Rhian, Sarah, Killarney

You understand, don't you, that if you face questions which you can't answer without proving yourself wrong either way, it means you're wrong?

If you vacate the forum, or go out backwards unable to answer questions without contradicting yourself, you are not entitled to maintain that your ideology is true or justifies any policy whatsoever. Other people are not just footstools for you and your pet favourites to climb up on.

I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate by my questions that you cannot answer without expressing disagreement with your own premises, that your ideology is hypocritical, sexist, bigotted, and should be rejected. The mere fact that, after categorical disproof, you still fondly cling to your previous opinions is no defence of them, and that’s all you’ve got.

Answer my questions, or admit that you are wrong. But if you skulk and refuse to answer, or evade them, it means you concede that you are wrong.

1. Where did you get the stupid belief that male and female are the same?
2. If equal means the same, then it's not true that male and female are equal, is it?
3. Having-a-baby and not-having-a-baby are not equal, are they?
4. They could only be valued equally if we valued human life at nothing, which would be anti-human, wouldn't it?
5. If equal does not mean the same, then you admit there is no reason why the number of female opinion journalists should be same as the number of male opinion journalists?
6. And there is no reason why male pay and female pay should be the same, because "equal does not mean the same?"
7. And there's no justification for anti-discrimination laws, because there is no reason why male and female should be treated the same, according to you?

Rhian
8. Why is it irrelevant to ask Sarah or Killarney to provide proof of what they have done to equalise the rate of male and female deaths at work?
9. How can you say my questions are aggressive, when you argue that it's okay to use aggressive violence to get what you want from the opposite sex?
10. If you don't, then are you saying that laws and policies - including feminist laws and policies - are not enforced?
11. Or you renounce feminism’s political acts and platform?
12. Which?
13. What have you done to pay women to stay at home looking after their babies, the same amount that you say employers who don't even agree with you and do not consent, should be forced to pay them by threats of imprisonment?
14. And you have the gall to accuse me of being aggressive? You don't treat people equally or provide them equal opportunity do you?
15. Are two five dollar notes equal to one ten dollar note in the resources used to make them?

Sarah
15. If you don't care whether men live or die, why should anyone care whether your anti-human opinions are propagated more rather than less?
16. It's a dishonest misrepresentation to claim that anyone ever said that female opinions don't count, isn't it?
17. Are you saying that the numbers of male and female in all activities should be the same, otherwise there's a "gender imbalance"? If not, how do you know whether a gender balance, which you never define, should entail always equal numbers? If so, why? If not, why not?
18. If someone is raped in prison as a result of the government's compulsory funding of the ABC, do you have any problem with that?

Let's get one thing straight. I have every right to ask you bigots questions which disprove your sexist hypocritical belief system, and you have no "entitlement" to live in a society in which people are forced or threatened into pretending that male and female are the same or equal when it’s factually untrue.

No-one has established any reason why male and female “should” be the same, valued the same, or treated the same, let alone any justification for imprisoning people who disagree.

Admit it. All you hypocrites are trying to do, is get for women the support and benefits of both patriarchy and feminism, with men to unequally bear the risks and costs of both. You are not for gender equality, you are for female privilege on a double standard, backed by force and threats, and double-talk at every stage.

We have now established that no-one can defend any tenet of any feminist theory.

But if I am wrong, what are the answers to my numbered questions above?

Hi JKJ,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have taken a break from the keyboard over the holidays.

In response to your first set of questions:

1. Where did you get the stupid belief that male and female are the same?

I do not believe male and female are the same

2. If equal means the same, then it's not true that male and female are equal, is it?

Refer q1

3. Having-a-baby and not-having-a-baby are not equal, are they?

No

4. They could only be valued equally if we valued human life at nothing, which would be anti-human, wouldn't it?

False argument. I think 1,000 $100 bills are equal to 2,000 $50 bills, but not the same. This does not make them valued at nothing, nor does it make me anti-money.

5. If equal does not mean the same, then you admit there is no reason why the number of female opinion journalists should be same as the number of male opinion journalists?

I partly agree, and in fact indicated as much in my earlier post. It may be that women are less interested in terrorism and therefore less likely to want to develop expertise in this area, in which case the lack of female opinion writers on this subject is not discrimination. It would be different, though, if female voices are excluded from the debate because they are female.

6. And there is no reason why male pay and female pay should be the same, because "equal does not mean the same?"

As indicated previously, I think two people doing the same job to the same level of competence for the same employer should be paid the same, regardless of gender, family, race, height, religion, favourite footy team, suburb of residence or anything else that makes them “different”.

7. And there's no justification for anti-discrimination laws, because there is no reason why male and female should be treated the same, according to you?
Wrong. Refer q6

Re q 8
Because the question is based on a false premise – that only people who have actively worked to equalise male and female death rates really care about gender inequality. But this is a subset of a very wide range of phenomena that constitute differences in the workplace experiences of men and women.

By analogy, suppose you are an animal lover who donates half their income to the RSPCA and spends all their spare time as an unpaid volunteer at a local animal sanctuary. But someone asks what you have done to save the critically endangered Yangtze Finless Porpoise, and you have to admit you have done nothing. That hardly proves you are not an animal lover.

Re q9
I do not argue that “it's okay to use aggressive violence to get what you want from the opposite sex?” I do not share your view that enforcing the law of the land is “aggressive violence”. And your assumption that use of the law is only against the “opposite sex” reveals your own prejudices.

Re q10 and q11
No

Re q12

Again your logic is flawed, because it presumes that enforcing anti-discrimination legislation constitutes “aggressive violence”.

Re q13
Refer to the logical fallacy identified in q8

Re q14
I do treat people equally (bearing in mind, as I have said many times, equal is not identical). I do provide equal opportunity. And you are aggressive.

Re q15
No. But that doesn’t mean shopkeepers will value them differently.

On your other post, When have I indicated I want the “benefits” of patriarchy? Or female privilege?