Greta wrote: ↑January 15th, 2018, 1:33 am
I largely agree, BG, although I'd like to see more women in boardrooms and politics. A balance would address more broad concerns and perspectives than a mono-gender group.
I am not opposed, in theory, to helping social evolution along. I just don't think we know enough about it to make any rash decisions. When it comes to GM foods we're in a much more knowledgeable position, but even there people are in some disagreement. The selective breeding of the past has now been refined into a much more safer and precise science, yet there is currently more fear over this precision than in random and dangerously imposed cross-breeding which led to many ecological problems.
A helping hand is okay. I posted that vid about Iceland because the laws there seem to be pushing to hard and what was merely a helping hand is not a hand that is forcing chance against stronger and stronger social resistance. I think the problem arises due to women who are intelligent and ambitious feeling like they are not being given a fair chance, but I think there is the problem of accepting that maybe men are more ambitious and more willing to risk everything to succeed and to therefore be worthy of a mate - we can see these kinds of things playing out in all manner of different ways across the animal kingdom. I find it a little strange if people try and regard women and men as not being driven socially in different ways; and that is not to say that I don't think there is a considerable overlap because as I have stated the differences between men and women compared to every other species of ape is considerably smaller.
Some women are going to be as ambitious as men. What I think the problem is with feminism is that the more radical part of the movement believes that ALL women are just as ambitious as men and willing to risk everything. So it makes perfect sense to me that for every one woman in a top position there are many more men. I think if we force "equality" (think about that, FORCE equality) you're going to see nothing more than a serious and violent backlash which would likely set back real equality and equal opportunity. Like with the "news" item from Australia; which I regard as nothing more the nonsense propaganda. The fact that it was being talked about and argued for is fairly ridiculous. To block the uptake of men into the armed forces in order to force "equality" is preposterous. It is such moves I regard as a forceful hand rather than a helping hand.
I think Sausage Dog is here to flush out radical feminists. Maybe I am naïve though, because I find it so hard to understand a position that talks about stopping women from voting. If that is his aim then I am still curious to hear how such an idea could be implemented. He has yet to respond to that question and I can only assume it is because he knows that it cannot be implemented so he's left to doing nothing more than antagonizing and arguing against feminists (which is useful I guess, but only in terms of how the radical side of feminism may come to see a little of themselves in his words and check themselves.)
I was watching something with Anne Coulter today. There is another antagonist! It is just a shame she is overtly brutal in her approach, but that is part and parcel of why she is viewed the way she is viewed. I was watching her "debate" about single mothers. She made some very valid points, but given the format of the show it was nothing more than a publicity stunt and sadly I think she is out for the bucks rather than any serious debate.
It is extremely hard to listen to someone who says a lot of crap that you find repulsive. The problem is when they say something informative we're inclined to squash it instantly rather than investigate the information being put forward. I truly believe if you cannot find something of reasonable value on the opposing side of the argument you're not trying hard enough to oppose your own arguments.