At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
At 3/13/23 07:35 AM, Galneda wrote:At 3/11/23 07:53 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/11/23 07:41 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/11/23 07:31 PM, ngman7 wrote:Seeing things about female empowerment in this day and age makes me think females are STILL being treated like second-hand citizens to a degree.
Not trying to sound sexist or anything like that but is this the case?
In some ways sadly yes.
Even girls? Females under 18?
Gee whiz, that's a curious demographic for an older Christian conservative man to transfix on.
We should give him credit that he doesn't transfix on pre-pubescent males like most others of his ilk.
Were feminists responsible for female empowerment becoming a thing in the first place?
At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
And it was about 100 years ago that woman were finally allowed to vote. It was about 50 years ago that woman started breaking the glass ceiling, with woman now making up 30% of the executive positions - yet, still, on average, making less than men for similar positions. These days, men are still trying to decide the fate of woman health issues based on the ideas of a male god. And yet, you have men, I assume, like you, demanding that it's only fair that they fight for you as well. You might want to get out from under your mother skirt, and feel ashamed about your manhood.
And, unless we get another right-wing authoritarian, wanting to expand the borders of this country, or China tries to invade us, I don't think you have much to worry about the government reinstating the draft.
At 3/13/23 08:28 PM, ngman7 wrote:Were feminists responsible for female empowerment becoming a thing in the first place?
Yeah, they were?
There was the entire suffragette movement way back when. And even then, there had to have been an active push for women wanting their own rights.
Do you think the civil rights movement would've been the same if no black people campaigned at all?
At 3/13/23 09:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
And it was about 100 years ago that woman were finally allowed to vote. It was about 50 years ago that woman started breaking the glass ceiling, with woman now making up 30% of the executive positions - yet, still, on average, making less than men for similar positions. These days, men are still trying to decide the fate of woman health issues based on the ideas of a male god. And yet, you have men, I assume, like you, demanding that it's only fair that they fight for you as well. You might want to get out from under your mother skirt, and feel ashamed about your manhood.
You once again assumed wrong. Personally I feel the draft was one of the worst things the government ever came up with. As someone who joined the service in the past I personally feel that If you become a member of the service it should have always been because you wanted to not because the government randomly picked you just because they need people to join for a war because the government forced you to sign up for the selective service or suffer punishment for not doing so.
But putting my own personal feelings about the draft aside, for men and women to be truly equal (at least in the ways that are physically and legally possible) would mean that the party that wants this treatment would have to accept EVERYTHING that comes with this both good and bad.
So if we were to make the draft equal among the sexes for example we would need to either (A) have it where women are required to sign up for the selective service when they become 18 seeing as we currently have it where men have to do this or (B) have it where men are no longer required to sign up for the selective service since women aren't required to do it either.
And, unless we get another right-wing authoritarian, wanting to expand the borders of this country, or China tries to invade us, I don't think you have much to worry about the government reinstating the draft.
With the lost of tens of thousands of service men and women as well as sign ups being at an all time low I have no doubt that congress would reinstate the draft to be honest with you if this happened.
At 3/13/23 11:10 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 09:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
And it was about 100 years ago that woman were finally allowed to vote. It was about 50 years ago that woman started breaking the glass ceiling, with woman now making up 30% of the executive positions - yet, still, on average, making less than men for similar positions. These days, men are still trying to decide the fate of woman health issues based on the ideas of a male god. And yet, you have men, I assume, like you, demanding that it's only fair that they fight for you as well. You might want to get out from under your mother skirt, and feel ashamed about your manhood.
You once again assumed wrong. Personally I feel the draft was one of the worst things the government ever came up with. As someone who joined the service in the past I personally feel that If you become a member of the service it should have always been because you wanted to not because the government randomly picked you just because they need people to join for a war because the government forced you to sign up for the selective service or suffer punishment for not doing so.
But putting my own personal feelings about the draft aside, for men and women to be truly equal (at least in the ways that are physically and legally possible) would mean that the party that wants this treatment would have to accept EVERYTHING that comes with this both good and bad.
So if we were to make the draft equal among the sexes for example we would need to either (A) have it where women are required to sign up for the selective service when they become 18 seeing as we currently have it where men have to do this or (B) have it where men are no longer required to sign up for the selective service since women aren't required to do it either.
You were part of the service? Then you would know that it is very male dominated for a few reasons.
And, unless we get another right-wing authoritarian, wanting to expand the borders of this country, or China tries to invade us, I don't think you have much to worry about the government reinstating the draft.
