Are people too soft today? Will there be consequences?

[Guest]

I have to say, until recently I was accepting of a lot of things in life, but after noticing the problems with movements Social Justice, Black Lives Matter, and Feminism, it has made me realize how stupid people can be.

 

I'm not a racist and I think homosexual people can do as they please all day, but something acceptable today like allowing a child to go through surgery to mutilate themselves and change their sexuality is just beyond crazy. The problem is in about 10 years time when we see the trauma something like this might have caused the child, at least two of those groups above will 360 and blame the parents.

 

Then we have stuff that isn't "acceptable" now and it just gets worse and worse. I saw a guy today on a forum saying that the word "female" is a derogatory term because it describes a woman as a thing. I had to just turn my phone off in sheer horror at what I just read. These people are clearly insane and need something to complain about for the sake of it.

 

On top of the above we now have white people (mostly males) being taught to hate themselves. These people literally will visit topics and see something their ancestors did wrong and blame themselves for it. They can be berated by their "racial peers" and called all things under the sun, but if they say anything back then it is they who are racist bigots.

 

So yeah, it seems we can't say anything like we need to "build a wall" like Trump (and Norway and Hungary) because that is racist apparently. Is trying to keep your citizens safe and reduce pressure on your services a bad thing? I still think the UK left the EU because people are scared of extremism and know their country is full. France is my answer (stay safe Kesta). I don't think this utopia of diversity that the extreme left want is viable or ever going to work. For a start you mostly see all ethnic groups sticking together regardless; Chinatown anyone?

 

I guess I am saying is, where do we draw the line and are certain people too soft today? This is mostly young people that are like this isn't it? I'm not old or anything, but I'll guess the older generation has more integrity and doesn't live in a bubble.

 

Edit: Text fixes.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Guest

[hishutup]

I tried to properly respond to this but I can't.

I don't feel like doing research to make a point.

Why can't we all become adults and quit being offended by everything?

Why do we need to censor others because a select group is "offended" by what they said?

 

Do I agree with others 100% of the time? No.

Do I get offended because they or I disagree? No.

Do I feel the need "ruin" their internet persona or real lives? No.

Do I feel the need to get them fired from their job because of something that is completely out of their control but is still their fault? No.

You can take care of your life, let me take care of mine.

 

Also, I have no hope for my generation. There are a lot of good analytical minds out there but the ones that are not are overpowering.

I try to look at both sides as this stuff isn't good when its all or nothing. I always argue the other side(even if I completely disagree) because not everyone realizes that it isn't always a one sided thing. This is something that really gets people going for no reason.

 

EDIT: My generation being born in 1995

[Guest]

I bet most people will have problems responding, but there are usually some good opinions around here and it's been on my mind for a few months now. I think you are a normal person hish, but the people I talk about here (progressive) are just insufferable. This isn't new mind you, it's just worse now because they think everything is derogatory, sexist, and racist.

[CJ2311]

While I personally feel very concerned about the matters that SJW and BLM people pretend to care about, as they affect me directly, I still find most of the members of those groups to be just crazy delusional individuals who are just looking for excuses to blame everyone and everything with no apparent reason at all.

 

The problem is that SJW have managed over a few years to undo par of what real feminism has achieved over the last century. By letting those degenerates accuse random people of sexual harassment, assault, racism and the likes, without any semblance of proof and without any repercussion for them ruining the lives and reputations of their targets (sometimes even pushing them to suicide), the true causes that movements like feminism stand for have started to lose credibility, and the very term has become derogatory and associated with the "feminazi" crowd.*

 

I've seen examples of SJWs telling native americans to shut up cause they knew nothing about "being oppressed" and "segregated" since they were "white cis males".

As for BLM... Heck, even the simple name of the group "Black Lives Matter" disgusts me despite my father being Black. At the end of the day, when you look at their actions from an Euro POV, they just look like a less violent KKK that targets whites instead.

[Aiyen]

A while back I read an interesting view on the current state of the world. The core idea is that a huge problem today is that we are still feeling the vaccum left when the war of ideology was more or less finished about 10-20 years ago now. (facism, communism, capitalism and all the other ism´s) 

Back then there was a clear "us vs them" mentality. These days any ideology that pop up, gets twisted and reinterpreted so many times over so fast that nobody really know what "cause" they are supporting. 

 

Also ironically another problem today is that the past many decades have been documented so intensively, that we are now more than ever painfully aware of just how cruel we are to each other. It is really easy to get support for an "us vs them" mentality if you are not constantly bombarded with all the downsides...

