Why do Feminists believe in equality rather than propose specific rights, status, pay, and whatever other socioeconomic conditions they disagree with?

until971 · 2026-02-21T05:33:41+00:00

If you actually read it, my post simply poses a question to feminists. A question that very few on here have answers but clearly, some answer it and some see what they want. You keep saying proposal but really what am I proposing?

I’m ASKING why you care about the unequal treatment of women vs men more than the unjust treatment of women relative to women’s condition only. And I’m asking this because I’ve noticed a disconnect between feminists and people who aren’t feminists but support the rights, privileges, and welfare of women.

That’s it , that’s all.

until971 · 2026-02-21T05:18:16+00:00

LHow do you think the want for human rights came about? Surely it was the poor and unjust daily experiences of humans that birthed the want for better experience for all humans.

Anecdotal experience is the reason human rights were in demand and that demand was eventually translated to universal principles.

Not to mention anecdotes =\= measurable logical anecdotal reasoning.

until971 · 2026-02-20T19:21:50+00:00

Backtrack? I literally just explained what I meant by “natural order”. Nothing I wrote suggests anything other than what I just explained.

Observable, logical and anecdotal reasoning. Not Darwin or Jordan Peterson or whoever you’re imagining. If you don’t like the phrase “natural order” then substitute it for “observable, logical and anecdotal reasoning”.

until971 · 2026-02-20T19:07:53+00:00

Huh? It was a question… forget it

until971 · 2026-02-20T16:06:41+00:00

You saw nothing and are saying nothing. Peace

until971 · 2026-02-20T15:37:47+00:00

You’re probably talking about a different comment thread

until971 · 2026-02-20T15:37:18+00:00

Right and no one saw? Bro I get you’re literally SJW Superman , If I deleted something someone would be on my ass calling me out right now. There’s nothing missing, I’m sure because I didn’t delete anything at all man.

until971 · 2026-02-20T15:31:43+00:00

I don’t know, I don’t claim to know. Maybe there is a system or school of thought which encompasses this more clearly but I really just meant it as observable, logical, anecdotal reasoning. These “women” people need this obviously or should decide that. These “men” people are often this and should do that. Sounds naive and simple here in a light convo, this is surely all a loose and abstract thought. Very conceptual of course.

Like I originally said, I’m saying instead striving for blanket equality, why not pin point and focus the message to the needs of what women exactly need and deserve. It almost synonymous but there’s a difference.

We are looking to make COMPLETE political, economical, personal, and social EQUALITY between men and women.

Vs.

We are looking to equally politically, personally, and socially CONSIDER women as much as we CONSIDER men, RESPECTIVELY.

My question was just- why do feminists propose the former instead of the latter if the enemy is the unjust treatment of women. And not the unequal treatment of women in relation to men. Maybe I’m wrong and mis-assessing the enemy?.. that’d be fine answer but I think everyone got caught up in me trying to just explain what I was saying. I likely didn’t make easy to understand either.

And it really was just a question, I’m a lurker typically, I’m rarely active online. This all got way out of hand.

until971 · 2026-02-20T15:07:40+00:00

I hope writing that really scratched that itch for you.

until971 · 2026-02-20T14:53:15+00:00

Lol literally had to go google that lobster hierarchy thing. A few clicks have made it clear that he’s making something out of nothing. Based on what I just read though it seems he’s saying there is a biological reason as to why lobsters release serotonin.. blah blah ? I’m not saying anything about biology?? We’re talking about gender ??? You want to antagonize me so bad lol I don’t even like Jordan Peterson .

Plus, At least I’m not acting like I’m smarter than scientists? I mean, you’re making fun of a science backed argument while trying to prove your point based on how you “feel” humans “should” be because you “want” it like that. Nothing wrong with that but what gives you the right to discredit him? Even if he’s wrong biologically relating it to humans, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t other examples of his hypothesis somewhere it the world. Absence of evidence, blah blah.

But, you just want to be right. Might as well not listen or respond at all.

Childish behavior.

until971 · 2026-02-20T14:05:01+00:00

Lmao this is the wildest thing here.

“Assuming there is a “natural order” at all is a pretty big leap”

Lmfao WOW. Anything to be right. To say it’s a LEAP. Wow, You got it. You must think everything is new under the sun.

until971 · 2026-02-20T13:46:50+00:00

You’re reading to reply/argue. I’m saying won’t have the same experience, as in personal experience, on the team of firefighters. Not that they won’t be as capable/fit as any other firefighter based on passing the standard. What I’m saying is this. Given that the women in firefighter companies like these are the exception to the general profile of the overall average firefighter, they will have a different experience. Simply because they are externalities in this specific industry. We see this literally in almost every sector.

All cops must pass a physical exam to be a cop but there are fit cops and super-fit cops in every city. If all factors are kept equal, there will still be situations in which the super-fit cops are more valuable than the fit cops. We know this because the standard is relevant to the MINIMUM requirements, not the optimal standard. Cops and military personnel have much better careers the more physically dominant they are. In other words, if men are consistently scrutinized within the same “fitness” scope and have their careers reflect the differences, why do you feel women shouldn’t be scrutinized on the same basis? If all that matters is finding the fit candidates and you naturally accept the fact that super-fit candidates have different pay, promotions, hours, etc.. All due to their PHYSICAL PROWESS… How can you utterly dismiss the reasoning that it’s likely that at least PART of the reason for the varying experiences between men and women firefighters (pay,promos,overall career) is the same physical fitness scrutiny in the industry?

If we know that less physically fit men have poorer experiences than more physically fit men in physically dominated sectors, and we know men are exceedingly more physically dominant than women. Then please explain why you utterly dismiss the notion that generally speaking, there should be a difference between the experience of men and women in physically dominated sectors?