With the lost of tens of thousands of service men and women as well as sign ups being at an all time low I have no doubt that congress would reinstate the draft to be honest with you if this happened.
It ain't going to happen, outside the above mentioned.
At 3/14/23 07:55 AM, Marcus49 wrote:At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:-Snip lots of good points as usual-
Don't forget that women were encouraged to shame men that weren't going to war. Other than the very racist connotations of the usage of a white feather (about being a "true breed" and all that), people that weren't fit for war at all were targeted and harassed by these poor, oppressed women. Charlie Chaplin, whom was underweight and undersized, received thousands of them, as well as threatening letters.
Thousands of good people have died because they could no longer bear the humiliation received by these women and enlisted to a war they didn't want to fight.
Oh, good, you are bringing up one incident in British history so you can air your grievance about how woman shamed some men into dying in a war. By the way, you might want to read your own source. It was first started by a white man, who organized a group woman to hand out feathers to any man not in uniform in his home town.
At the start of World War I, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald, who was a strong advocate of conscription, wanted to increase the number of those enlisting in the armed forces. Therefore he organized on 30 August 1914 a group of thirty women in his home town of Folkestone to hand out white feathers to any men that were not in uniform. Fitzgerald believed using women to shame the men into enlisting would be the most effective method of encouraging enlistment.[5][6] The group that he founded (with prominent members being Emma Orczy and the prominent author Mary Augusta Ward) was known as the White Feather Brigade or the Order of the White Feather
At 3/14/23 12:40 PM, Marcus49 wrote:At 3/14/23 10:50 AM, EdyKel wrote:It was first started by a white man, who organized a group woman to hand out feathers to any man not in uniform in his home town.
So being in the KKK or ISIS is fine because I didn't start it. Good to know. Thank you for your priceless outputs as usual.
Lets' see... Bitch about woman shaming men to die in a war, when it was led by a man. Bitch about the white feather being racist, which was started by white men. Then bring up the KKK and ISIS for no good reason other than to be dramatic... Please stop bitch slapping yourself silly, then blaming others for it.
At 3/13/23 11:54 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 11:10 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 09:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
And it was about 100 years ago that woman were finally allowed to vote. It was about 50 years ago that woman started breaking the glass ceiling, with woman now making up 30% of the executive positions - yet, still, on average, making less than men for similar positions. These days, men are still trying to decide the fate of woman health issues based on the ideas of a male god. And yet, you have men, I assume, like you, demanding that it's only fair that they fight for you as well. You might want to get out from under your mother skirt, and feel ashamed about your manhood.
You once again assumed wrong. Personally I feel the draft was one of the worst things the government ever came up with. As someone who joined the service in the past I personally feel that If you become a member of the service it should have always been because you wanted to not because the government randomly picked you just because they need people to join for a war because the government forced you to sign up for the selective service or suffer punishment for not doing so.
But putting my own personal feelings about the draft aside, for men and women to be truly equal (at least in the ways that are physically and legally possible) would mean that the party that wants this treatment would have to accept EVERYTHING that comes with this both good and bad.
So if we were to make the draft equal among the sexes for example we would need to either (A) have it where women are required to sign up for the selective service when they become 18 seeing as we currently have it where men have to do this or (B) have it where men are no longer required to sign up for the selective service since women aren't required to do it either.
You were part of the service? Then you would know that it is very male dominated for a few reasons.
1) Average sign ups between the genders.
Like with all jobs out there depending on what field it is in a certain gender will dominate it more than the other. The service is a more physically demanding as well as mentally demanding job and since the start we have seen far more sign ups from men than women. My recruiter as well as a couple of others from the different branches I spoke with told me from their experiences they had far more males wanting to join than women.
While the branch of the Military I personally joined had the highest ratio of women joining it was still a like 3 men for every one women when I first started in basic training.
2) Basic Military training
Lets assume #1 wasn't a factor and we had equal sign ups in all branches. Going through Basic Military training is the next reason. From the physical training to the mind games where if the MTI's (Military training instructors) saw a hint of weakness that made them think you wouldn't make it the heat would be turned up very high to try and get you to quit. While the majority of my sister flight was made of tougher stuff and made it through depending on what branch you are in and MTI you get a lot of people both men and women don't make it pass this phase. Sadly women have a much higher rate of dropouts then men.
There are others I can think of but these are the biggest two I either seen or asked about.