Also it does not help that this past decade have probably seen some of the most incompetent and ideology lost leaders in world history.... many times not really a problem with the leaders, but with the fact that people want change... up until the point where that change hits them in the face, and they want to go back to status quo. 

[z929669]

Well, I'm an 'older' white male, and I can say for sure that I feel inherently judged as 'guilty' for being so. I deem all 'groups' as potentially dangerous and most people as 'sheep' desperately yearning for some group to which they can affiliate to bolster their sense of belonging and self esteem. Don't get me wrong ---not all groups are 'bad'. STEP is a group, but I feel like we are NOT pushing a social agenda or targeting any other groups --these are the groups I have a problem with. I am proudly UNaffiliated with any such group (scientific creationists, American Atheists, religions, churches, social justice, LGBT, BLM, Greenpeace, feminists, white nationalists, Democrats, Republicans ... gag me with a fork). They are all group manifestations of low self esteem/awareness, IMHO. I think all movement-oriented groups are doomed to bureaucratic 'drift' and 'distortion' from their original purpose --even if that purpose began with noble intentions.

 

I think it's really narrow minded for anyone to affiliate with a particular social movement or group agenda ... unless entertainment is the sole motivator (dancing, D&D, bridge, sports, etc.). While I think all people should have equal rights, I also think that feminism was the beginning of the end. Humans need their mothers when they are developing their personalities. Fathers are --on average-- pretty worthless at nurture. When moms mostly decided that they should have their own careers to prop up their egos to compete with men, the kids all began paying for it. The result is a bunch of wandering idiots without any sense of self or center or independence. A world of mostly judgemental egotists hiding behind power and achievement and narcissism.

 

EDIT: to clarify, as it was pointed out to me that it may sound like I am bashing women above as the "wandering idiots". I am most definitely NOT. I am referring to our society as an increased number of insecure, ill-informed, narcissistic individuals that were largely raised by strangers in daycare because both their mother and father were too busy focusing on the goals of ambition ... propping  up their careers for the sake of little more than ego and the thought that happiness is achieved by impressing society. This does not apply to single moms or families that are trying to make ends meet! I am specifically talking about the increasing numbers of feministic women that make competing with men a self-defining priority in their lives ... at the expense of familial stability in exchange for prestige and ego-stroking ... just like a man. Isn't it bad enough already that roughly half of our society has traditionally been like this? Adding women to that mix means that they are not able to as effectively balance the scales with responsibility and grounding as has traditionally been the case ... i am generalizing with all of this speak, yes, so don't think I am speaking about YOU! This is mainly a problem I personally see with US culture and Western culture in general. Capitalism and corporate influence as the primary drivers of social stratification.

 

I gave up on humanity long ago, but I really like some people :)

[EssArrBee]

One thing that has become really annoying is how people label everything they don't like as a group of SJWs. It's become almost as annoying as some SJWs. The PC stuff has gone really overboard though. Working at a university, I see this stuff all the time though. I even have to go to meetings about PC crap. There are people that just travel around the country and give classes to professionals about being PC. I bet they are way overpaid too.

 

@Z, I disagree about feminism being the beginning of the end because feminism itself has changed quite a bit. First wave feminism was mostly about getting access to contraception, voting rights, and having some legal protection from abusive men. Second wave was about having proper access to money, equal pay, and changing divorce laws. Third wave was the "we don't need men" movement (where stuff starting coming off the rails). Now, we've almost moved into a fourth wave. My wife mentioned that the problem now has become that women have won most the battles that matter, at least in Western society, so to keep the movement going they have to make up stuff that doesn't really hold true. All the current issues that matter, like reproductive rights battles, are from older movements of feminism.

 

Kids didn't all of sudden start paying for it though. That is rose tinted glasses stuff. A huge chunk of people have always been wandering idiots, we just don't include them in history because they aren't worth talking about. Also, those wandering idiots didn't have a voice that cell phones and social media give them access to now. Poor women have always worked, a lot of times raising kids for wealthier families while sacrificing their own kids. The only difference now is that they can take professional/leadership positions in any profession and blue collar fields that women had little interest in have dried up due to automation or outsourcing leaving nearly all men and women going after the same jobs.

 

Divorce stuff has gone the other way around to being sexist against men though. Men are at a huge disadvantage when it comes to custody of children and money when it comes to divorce. There is a problem with society seeing men as bad parents and women as good parents. Lot of shitty parents of both genders.

