In our current political climate there are an abundance of hot topics which have been wrongly overly politicized. One of these is "Gender Equality," and it's a trap. Specifically in America I've observed over the past few years that identity politics have become more and more prevalent, and it's not only idiotic, it's harmful to our society as a whole. Especially since this past election cycle we've been told by the collective voice of "The Left" that if you're a woman you should be on "their side" because "The Right" wishes to bring you down while they want to empower you. They've painted the other side of the political spectrum as misogynistic white men who care only about marginalizing certain sectors of the country, and if you're a woman they're out to get you. If you're a homosexual they're out to get you. If you're a minority you should really be worried because they're comin! If you let Trump have his way he'll get slavery back up in this bitch! So everyone who's not straight, white, or a man flock over to us. We'll protect you!
In response to this the other side has done the same thing. If you're a veteran, a man, straight, or white you need to be on the right. Because otherwise you're a "cuck," and you deserve to get your ass beat. Forget knowing anything about the ideology behind being a liberal or a conservative because everything's predetermined for you. The left will tell you that they have the moral high ground, and anyone who opposes them is simply a bad person. It's not that they have different values and belief systems, they're just evil, and you shouldn't even humor their malicious intents. On the flip side the right will tell you that everyone who opposes them is actually just stupid and weak. They obviously haven't looked into anything that they're saying, and all of them are just weak pushovers who deserve to be bullied.
Ok I'm done with my little rant, but that serves as an introduction to what I actually want to say.
This widespread approach to different ideologies is a really bad thing, because it creates echo chambers in what should be the most open and interconnected society the world has ever seen. If everyone truly buys into the mind set that everyone who opposes the politically correct narrative running rampant in the mainstream media is evil then it discourages a true dialogue. If you reduce someone who disagrees with you to a fascist, or an otherwise horrible person then you don't have to actually consider to what they're saying. In fact, you're not only justified in ignoring and bringing harm to them, it's what you should do. If you come across Hitler, then doing anything less than killing him is a horrid act. One of the biggest topics which is harmed by this line of thinking is Gender Equality. It seems like the "correct" thing to say nowadays is that men are women and women are men. There's no inherent differences between us, and everything which separates the two genders is a social construct instituted by the malicious white man, and as such should be eradicated at all costs.
This is simply absurd. More so than these elephan-duck-tooth things? I think so. To claim that there is no biological difference between a man and a woman aside from differing genitalia and organ systems is not only a dogmatic claim to make, it's idiotic. Males and females have very distinctively different strengths and weaknesses, both physically and mentally. The most laughable thing I constantly hear is that the only reason that women are physically weaker than men is that they're not encouraged to be active and push their bodies as much as males are, and that if they were raised the same way then there would be no difference. To anyone who makes such claims... my only question is what world do you live in? Because it's obviously not reality. That's actually the least concerning thing to me though, because it's obviously something most reasonable individuals won't take seriously.
What actually strikes me as the most harmful mindset to have is that we are psychologically the same, because this is something widely accepted. To think that women have the same desires and aspirations as men, and the only reason that they don't achieve the same things the other gender does is due to mass discrimination is ridiculous. This is where arguments like the Gender Wage Gap fall apart. Females don't have the same priorities as males, and they're not going to aggressively chase the same goals that men do, because they shouldn't. We evolved to have different roles in society. Before civilization women were the care givers for a reason, they're better at it. A man can't raise a well adjusted human being on his own as well as a women can, period. That's because our ancient male ancestors job was to hunt, gather, and provide. While the females tended to the next generation and ensured the survival of our species. That's why women are more nurturing by nature, and men are much more prone to violence.
If men and women are exactly the same, then why are the vast majority of serial killers men? Why are mass murderers almost exclusively male. Why do women look for power, confidence, and social status in a man, while men look mainly at physical features and complimentary personalities? In modern society we're equals in the eyes of the law, and for the most part parents now give boys and girls equal opportunities and try to treat them no differently from one another. Yet, there's still a distinctive difference in the way that a father will see his son, and how he will see his daughter. There is an inherent bias which we will never overcome, no matter how much society wants to. Because we're different. It honestly baffles me that everyone is so afraid to admit this, and that a large amount of people would read this and call me a sick sexist. Men have cultural advantages that women don't, it's true, but it's not only us. For every advantage that men have, women have one as well.