At 3/14/23 02:52 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 11:54 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 11:10 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 09:02 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 08:38 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/13/23 05:46 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/13/23 04:36 PM, BUM-DRILLER wrote:I still dunno what “womens rights” are.
I assume you want to be treated like men.
So you want to be eligible for the draft?
What draft? Most of the young men these days cry about wars of any kind, while quaking in their platform sneakers,or loafers, at any suggestion of a draft.
Even though the draft has been gone for almost 50 years, it still doesn't change the fact that when it was around Men had to register to be drafted vs women who never had to worry about this. Meaning that men at anytime during the draft period could be called in and forced to join the service whether they wanted to or not vs women who only joined if they truly wanted to.
Even now if congress was to reinstate the draft women wouldn't have to worry seeing as congress still hasn't made it so women have to sign up for it. For the women who scream they want equality they should be going to congress demanding that they be allowed to be drafted just like men.
But onto your other point that is partially due Masculinity being on the decline which is something that has been happening for decades.
And it was about 100 years ago that woman were finally allowed to vote. It was about 50 years ago that woman started breaking the glass ceiling, with woman now making up 30% of the executive positions - yet, still, on average, making less than men for similar positions. These days, men are still trying to decide the fate of woman health issues based on the ideas of a male god. And yet, you have men, I assume, like you, demanding that it's only fair that they fight for you as well. You might want to get out from under your mother skirt, and feel ashamed about your manhood.
You once again assumed wrong. Personally I feel the draft was one of the worst things the government ever came up with. As someone who joined the service in the past I personally feel that If you become a member of the service it should have always been because you wanted to not because the government randomly picked you just because they need people to join for a war because the government forced you to sign up for the selective service or suffer punishment for not doing so.
But putting my own personal feelings about the draft aside, for men and women to be truly equal (at least in the ways that are physically and legally possible) would mean that the party that wants this treatment would have to accept EVERYTHING that comes with this both good and bad.
So if we were to make the draft equal among the sexes for example we would need to either (A) have it where women are required to sign up for the selective service when they become 18 seeing as we currently have it where men have to do this or (B) have it where men are no longer required to sign up for the selective service since women aren't required to do it either.
You were part of the service? Then you would know that it is very male dominated for a few reasons.
1) Average sign ups between the genders.
Like with all jobs out there depending on what field it is in a certain gender will dominate it more than the other. The service is a more physically demanding as well as mentally demanding job and since the start we have seen far more sign ups from men than women. My recruiter as well as a couple of others from the different branches I spoke with told me from their experiences they had far more males wanting to join than women.
While the branch of the Military I personally joined had the highest ratio of women joining it was still a like 3 men for every one women when I first started in basic training.
2) Basic Military training
Lets assume #1 wasn't a factor and we had equal sign ups in all branches. Going through Basic Military training is the next reason. From the physical training to the mind games where if the MTI's (Military training instructors) saw a hint of weakness that made them think you wouldn't make it the heat would be turned up very high to try and get you to quit. While the majority of my sister flight was made of tougher stuff and made it through depending on what branch you are in and MTI you get a lot of people both men and women don't make it pass this phase. Sadly women have a much higher rate of dropouts then men.
There are others I can think of but these are the biggest two I either seen or asked about.
Congrats, you just made a case for why women are not going to be drafted into fighting a war any time soon. Though, they can be conscripted into supporting a war effort in other ways, as they have in the past.
Of course, as soon as you signed up for the service, in a time where there is no draft, in exchange for the govermnet paying your college tuition, and other benefits, you voluntarily agree to active duty in case a war breaks out - or other reasons.
But, none of this changes the fact this whole argument is stupid. There is no draft, period. it's sad that a bunch of guys, who don't have to worry about being drafted anymore, are whining about how unfair it is that woman can't be drafted.
And this is not women empowerment. That's about being respected, and treated equally, as much as men are, in a country very much run by men.
Why some guys are bringing it up to point out some sense of unfairness, to them, when they don't have to worry about binging drafted is teh higeight of
mars had a massive issue with toxic heavy metals in their chocolate (it was various dark chcolates, so maybe don't buy that from their brands) and needed some good press to drown it out, so they decided to bet on tucker carlson shrieking about it if they made the M&Ms woke so he couldn't fuck them.
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-14 21:01:46 (edited 2023-03-14 21:03:40)
I say this advertised on YouTube recently:
This is part of a Girls On The Run campaign and it's tied to Woman's Month which is March.