[Audley]

I generally don't spend a ton of my time worrying about this type of thing as I am often caught up in my own stuff. What I do know is that I don't like the groups of women (and sometimes men) who stand outside buildings in large cities like New York and Boston and get in people's faces and tell them they are disgusting just because they were born a while male. These people are going to work to feed their family or whatever and have to go through these mobs of angry people being angry for who knows what. There are tons of videos of these things happening on YouTube and the like. 

[z929669]

@SRB

Good points, all. I'm at odds with the feminist movement beginning at your "phase 2" or thereabouts. Women's suffrage and equal pay for equal role are one thing, but the trend of the movement to position family women into society as bread winners is another. Women now dominate the corporate workforce, and children are being raised by-and-large by daycare factories. Part of this is due to corporate dominance of industrial society, particularly in the US, but much of it is due to this crazy idea that women are equal to men (and the reverse, which is not often alluded). The sexes are NOT equal. One is no better than the other, sure, but the fact remains that it is a major fallacy of our society to posit that the genders are equal in all respects besides inherent value. The sexes are built differently due to the evolutionary advantage of being so (see sexual dimorphism), and I think that our societal roles should be largely reflective of our biological roles ... for the most part. There are always exceptions, which is fine. I am pretty traditional in that I think it is best for the family unit if the man goes out and earns the money while the woman stays home and teaches the kids to be proper people ... again, there are always exceptions. Just look at the increased age of mothers at first childbirth. Way up since the 70s. What's to blame? I think it is a combination of the feminist movement and corporate culture. I think careers are now more important to many women than family. And I think that individuals are far less respectful and respectable than they used to be, on average. I know I sort of sound like a Republican on this point ... eeeewwwwwww! I am proud to be a political nonconformist. Aspects of all party agendas are agreeable or disagreeable to me.

 

Women are biologically engineered to bear and raise children, and on average, they are temperamentally much better equipped to do so. Men are, on average, physically and temperamentally better equipped to protect and procure (... and commit violent acts, BTW). In much of Europe, women get paid vacation for a full year to bear and begin the raising of their children ... not so in the US. Big problem. We promote the idea of gender equality in all respects. Corporations generally win, families (and society) generally lose.

 

I really think that the general deviation from this fundamental sexually-dimorphic role playing marks one hallmark of the downfall of modern society. People in modern society are more selfish, self-important, individualistic, and narcissistic than ever before, particularly in the US. Again, corporate culture may be the major vehicle of this problem at the core.

 

I am all for equal human rights, but I suppose I disagree with the idea that we're all equal and that we all should espouse the idea that we should be competing for everything at the same level ;)

[Guest]

The thing is some women complain about they don't earn as much as men, but that is simply becuase a lot women choose stay at home and raise a family; which is perfectly fine. The women who are complaining are most likely modern feminists that think they know what other women want and are trying to push their agendas on them.

 

On the SJW front, it is funny to see them say that white people are basically the most privileged. This is inherently false as that crown belongs to Asians who have the best jobs and earn much more than any other ethnic group.

 

So a lot of their arguments are based on falsehoods.

 

Edit: Clarification.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Guest

[MonoAccipiter]

Probably gonna take some hail for this, but some of these opinions are a bit too brusque for my taste.

 

First of all, please don't state that Norway makes "build a wall"-esque statements when 99% of said statements come from a right-wing populist party (the Progress Party) which got 16.3% of the votes in 2013 and managed to land the Minister of Immigration and Integration post because they formed a coalition government with the support of three other parties, and arguably put their loudest mouthpiece on the job. Her statements have been as controversial here as in other countries. And I do not think that statements like that should be applauded at all. A large portion of Trump's statements on immigration have been based on loose (and cheap) pathos appeals which have almost no factual basis. That has nothing to do with either PC or softness - it's simply ridiculous by its own merit as an argument. The same can be said for Listhaug's attempts at calling anything else than Europe's strictest immigration policy the same as "carrying them in on golden chairs" ("them" being refugees of a tragic war which has already ruined countless lives) or for that sake the large amount of accusations her own government has pointed out as being ridden with factual errors, even garnering heavy critique from two of the parties that helped put her in that position...