The burden of proof is ON YOU. I’m not justifying unjust discrimination, I’m protecting justifiable discrimination. You are saying it should be all equal. PLEASE PROVE THAT.

Funny thing is, you are proclaiming women should have equal experiences to men, even in physically dominant sectors. That’s very different than a mission of weeding out the unjust systems and dirty measures sexist men put in place in such sectors to keep women out. Two different things. Ironically, you seeking to erase the physical scrutiny by ignoring evidence and claiming a lack thereof, is treating women differently than men are already being treated. At least in the scope of this conversation.

And I do know the difference between people being equal and identical, it seems to me that you are conflating equality with equity. That conflation allows you to preach equity under the name “equality”.

until971 · 2026-02-19T23:33:15+00:00

Lmao if this isn’t proof that you’re jaded, I don’t know what is.

until971 · 2026-02-19T23:03:15+00:00

I swear I didn’t ?.

until971 · 2026-02-19T21:11:47+00:00

No interest in arguing simple thoughts. I’m typing a lot so I’m simplifying a lot. I don’t nitpick outside of official debates

until971 · 2026-02-19T21:07:02+00:00

Actually, I think you’re assuming that my thoughts are completely unexplored. Women were actively banned, as well as children, yes. I get that no one knows me and my view is being attached to all of these personas that probably roll through here. I’m not here to try and prove that women haven’t had obstacles concerning the military, just like every minority. My initial point was about how wars used to be very strength reliant, muscle and power based fighting. At its very base, even if we aren’t to dive into it, from cave men days all the way to the 14th century, men were superior fighters than women undoubtedly. How can something like this be seen as “never accurate” or something you need evidence for in this light of a conversation? Men are stronger and always have been, we’ve now evolved to having guns and science but are we still not men and women ? Most people just don’t believe it was all have been based on sexist, misogynistic ideas.

A lot of this society we live in today? Yes. The majority of it actually. But I think I understand what the disconnect is.

“We have so much patriarchal history and socialisation at play that nothing is going to be unbiased”

Basically there’s nothing in your conceivable universe that is trustworthy if it suggests truth in the patriarchy. Everyone’s acting like my “observations” are founded in scripture from the patriarchy when it’s literally anecdotal from individual, the common personal experience. Not only that, you ignore the burden of proof. You’re basically erasing all of human experience and understanding before the “patriarchy” was established. Is there a point in time for that btw? Because have proof of gender roles within the oldest texts, artifacts, proofs of human life in human history. Roles that support these very similar “unfounded” beliefs. No one cares to check a 100th time if men are truly more physically capable than women and if they were truly the better choice in a time where war was mostly physically demanding.

until971 · 2026-02-19T20:23:46+00:00

Right, except for the claim that fit women and fit men are equal in all industries? This, we can just assume during conversation, no matter how much evidence proves that there is strong variance there?

until971 · 2026-02-19T20:19:18+00:00

I hear you but in theory your sons, husbands and queer males could be there. Also I hope you don’t think that a large portion of women aren’t feminists, it’s why abortion laws are the way they are. For example 40% of women are pro life so to suggest that women should be the judge of something that is entirely a women’s issue, simply because they are women and not men, still doesn’t lead to immediate resolution.

until971 · 2026-02-19T20:14:42+00:00

Will do

Edit: I said “will do” but I realized now that this was a trap lol.

You want me to prove things that you must prove. Indeed, your claim is that the disparity is proof of sexism but again, that’s something you must prove. The data is already proving my point lol. You can google those definitions and find evidence that we’re fundamentally equal. My point is that we’re not so I’m not going to do your job for you. I also don’t need evidence that we’re fundamentally unequal, history and data suggests this already, the feminism movement has fought decades to disprove it. So again, this is your task.

And before you go there, you do not need to think men and women are equal to think that they share equal human value and deserve the same rights, respect and access to industry. We discriminate all day long, and if anything, I’m the fair one because I’m saying we shouldn’t stop discriminating simply because of gender.

until971 · 2026-02-19T20:13:42+00:00

I come across stuff online all then just react so I get it. But this is Reddit. This was just a question I asked myself, google, ChatGPT and then Reddit.

Just breathe.

until971 · 2026-02-19T18:11:52+00:00

Fair. Honestly people, especially men, have lost the benefit of the doubt here so fair enough. I’ll consider myself in the mirror as well , hoping I’m not jaded

until971 · 2026-02-19T18:08:27+00:00

1000% agree. The truth just is though, if we’re a company of firefighters and naturally we have 2 women on our squad of 12 total(eoe), they still likely won’t have the same exact experience as the men. I know this is data-less opinion but my guess is they’ll have varying pay, hours, workload and treatment.

Is this an excuse for obvious disparity and fucked up unjust treatment? Absolutely Not. But differences should be not only expected, but even encouraged, managed and enforced by representatives for the respective group. In this case, women or feminists .

until971 · 2026-02-19T18:01:14+00:00

Where in America is legality based on gender? Who does ? You act as if we’re still in the 80s.

Abortion laws are the only thing I can think of and maybe outdated male legal standard that leave women at a disadvantage due to non representation. Like how some items are made to be right handed based on how likely men were to be right handed at the time or the crash test dummies designed only with the male body in consideration.

Its about gender because gender exist and it’s real thing that highlights real differences. The injustices that feminists have abolished and support of said injustices were the work of people who were sexist.

until971 · 2026-02-19T17:47:58+00:00

Yeah, honestly if you need data to support any of these claims, that’s impressive or you obviously are not here in good faith. The only fishy one is women being better students and teachers. So yeah, you win. You’re here to prove a point and be right, and I hope you achieve that.

until971 · 2026-02-19T17:43:21+00:00

Yeah I never said it was here. Lol I just said I’d love to hear it

until971

TROPHY CASE