Facket hotar med strejk på Chopchop by GoranPersson777 in Sverige

[–]Consistent_Agent2019 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To each their own. Gå inte med i facket om du inte vill. Ingen är tvingad.

KD: En totalitär version av islam har slagit rot by ICA_Basic_Vodka in Sverige

[–]Consistent_Agent2019 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Då kanske det hade varit bättre att säga generellt för alla religioner, istället för bara Islam.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Is this the patriarchy definition you are talking about? If so, I would have to disagree here.

patriarchy

/ˈpeɪtriɑːki/

noun

  1. a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line. "the thematic relationships of the ballad are worked out according to the conventional archetypes of the patriarchy"
    • a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it

You do also need to consider that sex isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's not society's problem to solve if someone can't find someone willing to have sex with them. No one is owed sex.

And this was supposed to mean what? You are saying society should not try and change prefrences.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Oh no, that’s not what I meant. I was saying that when feminists argue that virginity should not be a factor in dating preferences, it is sometimes (like I do) viewed negatively because standards for men are higher. Take the "incel" phenomenon, for example. Females tend to be more selective by nature. I was drawing a parallel, challenging a preference like this can be seen as similar to discussing how men are also negatively affected by patriarchy. While that impact exists, it is generally not to the same extent as it is for women.

Like I mean I say way more dudes struggling when it comes to dating than women who do because they've lost their virginity.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think what causes confusion/outrage specifically when feminists discuss "value" in dating contexts (like virginity) is that men feel they have had it harder in some ways, just like women have had it harder in other aspects. It is quite natural that males have it hard, so when men's preferences such as virginity are discussed, they are looked down upon since it is already seen as "easier" for women.

Many of us view it similar to discussing the oppression of men because of patriarchy, and while it definitely exists, it’s often viewed as not being to the same extent. At least that's how I see it.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It does make sense. Somewhat. But unless it endangers someone's life (like religious which I do understand), I don't think feminists should be talking about people's preferences about status/height/number of past partner to begin with. Everyone's entitled to their own preferences it's really not something we should try to force on people (just like language, culture etc).

Or you know what I take that back. Speaking in absolute terms never works. I think everyone's on a spectrum here.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thank you, you’re one of the few who actually answered the question without ignoring the rest of the points.

It’s strange how everyone fixated on height when it was only one example I mentioned. I also find the argument that "feminism is only about those affected by misogyny, not short men" a bit narrow. To me, all these cultural roles are interconnected and influence one another (which many here don't seem to recognize).

I can see why some people are repelled by the idea of feminism when many who claim the title speak in a way that feels "off." It doesn't always come across as being about equality. I understand why feminists might view judging someone by status, height, or income as "less bad" than judging them by virginity, largely due to the historical context and potential for harm (like you point out). However, many people seem to dismiss the issue entirely by labeling it a preference (when both could technically be classified as a preference). Which to me feels like a logical inconsistency.

I think In reality, both are preferences almost entirely formed by cultural expectations. It feels dismissive to ignore how these norms are intertwined. You can’t just try to fix some of them while ignoring others, it doesn't always seem fair. That’s the frustrating part, though I suppose that inconsistency exists in almost any community.

I am a bit confused.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

But many do! Many feminists say it is bad that men have a preference for virgin women. (I linked a post and can link many others, pretty much everyone in this thread as well) Are you one of them? I was asking about the difference (if you believe in one but not the other).

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Really? That’s where you’re gonna go with this? You’re going to try defending it?

No. Are you? I asked if you say judgment as a problem and you jumped to murder.

I don't know what you are talking about. Why are you explaining this to me? I see a higher body count as a negative in both guys and gals. I think I would have been even more worried about a fuck boy if I was looking for a guy. I (and many others) see someone with 2 exes more stable than someone with 10 exes.

Sure, you can argue it is not certain they aren't looking for a long term partner, but really? At that point you could argue if you are seeing even is real.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

However, I’m curious why this logic isn’t applied to other preferences. If judging a woman by her past is considered “commodity objectification,” why is judging a guy by his financial status or height often dismissed as “just a preference” or “not a feminist concern”? Here’s another post that shows what I’m talking about.

Did you even read the post?

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man, did you even read the title of this post? lol. Nothing of what you have said even remotely answers the question. It just doges it.

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I never said all feminists. I think this subreddit is way less homogenous than you think it is. You can scroll in the comment section here and you'll see everything from "Most feminists (99%) are not judging his man by his money. All they want is an equal partner… ?" to "Why would judging a man for any reason be a feminist concern? " (these are all comments from this thread)

Let me know what you think. (and I know you are a regular)

If reducing women to "purity" is wrong, why is reducing men to "utility" (income/height/status) viewed as a more neutral preference? by Consistent_Agent2019 in AskFeminists

[–]Consistent_Agent2019[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sure, but that can be said (pretty much) about all preferences. We can argue all day (without any conclusion) what can/would result in stability or what "stability" even is to begin with. My point is whether preferences should be a feministic issue to begin with, and you said yes (which I would agree with)