 

How is changing one's sex the same as being mutilated? Just because you don't understand the need to do that doesn't mean it isn't real. Neither does it posit a problem if you stop seeing a sex as something that defines you, and rather as something you live with. If a "man" behaving like a "woman" isn't problematic (which I do not see why it should be) then neither should it be a problem to have what you see as a "women's brain" in the body of a man, as long as this is what makes the person feel at home with his or her identity. This argument works for most stereotypes as far as I can see, and would also eliminate the problem of people feeling pushed into a certain mode of behavior because they're told that's what should come naturally to them. I must admit I find it very peculiar to see so many theories on how a person is inclined to behave presented almost offhandedly in this thread, when as far as I know the field of psychology hasn't even reached a consensus on that point. In any case it would also be wise to remember that most modern views of epistemology dictates that what happens to be the commonly accepted view of subject only works so far as to the point where a case violates that rule. Meaning that leaning heavily on any theory about behavior without being prepared to observe the effects of that theory on people seems rather shortsighted. This is probably also why a lot of sex-change surgeries are allowed, not because we have grown too soft on the matter, but rather because we realize that it is inherently a very complex and timid subject - and the ultimate measurement of the success of any policy on this would have to be the happiness and contentment of the person involved, which is also what you'll find motivates the decision to go ahead with it in most cases. Calling it mutilation seems rather horrid to me, as if belonging to any sex should change how you would be able to live your life, or if feeling that you belong to the other sex is something wrong in itself. The measurement of its "morality" should in any case lie with the effect and not the act alone.

 

Now, I would happily define myself as a feminist. I vote for a party that calls themselves a feminist party (amongst other things) and I find the ideas of thinkers like Simone de Beauvoir both very well constructed and thought-provoking. Should point out that I have not read any of her works through anything but second-hand sources, but I have been meaning to read some of her books for a while. However, CJ2311 is (albeit a bit indirectly) absolutely right in that the term itself has become somewhat washed out. Feminism has suffered from not developing any new terms to differentiate between different contemporary movements, and has instead seen its banner being used as a sort of "credibility weight" latched on to arguments of wildly different stature. It's very strange to see the term being used to describe people like those Audley described standing on street corners, and at the same time use it as a definition for movements that have fought for and achieved several important goals in steering society onto a more equitable path. The analogy about "female" being a derogatory term is a perfect example of this: which seems to be a metamorphosis of the argument that the term female is pretty clearly a derivative of the term male (just add fe at the beginning) much like she is a derivative of he (add s at the beginning). And while I do not pretend to know what effect this has on people, after all the effects of language on human beings is pretty disputed, I would argue that it becomes far more interesting when one starts with the objective observation and then moves on to discuss the possible effects of that later. 

 

Ironically, the UK leaving the EU is unlikely help much with their immigration, and several arguments that seemed to sway public opinion (such as the one about them getting much more money out of an independent trade deal) were later proven to be factually incorrect. As has been the case with so many populist movements in Europe lately. I do not know what extreme left you are discussing, because there is no extreme left with any traction in any Western state except perhaps Spain where a radical left-wing politician (a communist) recently has gone through some sudden surge in popularity. No left-wing parties currently near being a contender for power in any of the major European nations are considered to be part of the extreme left as far as I know. That being said, what most left-wing parties in Europe argue for is in no way an utopia of diversity. It is more a general awareness that a large portion of the ruined cities and homes in the Middle East has over a long time been caused by weapons produced and sometimes used by Western powers. The massive amount of refugees attempting to enter Europe nowadays won't simply disappear because we don't want them. They did no more choose to be born into a part of the world where their livelihood or even their very lives are in constant danger, than we chose to be born into a world where this does not happen. Being aware of this is not being soft, it is understanding that while this crisis presents a manifold of problems, the solution to them is not simply turning our backs. 

 

When it comes to extremism you are partly right. Yes, fear has motivated a lot of these decisions, but since when did fear become a star to steer by? Several experts on extremism have pointed out time and time again that so many of these people are not people that were "genetically" or "ethnically" inclined to religious violence, but rather people who were being pushed out by a cynical and alienating system, and became vulnerable for religious groups providing explanations for a lot of the things they were feeling. Mohammed Ahmed and Yousuf Sarwar, two British men that spent eight months fighting for ISIS in Syria and later were convicted of preparing for terror offences, ordered Islam for Dummies online before heading out to fight their holy war. In so many cases we see people (young men mostly) estranged from society who turn to a religion they hardly know themselves because it gives them a sense of purpose that they clearly could not find elsewhere. I find myself much more frightened by the fact that issues such as immigration and religion are given the full blame for this, when much like with any other social problem it goes much deeper than that.

