The concern, where it is not coming from the extreme patriarchalists, is that the type of feminist most prominent today support an opposing matriarchy in its place. Here in Canada, our system grants a religious favor to women and girls, with the inclusion of anti-white and anti-male laws pretending that this is being done with good intentions.Jori wrote: ↑Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:24 am Do feminists hate men? Do they want to be like men? If they hate men, why do they want to be like men? Then they would want to be something they hate.
I don't understand why some women hate to be dictated by their husbands, but then went out to become secretaries and organizational subordinates.
The fact is that these 'racial' related issues are more of a politically motivated set of many issues now. The reality is that BOTH men and women created the initial stage of differentiation. To be more honest, the origins of sex differences is the sincere "initial" stage but where we can overrule our own biology today, we have reached a point where certain biases are no longer necessary.
I don't believe most of these concerns regarding sexual discrimination are actually about sexual imbalances in fair treatment but are due to the seemingly innoculous misdirection painted as though there are because we no longer need the traditional biological distinctions. Specific to politics, religious competition is involved under the indirect banner of "culture", and the economic differences act as the motivating triggers.
Genetic causes: sex evolved to separate animals because while one of the subspecies is needed to produce offspring, the other, by most living things, is required to be more transient. For humans, as with most animals, the male is needed to protect and hunt because it best concerves the likihood that the females can successfully carry to term and have time to teach and raise their babies to survive for an unusual longer period than other animals. As we progressed, the favor of women to select tall and strong males is actually the number one factor causing this outside of rape itself. That is, on the assumption that rape is not the stereotypical reason for male physical dominance the power by the free and FINAL choices always come from the women in the selection processes. So the first socially relevant issue of inequality that fosters male dominance in many fields today are due to the women's preferences for them, not the male's preference for the women to be weaker and submissive. Certainly in the transition to become different sexes, men and women were 'equal' in physical qualities. So how could the initial humans without sex favor the then subtle distinctions of men over women without a precondition of being different. So the primmates (prior to being human) begun their selection process that defined males as those that accidentally happen to be more physically domineering and the females as those that are able to be least mobile and able to hold more fat over muscle because this would be needed to feed the babies and so also have to be more compassionate for it was needed for attending to successfully raising the children in their earlier stages of development.
Economic causes: Since technology is the intiating factors that make life easier, the means of access to these are the first of the ecomonic factors that precede change. Condums, the pill, and abortion methods permit women to have the kinds of extended freedoms that normally belonged to the male. But since women are still the holders of power with regards to final selection for procreation, their internal biological interests have not had enough time to alter and so they still to this day favor men to be more physically dominating and themselves to be more emotionally dominant with respect to raising children, and, where attraction favors the submissive, their external beauty.
Technology has evolved too fast for our biological systems to be so radically different than the whole history prior to the last 100years. This then stands to justify why even permitting more freedoms for women would not immediately make women seek jobs that were traditionally male. In an opposite way, sensitivity in males has been permitted more freedom but are most shunned by both sexes as partners should they veer off into acting more effeminate. While women may seem to be the ones most friendly to the homosexual outside of homosexuals themselves, they would still not favor those males for selection who are bisexually open. The male is conscious of this fact and why those who still prefer women but who might like to have the effeminate freedoms seem to be the ones who react more violent against other homosexual males with physical violence. Even the appearance of a man to be 'attractived' BY other men suffice for women to disapprove of choosing men who are more effeminately 'free'.
Cultural causes are the social changes that free women more than men contrary to the apparent victim/predatory distinctions asserting women as being the only victim class. The reality of most discrimination is not about sex but about physique and beauty of either sexes that tend to map to the traditional distinctions. So short people, for instance, might be the reason someone wanting to hire a tall person will falsely make the cause seem associated to sex. Because statistically, the taller happen to be male, and the shorter to the female, these are the underlying cause for discrimination that seems unfair. The favor of correcting this still favors the female because the genetic preferences of the women will still be the predominating reason for men to also BE biased against those males or females not representative of their expected sexual norms.
This is just an overview of my interpretation of some of major contributors. But I hold that there is still a hypocritical favoritism because they still have the sole final power of selection outside of rape and religious biases that prevent women to have abortions. Religion is just the tool used to justify favored behaviors where they lack actual contemporary justification. Gay men and women wanting to 'marry' for instance is about the gay people wanting to conserve the traditional male/female contractual evolution of marriage that originally was only about officially holding parents accountable to actual offspring. The change in laws could have, for instance, redefined all relations as types of contracted unions, not just the gay people, and then the issue of marriage regarding the religious ceremonies in ones conservative churches could have been left unscathed. In time, the churches would still likely have evolved to 'fit' to accepting gay marriages voluntarily. So the movements that gave us gay 'marriage' rights are a kind of infringement on religious beliefs which show that the politics can create the illusion of the biases that foster the climate of hostility.