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-14 22:02:14 (edited 2023-03-14 22:06:48)
They have to socially pander. Its like a hostage situation; imagine a gun held at the company's head
Corporations feel guilty about their wealth while they are at odds with 'social justice' or 'forced outcome' (also known as communism, equity etc)
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-15 02:03:58 (edited 2023-03-15 02:04:57)
At 3/11/23 10:26 AM, LittleWashu wrote:There is nothing wrong with female empowerment In my opinion. However, when you do this you need to make sure you don't depower men in the process. As it stands right now this is what is happening in the process so that is what is wrong with it.
Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.
Fun fact: Things people see/hear/read on the Media (TV, places of worship, newspaper, etc.) usually end up being topics in social discussions, so it becomes the hot topics we discuss and spread, and eventually after it becomes old news, it ends up being socially accepted as facts.
In the early 1900s the media conveyed the idea that men are superior to women or should have power over women, so if you see in old (black & white) movies, a lot of times a man would slap a woman and she would do nothing about it (Imagine that happening now), and recently it's been the other way around, where women are told they are oppressed by men and should claim their place in society, so in more modern shows you can see a woman slapping a man and the guy does nothing about it, and these social phases (shifts of power) have been going around for a while now.
If you think about it, in nature, if you live off the grid in the wild (as I like to imagine) men and women are complimentary to one another, not competitive. So rather than one seeking to empower themselves over the other, they would empower each other to survive against life's odds. Sadly we see in spoiled (competitive) societies, people seeking victory through dominance rather than cooperation, part of a sick divide and conquer scheme to divide people up to control them (not a new scheme, if you think it's new, chances are you're the new one). In my opinion, anything that comes from hate, cannot and will not stand (long enough at least). But you see, old corrupt schemes still work on people, because people are not immortals, they die and new ones are born to be fooled, and the cycle continues.
So to answer your comment: No you can't empower women without depowering men, and vice versa. But you can empower humans by unity and love, or depower them by hate and division.
Finally, It's very creepy to think of m&m's having genders.
At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.
[etc.]
This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
At 3/11/23 07:53 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/11/23 07:41 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/11/23 07:31 PM, ngman7 wrote:Seeing things about female empowerment in this day and age makes me think females are STILL being treated like second-hand citizens to a degree.
Not trying to sound sexist or anything like that but is this the case?
In some ways sadly yes.
Even girls? Females under 18?
I'm guessing you don't talk to many women
At 3/14/23 09:01 PM, ngman7 wrote:I say this advertised on YouTube recently:
This is part of a Girls On The Run campaign and it's tied to Woman's Month which is March.
The biggest problem here is advertising Hershey's as chocolate.
At 3/15/23 10:22 AM, TecNoir wrote:At 3/11/23 07:53 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/11/23 07:41 PM, LittleWashu wrote:At 3/11/23 07:31 PM, ngman7 wrote:Seeing things about female empowerment in this day and age makes me think females are STILL being treated like second-hand citizens to a degree.
Not trying to sound sexist or anything like that but is this the case?
In some ways sadly yes.
Even girls? Females under 18?
I'm guessing you don't talk to many women
That's correct. I don't really talk to women aside from family members and people I interact with on a certain chatsite I frequent.
At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
At 3/13/23 01:38 AM, Volpon wrote:
I do have to say, that is such a cool looking character! Is he an OC?
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-15 13:25:59 (edited 2023-03-15 13:26:10)
At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
How is women having more control over their bodies depowering men?
At 3/15/23 01:47 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
How is women having more control over their bodies depowering men?
Why do men want to control it in the first place?
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-15 14:14:16 (edited 2023-03-15 14:28:16)
At 3/15/23 01:55 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 01:47 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
How is women having more control over their bodies depowering men?
Why do men want to control it in the first place?
I don't know.