Take this girl for example. Her name is "Lena the Plug" and she's a social media star. She makes very good money by flaunting her body online. She can post provocative images on twitter and instagram, as well as short 10 second clips of herself masturbating on snapchat and live a lavish lifestyle. Seriously, she's rich just for being attractive. Can a man do this? HELL no. The vast majority of women are not going to pay for a private snapchat to watch a random guy jerk off on camera. You know why? Because they care about much more than just physical attractiveness. Women often need a rapport with a person to be seriously attracted to them. A hint of their personality which alludes to confidence, power, and their place on the dominance hierarchy is a big factor in what attracts a female's attention. While a guy can look at this girl and instantly be extremely attracted to her, enough to throw absurd amounts of money her way for a glimpse into her private life, women have much more complex desires. That's because men are extremely visual creatures, which is my main problem with this "free the nipple" movement.
The basis of the "Free the Nipple" movement is that men and women both have a pectoral region, along with an areola and nipple. Yet men can generally walk around in public shirtless with no issue, while if women do it it's considered public indecency/nudity. Supporters of this movement claim that women don't ask for the sexualization of their breasts, so it shouldn't hold any weight right? Give me a fucking break. There's a very big difference in the way that a man views a women's boobs versus how a women views a mans pecs. As I said, we're visual creatures. A man looks at a very large percentage of breasts and gets real hot and bothered. That's because a women's breasts are designed to be a distinctively feminine feature, which we're hardwired to be attracted to. On top of that, it signifies that the woman is ready to breed and nurture their offspring. Because newsflash, we evolved for our entire existence to revolve around the continuation of our genes. When a woman looks at a man's pectoral region sure, if it's nice and muscular/toned then there will be a level of attraction there, but it doesn't come close to the way that a man will look at that region on a woman. This really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. When I one day have children, if I have a young son I do not want to have him out in public ogling at bare breasts before he's sexually mature, and if you think there's not an issue with that then you're living in fantasy land.
So sorry, I click baited you with the title, because I absolutely believe in equal opportunity and gender equality, I just think that instead of ignoring and fighting the nuances/differences between men and women we should embrace them. Because we both have unique features and quirks which separate us from the opposite gender. For the same reason that I don't personally believe that unwilling women should be drafted to the front lines in World War 3. I don't think it's right that unions discriminate against qualified men in order to make an effort to hire more women "just because," And I don't think that a women should be allowed to walk around in public with no shirt on. Just like I'm against a man hitting a women, I'm against the need for there to be a "strong female lead" in every movie just because Hollywood feels that they need to have one. If that's truly a directors vision then by all means make a great story, but to insert one in just for the sake of "diversity" is obviously disingenuous and damaging to the next generation, but that's an entirely different rant. Just as I believe that there's absolutely nothing wrong with a female being the president, she shouldn't run her entire campaign on the basis that she's a women. See where I'm going with this. We're completely different entities, and it's time to stop denying that so we can all play to our individual strengths. Because there's a lot of things that men simply do better than women. Just as there's a lot of things that women do better than men. If you don't like that, then too bad, it's just the reality of things. Life is far too short to waste time squabbling over an emotional reaction to factual information.
I would love to have a civil intelligent discussion with anyone who happens to read this that has a different viewpoint than me, but anyone who ignores everything I said in the beginning of this post and resorts to labeling me as a "sexist" a "pig" as "misogynist" or "evil" will be ignored, because if you actually read what I said then it's obvious that's not true. And to save anyone who may inquire time. No, I did not vote for Donald Trump, and having these viewpoints doesn't shoe horn me into that.
I was agreeing with much of what you wrote until you got to the part about freeing the nipple. Women should be able to walk around topless - why? Because there is actually a valid reason for women to be topless - breastfeeding. Also, while sexual attraction to breasts is a real thing, why should that be my problem? I do not care if someone has sexual attraction to me, I only care if that sexual attraction comes with unwanted action.
Also there are many cultures around the world where both men and women are topless or toplessness from both sexes is accepted and there does not seem to be any major problems.
I wasn't quite sure what your point in the post was regarding that - that you do not want men to see naked breasts and feel sexual feelings? I just don't get what harm is caused if a man sees a breast and feels sexual. I also suspect that if exposed breasts were more common those sexual feelings would be less intense.
