Feminism

^^ Would you agree that  the essence of Capitalism is to make money right? But what you don't get is that it is in the hands of private owners and not the ones who should own it, the workers.By the way Communism doesn't work. Socialism is Capitalism better realized

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - January 27 2014 at 07:45

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: ^^ Would you agree that  the essence of Capitalism is to make money right? But what you don't get is that it is in the hands of private owners and not the ones who should own it, the workers.By the way Communism doesn't work. Socialism is Capitalism better realized

It's in the hands of private owners and in the hands of workers but the most important thing is, it's in the hands of state and here's the problem. Low taxes can help both sides but an income tax, it's the root of all evil. 

LSDisease wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: ^^ Would you agree that  the essence of Capitalism is to make money right? But what you don't get is that it is in the hands of private owners and not the ones who should own it, the workers.By the way Communism doesn't work. Socialism is Capitalism better realized It's in the hands of private owners and in the hands of workers but the most important thing is, it's in the hands of state and here's the problem. Low taxes can help both sides but an income tax, it's the root of all evil.

ProgMetaller2112 wrote: LSDisease wrote: ProgMetaller2112 wrote: ^^ Would you agree that  the essence of Capitalism is to make money right? But what you don't get is that it is in the hands of private owners and not the ones who should own it, the workers.By the way Communism doesn't work. Socialism is Capitalism better realized It's in the hands of private owners and in the hands of workers but the most important thing is, it's in the hands of state and here's the problem. Low taxes can help both sides but an income tax, it's the root of all evil.  In a Socialist economy it is in the hands of workers but in a Capitalist economy the workers don't have a say whatsoever. Your hard work and determination is at the hands and mercy of the private owners. In a Capitalist economy an employer can do away with you for profit  even if you've worked your ass off am I right? Now how is that right?

Edited by ProgMetaller2112 - January 27 2014 at 08:14

ProgMetaller2112 wrote:   In a Socialist economy it is in the hands of workers but in a Capitalist economy the workers don't have a say whatsoever and even less in the public works relations. In a Capitalist economy an employer can do away with you for profit  even if you've worked your ass off am I right? Now how is that right?

"Socialist economy" can't work cos it's not based on the real economy (soulless numbers) just on expectations and dreams about equality, happiness of all manking and all that utopian b****t. World will never be perfect. The sooner we understand it the better for us.

Okay, I never thought this would turn into a Socialists vs Capitalists debate. I think that there must be another thread on this site to discuss this, so kindly move to that respective thread please?

A point brought up by our very own 40-50 year old British man Blacksword...

I think the sound philosophy of feminism has been hi-jacked in our popular culture to push a rather distorted and actually quite bigoted message. The people who distort the message aren't to be taken note of. That is fundamental when understanding such an important movement as Feminism. Note, in most sitcoms and comedy films it's the man who's the idiot and is the target of everyones ridicule, and the focus of the comedy. The women is always the sensible character; at least relatively so. This doesn't reflect reality of course, where men and women can be equally profoundly stupid and self interested. Yes, isn't that gender inequality? That's not Feminism. It's the opposite of Feminism. Positive discrimination is just as harmful as negative discrimination, perhaps even more.

The problem with this 'harmless fun' poked continuously at men is that it undermines the value of the father figure in the family unit, until he becomes nothing more than the resident clown and scapegoat. And what exactly is the "father figure"? Is it a position that no woman could ever achieve? What is it exactly? One hundred years from now, men will be simpering, feminised wimps, sexually confused and performing very few roles of any worth in our society. I doubt that very much. Hopefully, all men will be is a little bit more respectful to the rights of women. That, to me, makes them bigger and better men. Women will be in charge and ironically and tragically they will no longer resemble women as we know them. You mean the type driven meek and helpless by years of patriarchal oppression? Diddums. They will exhibit all the undesirable traits of ruthlessness and bigotry, once the domain of ambitious career obsessed males, in order to achieve the success they crave. Many women will choose not to have children, and many of those who do want children will choose to do so without involving a man. You sound very much like Enoch Powell, sorry. All your assumptions are a priori. They will concieve artificially, so to avoid being lumbered with a man in their life, and having a mans influence on the childs upbringing. You are undermining almost every woman's (95%) desire to love another man. My partner is one of the smartest people I know, and a feminist, and we love each other very much. She doesn't see me as inferior at all, and she's not bigoted towards men. In those times having a male child will be deemed less desirable than having a girl, in the same way that it is currently the opposite in some cultures. Where exactly is this information coming from?

Then the backlash will come, and men will be on the march (burning their boxer shorts?) the wheel will turn, and the cycle return to the start.. I don't think this very likely. Partly because Feminism (and no organisation for that matter) is trying to achieve that.


Edited by The Pessimist - January 27 2014 at 08:48

I think someone has a hyperbolic view of the culture impact of terrible sitcoms. 

Luna wrote: The problem isn't porn. The problem is people being dumb enough to be influenced by porn. I thought we've already been through the violent video games discussion...

Video Game Violence                    Pron
•Causes immediate hormonal       •Only effects one cerebrally
reaction within the body, to which
one often responds physically             

Whoops, switch those. Regardless of whether one entertains the said stimuli as reality, porn still causes a physical reaction that is not tempered by a person's superior IQ. The only way video game violence and porn could be comparable is if porn caused absolutely no hormonal reaction in a person, which, for you and I, probably isn't true.

i knew this thread would be a disaster 

^Well you two guys aren't exactly helping either.

Edited by Guldbamsen - January 27 2014 at 10:08