 

@Z: "Humans need their mothers when they are developing their personalities. Fathers are --on average-- pretty worthless at nurture." I think what would be much more interesting to discuss would be whether fathers or mothers are like this because of inherent or assimilated traits (de Beauvoir would probably argue the latter case). If fathers can be good at nurture there is no inherent problem to encouraging that they attempt it. Thus there can neither be a problem with allowing women to step out of their assigned "role". Now do note that I am an existentialist, so I find it rather absurd to imagine that one has to accept a quality as part of oneself just because it is either associated with or directly connected to some category you "belong to" - one does not chose one's brain (and its inherent biases) anymore than one chooses one's body - and as such I would think it is rather irrelevant to individual whether they are good at said thing or not. Existence precedes essence, as Sartre would put it. However, even when moving past that stance I see problems with your statement. You present it as if it is a fact that two people of of the same sex (especially males in this example) wouldn't be able to contribute the same as different sex parents, whereas I am fairly certain there are several examples of people being raised by same sex parents and turning out, at least ostensibly, which is the most you could say for anyone, fine. So I can't help but wonder on what grounds you make that observation? If the argument is the second sentence (which also doesn't have a source) you deconstruct that pretty well yourself by adding "--on average--" for the reasons I pointed above.

 

"When moms mostly decided that they should have their own careers to prop up their egos to compete with men, the kids all began paying for it." So when females make the same prioritization as men with regards to their family, that is now wrong because...? Shouldn't the same acts be weighed equally in terms of morality? And then shouldn't we instead be discussing whether it is right for men to make that prioritization in the first place? And what table of gods sat down and decided that the responsibility of how the kids turn out rests on women's shoulders? Responsibility can't really be attached to a genetic code: even if a certain sex is better at nurture, which I don't really agree with, that doesn't change the fact that (hopefully) two people were equally responsible for bringing someone into this world, and thus owes them pretty much the same thing.

 

"... women now dominate the corporate workforce," ...? Do you mean that there are more women working than men (which in that case would be related to population differences and not have anything to do with gender equality) or that women do better than men (which in case I fail to see how would be a problem) or that the workspace is biased towards women? If it's the latter, I have no idea where you're getting this from, because even in my country which has several laws enacted that secure female participation in top leadership positions, the majority of all top-of-the-chart jobs are still filled by men and there is even a noticeable discrepancy in pay between women and men doing the same thing. I would think that it would be worse in countries with less strict egalitarian policies. A quick Google search netted me this which, while a feminist website, used the U.S. Census Bureau's data. 

 

"... crazy idea that women are equal to men," Alternatively you could call it the idea that women should be equal to men in their ability to do what they want with their lives and be who they want to be regardless of sex. Again, existence over essence! Which doesn't sound half as mad to me, and is the idea that most serious gender equality organizations promote. Notice how the only thing the website I linked suggested for corporations was to do audits where they compared pay for similar positions. 

 

"The sexes are built differently due to the evolutionary advantage of being so (see sexual dimorphism)," And, as modern psychology seems very keenly aware of, evolution causes at lot of problems in today's humans, because it happened thousands of years before we ended up in modern societies. Just look at the countless addictions people develop because the brain evolved at a point where certain parts of our livelihood where innately scarce (be it food, sex or other needs).

 

"Just look at the increased age of mothers at first childbirth. Way up since the 70s. What's to blame?" Yeah, the feminist movement is probably to blame. No, I do not see why that is a problem. So women take more control of their lives, choose to become parents when they feel ready for it, and exercise some more freedom. I seem to remember something else going way up since the seventies too... This little thing called life expectancy.

 

"Women are biologically engineered to bear and raise children, and on average, they are temperamentally much better equipped to do so." Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're arguing against. Most feminists are rather uninterested in whether or not this is the fact, as opposed to whether or not it comes from society (underlined the last part so no one thinks there are feminists that believe society made women bear children) or nature, and whether or not that should have a say for how they live their lives.

 

"In much of Europe, women get paid vacation for a full year to bear and begin the raising of their children." In Norway we have that for males too, albeit not as long. Most dads seem pretty content with it. Turns out most people find they become better at taking care of a child if they do it for six weeks...

 

"We promote the idea of gender equality in all respects. Corporations generally win, families (and society) generally lose." I would agree with that last sentence if it stood alone, but as an extension of the first sentence it just doesn't make sense for the reasons I have presented above.

 

@Sparrowprince:

 

"The thing is some women complain about they don't earn as much as men, but that is simply becuase a lot women choose stay at home and raise a family; which is perfectly fine." See my argument above.