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-15 15:04:51 (edited 2023-03-15 15:11:15)
At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
Well, to be honest with you, think of it this way: Historically, the rulers/ controllers wanted to be powerful and control people, they made soldiers out of men, and servants out of women (aside from actual slaves that they had, different topic). They didn't need scholars who tell them how to run things, so they ran things with their stupid hunks of soldiers, physical strength ruled (men were dominant). They ensured lack of education and savagery to keep control of the population. What did they give these men in return, well a personal servant/ slave for work and sex, a woman (in Skyrim terms: a Lydia) and money (which is a different control tool, but a different topic). But women throughout history were clever enough to use sex as a tool to control men (soldiers and kings alike), I mean would queens exist if women had no power? It would be the king and his concubines, you know it would. Women raised children while men were at war, they molded the future for both young men and women, while men served their rulers. Religions/ law helped getting men to settle down with a woman and raise their children, in a world dominated by savage men, to create cities and nations (otherwise it would be a Conan the Barbarian setting filled with murder, theft, rape, and fatherless bastards). So ever since religion was created (which was better for women than what they previously had, also better for rulers since now it's not tribes but nations which they controlled), men did the heavy lifting while women did the man-tenance (see what I did there). In machinery times (1800s) Physical strength was not required anymore (Slavery was abolished in America for this reason), the machines did most of the heavy lifting, that's why they even started to hire women and children to work in factories. So the idea of women wanting to work, serve in the military (guns beat swords, no need for extreme endurance and strength, just a decent sniper rifle), etc. comes from the rich industry-controllers wanting and allowing more people to work for them (it's good for the rich). As for women feeling that men are smothering them, it's an early trend (earlier than you believe, 1800s or so, allowed to exist by the controllers, otherwise it would've been curbed, they would've called it witchcraft or something). So women started to seek their independence from men (why be an assistant character when you can be your own protagonist?). Women can do exactly what men can (in modern times) so why should they be in second position? So women want equal pay (I think they should get it), they want to join the military...well, I don't see why anyone would, aside from benefits and GI bill (Takes us back to money and how the monetary system is set up and wage slaves, different topic for a different discussion). So in short, women aren't trying to be men, they are trying to prove that they don't need men, that they can be independent from men (Physically in this day and age, it's very possible. But mentally and emotionally, well we need each other, i's a human thing).
At 3/15/23 02:14 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:55 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 01:47 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
How is women having more control over their bodies depowering men?
Why do men want to control it in the first place?
I don't know - I assume it's a sexual thing.
That could be part of it, but it also makes it harder for woman to compete against men for jobs (and job positions) or to run for office.
Response to When did female empowerment become a big issue all of a sudden? 2023-03-15 16:11:47 (edited 2023-03-15 16:12:35)
At 3/15/23 03:08 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 02:14 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:55 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 01:47 PM, ngman7 wrote:At 3/15/23 01:25 PM, EdyKel wrote:At 3/15/23 12:24 PM, decampo wrote:At 3/15/23 04:35 AM, TurkeyOnAStick wrote:At 3/15/23 02:03 AM, decampo wrote:Well here's my take on this: Empowerment means to give power to someone or something. Thus empowering women means to give power to women. The question is, empowering them over whom? Because we're not comparing women to batteries, nukes, or stars, we're comparing them to men in this context, thus it's implying to socially empower women over men.This whole feminism argument looks like a deconstruction of the word “empowerment”.
[etc.]
How are men being de-powered?
There’s surely more to women’s rights than slapping.
For your first question, depends on what time we're talking, men were empowered for a very long while. For your second question, of course there is more, but the slapping shows you how the Media (Social Engineers) want you to think.
I don't think you quite understand.... You brought up the early 1900's as a time when men had power, even though that was a time when woman started to earn the right to vote, work outside the home, and be seen as more than property in the eyes of the law who only purpose was to produce babies and support men - and a lot of media was also starting to support women rights. These days, it's about continuing to break the glass ceiling, get equal pay for their work, have more control over their bodies, while certain portions of the media (right-wing conservatism) are screaming about how all of this is de-powering men.
How is women having more control over their bodies depowering men?
Why do men want to control it in the first place?
I don't know - I assume it's a sexual thing.
That could be part of it, but it also makes it harder for woman to compete against men for jobs (and job positions) or to run for office.
You responded before my edited post registered. I meant I don't know - I don't want to assume it's a sexual thing.
Women have as much right to work the same jobs as men. I think the main issue regarding women is physical restrictions.
If a woman joins the Armed Forces, for example, she can't be lactating on the battlefield.
Women are built differently than men.
At 3/15/23 04:11 PM, ngman7 wrote:If a woman joins the Armed Forces, for example, she can't be lactating on the battlefield.
ᵒʰ ᵐʸ ᵍᵒˢʰ ʷʰᵉʳᵉ ᵒⁿ ᵉᵃʳᵗʰ ᵃʳᵉ ʸᵒᵘ ᵖᵉᵒᵖˡᵉ ᵍᵉᵗᵗᶦⁿᵍ ʸᵒᵘʳ ᶦⁿᶠᵒʳᵐᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿ ᵃᵇᵒᵘᵗ ʷᵒᵐᵉⁿ
