Exactly. It is an ideology of female supremacy trying to mask its aims. Women who do not go conform with this ideology will be labelled as traitors of their gender.
Correlation NEVER implies causation. - - - Updated - - - Not in the slightest, hasty generalizations apply to any person who uses them . .which so far has been you. - - - Updated - - - Well you should know as you are the one spewing fallacies left, right and centre.
Did you ever notice how many rightwing women who attack feminism..... are single, career women like Ann Coulter.......and are not married, stay-at-home moms. Even the mothers, like Laura Ingraham, have NO husband and their children's father is not in the household, and Laura works outside the home and has daycare for her children.
Read the link provided - http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf - it calls into question the conclusions you make of sex-based differential reproduction. There are also other factors you fail to even consider.
Yet another thing you just spout without any meaningful evidence to support it. - - - Updated - - - Oh I do, I have read it often enough in your comments. Tell you what, you point out any hypocrisy on my part .. go for it.
The paper doesn't call into question sex based differential reproduction. It mentions sex based different reproduction but it does not call into question sex based differentiation: This is what it says: Characterizing the root of the phylogenetic tree of individual genetic loci has influenced many researchers in their attempts to infer the time and place of the origin of anatomically modern humans (AMHs).1–4 Analyses of the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome and mtDNA have suggested that recent common ancestors lived in sub-Saharan Africa within the last 200,000 years.5 However, estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) have been consistently lower for the Y chromosome (~60–140 thousand years ago [kya])6–8 than for mtDNA (~140–240 kya).9,10 A variety of evolutionary processes (e.g., natural selection, differential migration of males and females, and/or a skew in the breeding sex ratio) have been invoked to explain this difference. It doesn't matter where the y-chromosome originated from or how long exactly the lineages on the y-chromosome and mtDNA can be traced. If they only studied the mutations on the mtDNA and y-chromosome for 200,000 years of human history and they found that throughout that time 80% of females reproduced while ony 40% of males reproduced it would not be a hasty generalization Moreover, they couldn't study the mutations on the DNA of the y-chromosome any further than they could study the mutations on the mtDNA, even though they found the lineage on the y-chromosome exceeded the lineage on the mtDNA by thousands of years.
Sure, I make a generalization based on hundreds of thousands of years of humanity and you claim it's a hasty generalization, and a feminist makes a generalization based on nothing more than her beliefs, and it's not a hasty generalization
I've never seen a feminist banned, not for anything, not even promoting violence, but I've seen multitudes of anti-feminists banned, multitudes.
The 80-40 thing you keep quoting comes only from a conference... can you please put forward the links to the peer reviewed study that comes to the conclusion, I would very much like to see it. You also ignore other factors; In history women were chattel, they had no choice as to who they mated with and could be one of many women a single male mated with, consent from a woman was not required for a man to impregnate her regardless of his "strength". It is only in recent history that women have been able to choose who they mate with. So your estimation of it being women who decide who they mate with is historically flawed. Multiply births by a single women by different fathers is another factor you ignore. A woman could have three children with a single male and then have three more children with a different male so while her genetic material would be present in six children the males genetic material would only be present in half of them. Those are just two factors you ignore.
What generalization made by a feminist are you talking about that I have commented on .. quote it .. if you can.
so again you equate the small number of people who use these forums as the overall stereotype of the number of people in the world, or even in the feminist movement, oh and BTW your anecdotal comments are not evidence. You know that you are being intellectual dishonest .. you just won't admit to it.
The fact that you see a hasty generalization in a generalization based on hundreds of thousands of years of humanity because it's a generalization made by someone that stands for equality, yet you fail to see a hasty generelization based on nothing more than a woman's personal experience because it's made by a feminist/feminist ally is the GLARING evidence of your hypocrisy.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty the paper An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree Doesn't even do what you have claimed it dose multiple times. Talk about weaselling...
Now you're committing a fallacy, the imbecile fallacy. My comment was not intended to stereotype the entire world. But come to think of it, none of those feminists in Argentina physically and sexually assaulting those men peacefully and passively protecting their church were charged with a crime. Here's a challenge: go to any old thread on woman's issues and find one thread were feminists have been banned more than the anti-feminists in that thread. I periodically peruse old threads on woman's rights and I'm amazed at how many anti-feminists have been banned, and I've never ever ever seen a feminist that's been banned. Prove me wrong
I already told you the 80% 40% thing comes from a magazine article, not the internets and magazines are these things that predate the internet and they're papers bound together with writing on them and although rare, if you're lucky you might be able to see one in a museum. Is anything coming back to you now-lol I see reading comprehension and retention is not one of your strong points-lol. I'll be sure to write slowly and say the same thing over and over and over again for your benefit You're welcome
so nothing verifiable then .. why am I not surprised. The rest of the comment is just the usual attempt at sarcasm .. another fail
Yawn, feminism is a lobby for equality for women... get over it manboob brigade. All lobby groups trumpet their position to various levels to achieve a desired effect. Stop being emotional about the method, because its the purpose and intention with defines their nature. The more radical the feminist methods are, the more it means they feel its needed to address the problems. Women who are against the feminism movement are just ignorant to feminism, and probably just attention seeking at best, or at worst deeply delusional.
You most certainly are equating feminists who use this forum to the rest of the feminist movement and this is stereotyping. Stereotype - A widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing. Looking at the vast majority of your comments on this thread alone shows that is all you are doing. If you look back through my comments I have already stated that these women were wrong and should have been arrested and charged. What happens in this forum is not a remit to assume it happens in the rest of the world, if it bothers you that much take it up with the Admin. ----------- You keep doing the same thing over and over again, you cannot accept that EVERY group has an element of radical members, you instead base your estimation of that group on those radicals .. which is hasty generalization.
Beside the fact that what feminists call "equal rights" means female supremacy, this is a typical example of the totalitarian world view of feminists. Women who are against feminists are either suffering from a mental illness or delusions from the feminist point of view. Very similar to the "Islamophobia" coup of the Islamists in Iran, who imprisoned and tortured thousands of people by the diagnosis of Islamophobia after the revolution in 1979. It is always a welcomed instrument for totalitarians to define individuals who do not behave conform to their world view and how humans have to behave according to it as ill. Such an argument demonstrates perfectly why women - although treated as the first class citizen concerning to this ideology - have hundreds of reaons to oppose this nonsense. Not only conservative women satisfied with old role models, but also women who share individualist or humanist values.
It looks like Fugazi just committed the I am a retard fallacy. The I am a retard fallacy is committed when someone makes a demand on someone they know is impossible to complete and when they're unable to meet that demand the person making the demand claims victory. For example, if Fugazi told me to ride my bycicle to Mars and I told him that's impossible then he claimed victory he would have just committed the I am a retard fallacy.
so as expected you resort to avoiding answering . .standard really for you, and please, please do show me anywhere I have "claimed victory", or is that just another bald-faced lie. If you cannot provide the study that the article draws it's conclusions from then why not just say so . .though, that would of course call into question the validity of the claims made. It is pretty obvious that you only have a rudimentary understanding of how a debate works as so far you have only managed to refute one piece of evidence offered. Here this might help you - http://www.wikihow.com/Debate I'll leave you now to wallow in your own assumptions, hasty generalizations and correlation = causation fallacies. bye-bye
Feminism isn't for everyone after all. Feminists tell conservatives they're not welcome in the feminist movement. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...rn-identity-of-news-outlet-interviewing-them/
and one would hope that this woman has been reprimanded for her actions as she is plainly in the wrong .. still doesn't equate to your generalization that all feminists are radical.
