the misogynistic leanings of two Pakistani monks.
Mary Campos said her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.
A million-mile flier, Campos, a mom who lives in Coto de Caza, said she thought she’d seen it all - until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.
"He said, ‘This is your new seat,’" Campos said, "and I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this.’"
The agent then told Campos that the two Pakistani men "have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, talking to or communicating with females."
Since Campos doesn't come from a culture that (rightly) allows men and women to converse with each other, she found this outrageous, not because they held the belief, but because the American-based airline, hence the name "United," actually wanted to appease them.
"I thought I lived in a culture where females were equal to men," she said.
Campos lamented she had no choice but to take her seat assignment, prompting her to later write a letter of complaint to the CEO of United Airlines.
"What if I were handicapped or transgender?" she asked in the letter. "What if your entire flight crew were female? Any belief that prevents individuals from interacting with females should not travel on commercial aircraft."
United Airlines never responded to Campos until CBS Los Angeles picked up the story. They now apologize that she "was unhappy" with the situation.
"We regret that Ms. Campos was unhappy with the handling of the seat assignments on her flight," said a company spokesperson. "United holds our employees to the highest standards of professionalism and has zero tolerance for discrimination."
The Pakistani monks were allegedly "wearing long orange shirts" and "the female flight crew was not allowed to serve" them. Since Islam has no monastic orders, the two monks may have been some sect of Buddhism or Jainism.
Hey feminists, where you at?
ahh this same old liberal well. Everyone that disagrees with us is a xenophobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, bigot, deplorable etc etc.
Research on large, innovative organizations has shown repeatedly that this is the case. For example, business professors Cristian Deszö of the University of Maryland and David Ross of Columbia University studied the effect of gender diversity on the top firms in Standard & Poor's Composite 1500 list, a group designed to reflect the overall U.S. equity market. First, they examined the size and gender composition of firms' top management teams from 1992 through 2006. Then they looked at the financial performance of the firms. In their words, they found that, on average, “female representation in top management leads to an increase of $42 million in firm value.” They also measured the firms' “innovation intensity” through the ratio of research and development expenses to assets. They found that companies that prioritized innovation saw greater financial gains when women were part of the top leadership ranks.
You see, you're so deep in feminist lies that you can't separate feminism from women's rights and equality.
How's this for a shocker - I support equality for women but not feminism. Those women who do not support feminism likely have a similar view - they want to make things better for women, they just don't think feminism is the way to achieve it.
It is interesting that your thinking is so binary - that feminism is the only way to help women.
It's also interesting that you accuse women who do not support feminism of having Stockholm syndrome - you are claiming to know the mind of another, which is a patronizing and condescending point of view.
And lastly, which branch of feminism are we talking about? Since, as you well know, there are VAST differences between the different waves and branches of feminism.
You can mainly blame the Judeo Christian, and Islamic religions (Abrahamic) for putting woman in the back seat. Up until those beliefs took hold there were more people worshiping female gods than male gods.I'm talking about feminism in the most general sense: a push for women's equality. That's literally the dictionary definition of the word. You can make up all the crap you want about what you think feminism is, but that doesn't change the overwhelming consensus on what it actually is.
Do you support equal rights and opportunities for women? As in real equality, not lip service (and goodness knows it's easy for that to happen)? Then you're a feminist. And if you seriously, profoundly object to the very term... maybe you're not as big on equality as you think you are, because you're clearly nervous about any pro-rights advocacy.
Also, as I've said before, please actually read what I'm saying about women who don't support feminism. It's fine if you choose not to exercise freedoms and don't particularly care for them. It's another when they sincerely believe that it's bad for women to have those freedoms. Then, yes, there's a certain Stockholm Syndrome quality. Who do you think primarily shaped "traditional" social structures and religious views? Hint: women didn't have much say.
I'm not so naive as to think that all forms of feminism are constructive, or that there's never overreach. But feminism is a positive thing at its core, and labeling the entire concept as negative is not just overly simplistic, but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.
I'm talking about feminism in the most general sense: a push for women's equality. That's literally the dictionary definition of the word. You can make up all the crap you want about what you think feminism is, but that doesn't change the overwhelming consensus on what it actually is.
Do you support equal rights and opportunities for women? As in real equality, not lip service (and goodness knows it's easy for that to happen)? Then you're a feminist. And if you seriously, profoundly object to the very term... maybe you're not as big on equality as you think you are, because you're clearly nervous about any pro-rights advocacy.
Also, as I've said before, please actually read what I'm saying about women who don't support feminism. It's fine if you choose not to exercise freedoms and don't particularly care for them. It's another when they sincerely believe that it's bad for women to have those freedoms. Then, yes, there's a certain Stockholm Syndrome quality. Who do you think primarily shaped "traditional" social structures and religious views? Hint: women didn't have much say.
I'm not so naive as to think that all forms of feminism are constructive, or that there's never overreach. But feminism is a positive thing at its core, and labeling the entire concept as negative is not just overly simplistic, but shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is.
You can mainly blame the Judo Christian, and Islamic religions (Abrahamic) for putting woman in the back seat. Up until those beliefs took hold there were more people worshiping female gods than male gods.
Of all the founders of the great religions - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam and Judaism — Muhammad was easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women. Arguably he was history’s first feminist.
Contrary to American popular belief, Islam has a culture and history of women empowerment.
In private industry diverse groups are better problem solvers and tend to make companies more competitive. Scientific research backs this up:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/
Again, they aren't the same, and you are making the mistake of thinking they are.
For instance - the Black Lives Matter movement aims to address equality issues for black people in America. True? But, they aren't the only movement to do so. Black Lives Matter is not exactly equal to black equality.
There are women. Who believe in equality for women. That do not support feminism.
It is not that they want to go back to being barefoot in the kitchen. They just don't support feminism.
They want those freedoms, they just don't agree with feminism for various reasons.
You are the one who is claiming to know that these women want a return to patriarchy, which is not what they actually want.
And again, your point of view on this is still patronizing, patriarchal and condescending. You are so sure that there is no way that a sane modern woman could be against feminism that you assume that they desire less rights and less freedom. Don't you see how patriarchal that is? Hugely ironic.
Isn't labelling all feminism good just because some varieties of good a vast oversimplification of the truth? It's like saying all cancer is good because not all of it will kill you.
How does that explain the catastrophic success of companies like Microsoft/Apple/Google that appear to owe their success solely to the genius of their founders? I am of the opinion that it is a handful of geniuses that change the world, not corporate drones like myself.
You can mainly blame the Judo Christian, and Islamic religions (Abrahamic) for putting woman in the back seat. Up until those beliefs took hold there were more people worshiping female gods than male gods.
Sheez even when you pointed out my error, it still took a while to figure out. Running on the slow side today.Hey now, you leave Jigoro Kano out of this damnit.
How does that explain the catastrophic success of companies like Microsoft/Apple/Google that appear to owe their success solely to the genius of their founders? I am of the opinion that it is a handful of geniuses that change the world, not corporate drones like myself.
Sheez even when you pointed out my error, it still took a while to figure out. Running on the slow side today.