 

"On the SJW front, it is funny to see them say that white people are basically the most privileged. This is inherently false as that crown belongs to Asians who have the best jobs and earn much more than any other ethnic group." In what country are we talking about? And do you have a source for that? If you want an example of a racially biased competitive environment just take a look at the film industry... Exodus: Gods and Kings comes to mind as a prime example of what most people call whitewashing. 

EDIT: Fixed a couple of typos and added some missing words.

Edited September 5, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Audley]

Not trying to disregard anyone's posts, but I would just like to say I am glad to be part of a community that can have these types of open discussions without it turning into a flame war. The majority of forums I have been apart of in the past would usually lock these topics before they would even begin; even the smaller ones. So I want to thank everyone for being so mature, even when you have vastly different opinions. Carry on. :)

[Guest]

Well becuase it's late here, I'll say a child or teen is no way mentally ready to decide if they want a sex change. I don't agree with surgery as an answer due to the underlying fact they never will truly be male/female in my opinion anyway. That is just a biological fact. There is also this 30 year Swedish study (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885) that shows increased suicide rates in transgender people.

 

No, there is no far-left "progressivism" floating around the internet or anything:

 

 

"Hey guys, my child is normal. Halp!"

 

The majority of your fellow Nords (lol) probably don't like the idea of a wall, but however crazy that woman is, it still came from Norway. I don't think I was arguing otherwise or endorsing any particular view. It's funny though because I have seen quite a few internet forums berate the Trump wall idea becuase it's Trump, but are totally cool with the Norway comment. I would say these were extremely Liberal forums as well. Double standards yet again from these nutjobs.

 

On my Asian comment, Wikipedia says:

 

As of 2010, 14,011,000 Asians were living in America.[18] Asian Americans are the only minority in the United States whose median income is higher than whites, assuming Pacific Islanders are not counted as a separate race. In 2009, the median income for Asian males was $37,330, compared to the median income for non-Hispanic white males of $36,785.[10] In 2015, Asian American men were the highest earning racial group at $24/hour. Asian American men earned 117% as much as white American men ($21/hour) and have been out earning their white Americans counterparts since about 2000. Similarly, in 2015 Asian American women earned 106% as much as white American women.

So I was talking about US, but perhaps this expands to other countries?

 

Not trying to disregard anyone's posts, but I would just like to say I am glad to be part of a community that can have these types of open discussions without it turning into a flame war. The majority of forums I have been apart of in the past would usually lock these topics before they would even begin; even the smaller ones. So I want to thank everyone for being so mature, even when you have vastly different opinions. Carry on. :)

Yes, it isn't a cesspit of left or right dogpiles in here. Good reads, although I'll have to catch up fully with the latest text wall tomorrow. ;)

 

Edit:

 

One thing that has become really annoying is how people label everything they don't like as a group of SJWs. It's become almost as annoying as some SJWs. The PC stuff has gone really overboard though. Working at a university, I see this stuff all the time though. I even have to go to meetings about PC crap. There are people that just travel around the country and give classes to professionals about being PC. I bet they are way overpaid too.

I forgot to ask you what this involves? Is it worse than health and safety training? Sounds like modern university nonsense to waste staff time. Your university doesn't have one of those "safespace" areas/gym hours for girls does it? Sounds like they want you to become PC Principal. :P

Edited September 5, 2016 by Guest

[EssArrBee]

I have a buddy that plays in a local band and he has a shirt that says Black Sabbath Matters. Now that's a movement I can get behind. 

 

@Z, you can look up first-second-third wave feminism. Pretty well establish periods of time.

 

@Mono, are you in your 3rd or 4th year of university? I think left and right is usually coming from the Americans. We have twisted those words around so much the last 50-60 years to mean so many different things. Our current use of right and left share a few similarities with classical notions, but otherwise they are separate in their meaning. Words like that are mostly tools of our major political parties. With only 6 major media outlets it's easier than ever for them to change the meaning a little to suit their agendas, while the good people at Oxford and Merriam-Webster are left scratching their heads.

[Teabag86]

Personally I think it demeans STEP to give an open platform for ideological views. I have some strong opinions on the above but I don't log onto STEP discuss them. It's the wrong forum for that kind of discussion. All you will end up doing is alienating a section of the community. Let me finish with a quote from Melaran to get back on topic.

 

'Look at that. I've told you to watch your tongue and mine is waddling. I've said enough."