Also - and this is just an aside - men can and do get naked and make lots of money, it's just usually for other men.
Although we have vastly different viewpoints on the topic, I appreciate the well thought out response
Sexual attraction to breasts is a real thing, and just because you don't want it to be "your problem" doesn't make it any less real, or an issue in this particular topic. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, a woman's breasts are a secondary sex characteristic which men are hardwired to be sexually attracted to. My reasoning for being against the whole thing is this. I don't care in the slightest if grown men are sexually aroused in public, and I personally would only have something else to appreciate when I'm at the mall. My issue lies with the fact that 1. Children being exposed to overt sexuality before they begin to sexually develop can be damaging to the psyche. 2. I don't think men should be allowed to walk around with their dicks out either, and I'm sure you'd agree. 3. this is a slippery slope to go down, after something like this becomes socially acceptable what's next? How far off do we get from walking around naked everyday? 4. Feminists go on and on about how we're living in a "rape culture" right now and the world is so toxic to them, and how would this solve any issues? I see woman all the time complaining that they're over sexualized and giving partial nudity free reign isn't solving any problems. You downplay the relevance of sexual attraction like it shouldn't be a big deal, but due to basic human nature it just is. Our brains are wired for it to be, and that's not ever going to change in our lifetime. On top of that, seeing hundreds of different breasts on a weekly basis won't cause men everywhere to suddenly overcome their innate instinctual attraction to them. If that were true then porn addicts would all turn asexual. Sure, I'll give you breastfeeding... I guess? Yet are all woman walking around breastfeeding 24/7? I think you and I both know that the whole movement has little to do with women having the freedom to breastfeed in public, especially since they basically already do. I don't think very many people actually care if someone is breastfeeding in public, and if they do they need to grow up. If your a single parent dealing with a hysterical hungry child in public and you don't believe in formula then who am I or anyone else to tell you that it's wrong to breastfeed in public. Except that when a woman is breastfeeding her boobs aren't blatantly exposed for the world to see, and like I said she's not out doing it 24/7.
And yes, plenty of gay men will pay for that type of thing. The men doing it just won't make nearly as much money as a woman doing it, and like I said in the post. The vast majority of woman won't pay for that, but gay men will. Because men are visual creatures, which is a big separation between us, and a large part of the reason why I'm against nudity in a public space.
Well I am not a man so I can't say if they would be decensitized by seeing breasts on a regular basis in a (non) sexual context.
I do know that many porn addicts have to find more extreme pornograghy because they do become decenitized to the run of the mill porn offerings.
What I can say is that I appreciate you taking the time to critique my response, and I agree that although we disagree, it's always great to read other viewpoints that challenge your own thinking. Cheers!!
Well written. I didn't disagree with any of it (except Lena the Plug's fake tits). So we must be standing side by side with clowns to the left and jokers to the right. At least that is the polite way to put it.
Haha, fake boobs have never actually bothered me as long as women don't get them due to inadequacy issues, I'm attracted to them all the same. But more or less yeah with the clowns and jokers bit lol. Although personally I'd consider myself an ever so slightly right leaning centrist, but there's just too much fuckery on their end that I refuse to align myself with.
I'd consider myself slightly left of centrist. But as you say too much fuckery. How can everybody right of Noam Chomsky be a Nazi? Considering that Nazi = National Socialism i.e a hair brained scheme cooked up by the far left. Identity Politics doesn't have very good credibility or character.
I'd consider myself slightly left of centrist. But as you say too much fuckery. How can everybody right of Noam Chomsky be a Nazi? Considering that Nazi = National Socialism i.e a hair brained scheme cooked up by the far left. Identity Politics doesn't have very good credibility or character.
I had a professor last year spend the entire semester essentially telling us that if you aren't a Marxist you're a bigoted fascist, highlighting how if you're A, you need to align yourself with B and everyone in the class ate that shit up because it's easier that way. Nobody wants to actually look into what they're subscribing to, they just want other people to tell them how they should think because it's less effort on their part.
It's a real shame what the communists have done to education. I certainly won't be encouraging my daughter to go to uni. Although she is only 2 so who knows what the world will look like in another 14 or 15 years? The pendulum is always swinging. Only those who are pushing it or those who can duck with good timing survive, unfortunately. Most of those pushing it don't know what for, they just want to feel like part of the in-group. And fuck the 'other', right? Hmmm. :(
Tick.
