1

Topic: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

https://vk.com/feed?w=wall-64497138_18394

2

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, The Passenger, you wrote: it is not necessary to be the deep philosopher and to deduce relationships of cause and effect. It is enough to look at one feminist to understand that this fiasco, .

3

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Here it is more interesting. Discussion with the feminist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHGSGmpqWqo

4

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, Amon_RA, you wrote: A_R> it is not necessary to be the deep philosopher and to deduce relationships of cause and effect. It is enough to look at one feminist to understand that this fiasco, . It is enough to look At one that at all to understand? On one? Here directly here so?

5

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, aik, you wrote: aik> it is enough to look At one that at all to understand? On one? Here directly here so? Yes they as a fractal. Any part speaks about all and is similarity remaining.

6

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, aik, you wrote: A_R>> it is not necessary to be the deep philosopher and to deduce relationships of cause and effect. It is enough to look at one feminist to understand that this fiasco, . aik> it is enough to look At one that at all to understand? On one? Here directly here so? As they say, yes, all feminists. In a feminism kernel as ideologies are a dial-up of axioms which everyone should accept anyhow () who hangs up on itself a feminism label. It is 1) the patriarchy concept. We live in "patriarchy" - system of public relations in which men own the considerable part of the economic, political and public power while women are deprived by it. 2) the man's privilege. Men - an exclusive public class. 3) system oppression of women. Women throughout all human history were and remain "an oppressed" class. Consequences inevitably follow from these postulates: 1) in all men are guilty. 2) that is, all muzhiks - swine. 3) so swine that they of the own free will  continue to support "" in spite of the fact that feminists here tell 150 years it about it all truth. Mentally healthy person, in my opinion, cannot agree with these postulates. From what follows that ALL feminists - it is a little not in itself. Otherwise they would not subscribe under similar delirium.

7

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, The Passenger, you wrote: TP> https://vk.com/feed?w=wall-64497138_18394 it is badly told. So it is told that without being the user , you will not read.

8

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, const_volatile, you wrote: _> 1) in all men are guilty. _> 2) that is, all muzhiks - swine. But Islam it is good, and only at Sheriyat the woman can be on the present of free (it not a joke, simply new adding to ideology of feminism). So the modern feminists - they not a little not in itself, and it is simple on all head .... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

9

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

10

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, The Passenger, you wrote: TP> At the heart of feminism the premise lies that the woman as that does not represent value that it only then can be value when it as far as possible turns to the man and requests to itself those is exceptional man's rights. There is it it was possible only FtoM to transgenders... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

11

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, const_volatile, you wrote: _> consequences inevitably follow from these postulates: Consequences incorrect. I.e. between axioms and consequences there is no logical communication, this poor and incorrect generalization of the same class as "all feminists - ".

12

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, aik, you wrote: _>> consequences inevitably follow from these postulates: aik> Consequences incorrect. I.e. between axioms and consequences there is no logical communication, this poor and incorrect generalization of the same class as "all feminists - ". Well as. That "fact" that we live in patriarchy, we are obliged to men as to a class, i.e., men are not capable to create a society without female oppression (so-called toxic masculinity). And you are a villain simply upon presence at you a penis. And, by the way, for this reason radical feminists refuse to men right to be called as "feminists", you a maximum can be it "ally". For women who do not recognize patriarchy, too there is a special label - "internalized misogyny", "a graft misogyny". I.e. such women, probably, receive advantage from patriarchy, but as a whole women as a class suffer from it even more. You familiarize, familiarize more deeply with feminism philosophy, behind that that disappears behind a beautiful show-window of "equality".

13

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, const_volatile, you wrote: _> Hello, aik, you wrote: A_R>>> it is not necessary to be the deep philosopher and to deduce relationships of cause and effect. It is enough to look at one feminist to understand that this fiasco, . aik>> it is enough to look At one that at all to understand? On one? Here directly here so? _> as they say, yes, all feminists. In a feminism kernel as ideologies are a dial-up of axioms which everyone should accept anyhow () who hangs up on itself a feminism label. It _> 1) the patriarchy concept. We live in "patriarchy" - system of public relations in which men own the considerable part of the economic, political and public power while women are deprived by it. _> 2) the man's privilege. Men - an exclusive public class. _> 3) system oppression of women. Women throughout all human history were and remain "an oppressed" class. _> consequences inevitably follow from these postulates: _> 1) in all men are guilty. _> 2) that is, all muzhiks - swine. _> 3) so swine that they of the own free will  continue to support "" in spite of the fact that feminists here tell 150 years it about it all truth. _> mentally healthy person, in my opinion, cannot agree with these postulates. From what follows that ALL feminists - it is a little not in itself. Otherwise they would not subscribe under similar delirium. Why it is mentally healthy person cannot agree? I do not speak about "consequences" which you here wrote, but in the first part all indeed.

14

Re: [ (philosophy)] [vk] it is well told about feminism

Hello, Fantasist, you wrote: _>> as they say, yes, all feminists. In a feminism kernel as ideologies are a dial-up of axioms which everyone should accept anyhow () who hangs up on itself a feminism label. It _>> 1) the patriarchy concept. We live in "patriarchy" - system of public relations in which men own the considerable part of the economic, political and public power while women are deprived by it. _>> 2) the man's privilege. Men - an exclusive public class. _>> 3) system oppression of women. Women throughout all human history were and remain "an oppressed" class. F> why it is mentally healthy person cannot agree? I do not speak about "consequences" which you here wrote, but in the first part all indeed. Here and "" it was drew. In representation democracy the majority of men in the power does not mean patriarchy. It means that women 1) prefer to vote for men and 2) do not go to a policy of the own free will (instead of because men forbid them). Certainly, the feminism convinces us that at such  is universal - internalized misogyny, and they simply do not understand, that actually it is necessary for them. In 70th years in the western sociology even occurred  that actually between men and women there are no behavioral distinctions, and gender roles is simply imposed by a society . However numerous experiments refute such naive representations, distinctions in behavior of boys and girls are marked already at 10-day babies. Roughly speaking, the woman wants children and in marriage not because it so brought up, that is why that it the woman. The man's privilege - the ridiculous concept. Men I am called in army (, death in military conflicts - generally men), are more subject to death and mutilations on a workplace, the man become more often victims of crimes (including and rapes if to include prisons, at least, in ), men of more women perish from suicides. Accordingly, average life expectancy at men is less. To me laziness now to search for specific digits is all it is easily googled, and statistics between the West countries slightly differs on these indexes. At all thus any public  and indulgences of the man have no, on the contrary, courts prefer women in divorce cases, including at decisions on guardianship over children. And, time mentioned courts, there is such concept as pussy pass - for identical crimes of the woman receive essentially softer periods. Women, instead of men possess considerably the big privileges and the rights in comparison with men in the modern society,  inherently (including at us, for example, the capital parent, instead of fatherly).