Killarney

Provide proof of what protests or activism you have engaged in to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work.

And where did you get the stupid idea that men and women are the same?

All you're doing is claiming that females are "entitled" to the benefits and privileges of patriarchy and feminism, and that men should be liable to the costs and liabilities of both.

JKJ

'Provide proof of what protests or activism you have engaged in to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work.'

How does one provide 'proof' of that sort of thing? Could you provide 'proof' that you never beat your wife?

'And where did you get the stupid idea that men and women are the same?'

I dunno. I never had that idea to start with.

'All you're doing is claiming that females are "entitled" to the benefits and privileges of patriarchy and feminism, and that men should be liable to the costs and liabilities of both.'

Women are 'entitled' to live in a culture that does not treat them as 'non-men'. Women are entitled to live in a culture that is male/female centric, rather than male-centric.

As for who picks up the tab for righting the gender imbalance that has existed for centuries, that's an issue that all of society must address. MRA/anti-feminist rhetoric feeds into a sense of outrage among men that they should finally pull their own weight, instead of being traditionally pampered by women as their own private homemakers, cooks, nannies and bed-warmers.

"How does one provide 'proof' of that sort of thing? Could you provide 'proof' that you never beat your wife?"

I agree that proving something negative, such as that one has *not* done something, can't be done or often can't be done. But proving something positive, such as actions, is different. It can be done the same way proving anything is done.

Come on. Admit it. You have never taken any action to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work, have you? Please answer this question.

"I never had that idea [that men and women are the same] to start with."

Okay. So we are agreed that they are not the same and not equal? Please answer this question.

"Women are 'entitled' to live in a culture that does not treat them as 'non-men'."

So now you're back to believing that men and women are the same? Yes?

If they're not the same, why should we pretend that women are men, or are the same as men? And even if we should, why should they have a right to *enforce* such an entitlement?

By the way, a culture is not a decision-making entity, and this fact invalidates your entire process of reasoning on this topic.

And you're arguing that no-one has a right to sexual preference? Yes? Correct?

"Women are entitled to live in a culture that is male/female centric, rather than male-centric."

In order to enforce that alleged entitlement, are women entitled to initiate aggression, by themselves or their agents, including physical attacks, and causing someone to be locked in a cage where they are at extra-ordinarily high risk of being raped?

You have not given any reason for your assumption that the state is more representative of the "culture", than the culture is of the culture.

What you're saying is just a confused and facile jumble that supports unequal female privilege based on aggressive violence and double standards.

What are your answers to my specific questions?

JKJ

'Come on. Admit it. You have never taken any action to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work, have you? Please answer this question.'

This is plain ridiculous! Even if such a thing were possible to 'prove', you are NOT getting any personal details from me about anything whatsoever that I have done in my private life. You have no right to bully and badger and hound somebody in this personalised way.

This is a public forum, in which people are allowed and entitled to preserve their anonymity. So lay off.

This exchange is over. Now, go away and have a nice time convincing yourself that you won the day and showed up that feminist bitch for the deceitful fraud she was. Or something to that effect.

'What are your answers to my specific questions?'

Ditto. Answer them yourself. In fact, you already have.

Killarney

Stop pretending that you have evidence of your protestations and activism to equalise the rate of female deaths at work with males, and that the issue is one of privacy. You must think everyone else is as gullible as you are intellectually dishonest.

Why should people be punished for not pretending that male and female are the same?

You don't treat male and female the same, do you?

You don't give people equal opportunity, do you?

You agree that men and women are not the same, and not equal? Yes?

You believe no-one has a right to sexual preference, because women are "entitled" to not be treated as "non-men"? Yes? People should be imprisoned for sexual preference? But if not, why not?

You believe it's alright for people to initiate aggression to get what they want from the opposite sex? Yes? Or if not, you renounce all feminist legislation and policy? Which?

If you don't care whether men live or die, why should men - or anyone - care whether your opinions are propagated, or whether there are more female opinion journalists?

Thank you for your demonstration that feminism is not about gender equality or equal rights, and all about benefits for females backed up by force and threats - the law - and intellectual dishonesty literally at every step.

Sarah
Hurry up and evidence your actions to equalise the female and male death-rates at work.

All
I challenge anyone to defend any tenet of any feminist theory without immediately falling back to self-contradiction and sexist double standards to effect unequal female privilege.

Quote;
As for who picks up the tab for righting the gender imbalance that has existed for centuries, that's an issue that all of society must address.

Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 1:50:04 AM
Unquote

There is a problem with this type of ideology.

Firstly, the past is being judged by todays standards and values. This will also happen in the future where todays actions, behaviours, beliefs are judged by the values that exist in the future.

Secondly, in the past, the gender roles existed for some very good reasons and positive reasons.

There are three very good reasons why women have been able to break out of the gender roles of the past, and the first is effective "contraception' and the second is education. Thirdly is the increased life expectancy. The matriarchs in my family tree lived until their eighties in the 17th century.

Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of men and women were illiterate. So they learnt the skills and information about being able to live, from their community, that included their parents.

Sons learnt the skills from their fathers, just as the girls learnt the skills of their mothers. It is possible that both parents taught both genders the same skills. Cooking, child caring, herding animals, collecting eggs, milk etc.

So the skills past from generation to generation, have allowed our society to grow and develop. In both positive and negative ways.

The so-called labor saving devices, did not exist until after the 2nd WW. So any activity was labor intensive. From farming, preparing food, to cooking food, clothes were made by hand.

Feminism focus and spin on the hardships experienced only by the female gender, creates a distorted picture of the past, when human life regardless of gender was not valued very highly (by todays standards).

Children often engaged in a pointless argument about who started it, or who was worse off. So to engage in the same argument about the past about which gender was worse off, is pointless, as both genders experienced things that treated them horrendously. (by todays standards)