In the age of the fascists and nationalists, teach communism and socialism.
Tock.
In the age of the anarchists and socialists, teach nationalism and fascism.
Tick tock.
If you want to simply end it, eliminate religion, society, and politics, and live your own damned life, and quit meddling in the lives of other people.
How is having a discussion about this topic meddling in the lives of other people?
That's a stealers wheel reference right?
I disagree with what seems to be your reason for objecting to a man hitting a woman. Sure, men are physically better equipped to handle being hit, but they do have the right to defend themselves against a woman if they're being attacked. A woman holding a knife, for example, should be hit if she's trying to harm someone. I think violence should only be a last resort and men shouldn't hit women for the same reason anyone shouldn't hit anyone. As for the draft, men make better soldiers but women could do many jobs (mostly non-combat) as well as a man. A woman could most likely fly a drone just as well as a man, so she should do that and let the men go out on the front lines.
That's my fault, I should have clarified that better. Of course if a woman has a weapon and is trying to cause a man serious harm then he absolutely has the right to defend himself. On a level playing field though I just don't think he should A. Hit her unprovoked or B. Hit her in retaliation to her hitting him. I think violence is the lowest form of dispute, which is usually resorted to when people can't communicate their thoughts and emotions well enough to settle issues with their minds, but at times it's unavoidable. Me personally? Even if a woman was repeatedly hitting me I wouldn't immediately go ahead and punch her in the face. I'd instead opt to immobilize her until she calmed down, and if that's not working then we can contemplate something more extreme. Although emotions are a finicky thing and this is said from a calm and collected state of mind. I just know that in the vast majority of cases I'm more capable of causing her serious harm with my fists than she is to me, and on top of that I realize that in a case of a physical dispute the chances of me not getting screwed over in the courts is small at best regardless of the context. And yeah I agree with woman being able to perform most non combat jobs just as well as a man, like flying drones. I'm just against them being on the front line in general.
Equality is a word that commands very little respect.
More worthy words to comprehend are freedom and intellect.
The destruction of oppression is not equality.
It is the ripping open of the shackles that bind the power of our genetic code, that which restricts our very human spirit, the fragile breath that we grasp at, to give us a life, and prevents us from living the lives we truly crave to live.
To think the thoughts that are profound.
To speak the words that inspire.
To create a society worthy of living in.
And to build fantastic machines, just as we have already begun, and which we must continue to do.
There are a number of points that I would like to question if not counter, but alas I am working so only can do a short bit. I will write and post back to you later for sure. You make a well prepared and presented argument for a broad topic that would really require hours of discussion. You have talked about clothing, hitting, equality and touched lightly on the topics... just enough for me to want to go, "Hey now, wait a minute!" It is smart too, because you pull up these emotional topics, skim them and then go back to the party line of equality. This kind of thought process always strikes me as a form of passive aggressive support. It is the kind of support that says I am here for you until I am not. You say that you aren't okay with women walking around bare-breasted because we are hard wired differently. Do you think that women don't oggle and objectify? Some of the most lucrative marketing campaigns featured athletic men getting hot and sweaty... and you know why? Ladies? Yep, all the ladies. Also did you know that when researching the way that a male brain and a women's reacts to sexualized images, both brains light up. It is only when you divide the called genetic stagnation. When we keep trying to do the same thing and not change then how will we learn different. I can understand not wanting nudity all around but I think you are dead wrong with saying it is okay to show men's nipples and not womens.
Kind of reminds me of this comic:
I think that perhaps if people started to ask why is this a problem rather than just assuming it is not a problem then they might be able to see the other side of things a bit better. I wish I had more time... but I will surely be posting on the topic on here or @PrudishNudist. Thanks for sharing, I look forward to more discussions :)
I'd like to counter this as well, but first I'd like to ask you to go more into detail on this particular excerpt, as I'd hate to misinterpret exactly what you're saying.
" It is smart too, because you pull up these emotional topics, skim them and then go back to the party line of equality. This kind of thought process always strikes me as a form of passive aggressive support. It is the kind of support that says I am here for you until I am not."
Because if you mean what I think you do then I think you're inferring something which I did not mean to imply. I would describe myself as a great deal of things, but passive aggressive isn't one of them.