-1=e^ipi

Yes.

1. It's a gendered issue, and feminism is related to gendered issues. 2. If you read the conversation above you will see that the context was with how the usage of Feminism and Patriarchy associates female with desirable and male with undesirable.

Where did I say direct impact? Devaluing of a group of people over time causing lower self-esteem and therefore a higher suicide rate is more of an indirect effect. Also, the gender suicide-gap has been increasing in recent years.

1. Your statement ignores the fact that all males, not just cisgendered males have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of sexual minorities and is therefore a micro-aggression. 2. Males of all races have a higher suicide rate. So your comment is dismissive of the issues of non-white males. 3. Your portrayal of white cisgendered males as people that desire oppression devalues them, which can cause higher suicide rates.

No, there are many causes, including traditionalism and arguably evolutionary psychology. But continually associating female with desirable and male with undesirable only strengthens this.

Then why tell people that saying 'the most qualified person should get the job' is a micro-aggression? For example, non-asexual people dismissing asexuality.

Cumulative disadvantage theory and intersectionality as advocated by SJW are flawed because they has the following property: Let P(X1, X2, X3, ..., XN) be a privilege function of N traits (such as sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, income, etc.). If P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, A, YK+2, ... , YN) > P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, B, YK+2, ... , YN) in one part of the country then P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, A, YK+2, ... , YN) > P(Y1, Y2, ... , YK, B, YK+2, ... , YN) in another part of the country. Basically, SJWs and others make this untrue assumption that if a society advantages one group of people over another in one location (say men over women) then it must do so everywhere.

Saying we should tax what we don't want is often used to justify Pigouvian taxes (for example: taxes of alcohol, cigarettes, CO2 emissions, etc.). Perhaps Shady was trying to look for consistency. In which case, Pigouvian taxes require a negative externality to be justified and the argument of 'we should tax what we don't want' is an oversimplification. If there are no negative externalities associated with single mothers, then there is not good justification to tax single mothers more than other individuals.

And feminists perpetuate this by labeling traditionalism as patriarchy thereby associating male with undesirable (via Patriarchy) and female with desirable (via Feminism). This can slowly chip away at the self-esteem of males, leading to higher suicide rates.

But in social sciences, theories make testable predictions and are falsified all the time be it economics, psychology or sociology. Traditionalist gender roles can oppress men in all sorts of ways (example: war drafts that only affect men). Oh this reminds me of two other issues that I have with 'patriarchy'; the assumption singularity and the assumption of societal homogeneity. Why is patriarchy singular rather than plural? There are many different patriarchal societies that developed independently from each other, so shouldn't the patriarchal society that originated in Korea and the patriarchal society that originated in Germany be separate patriarchies? If Canada is a multicultural society, then shouldn't it contain multiple patriarchies (at least one for each culture)? Patriarchy implies a sort of homogeneity due to its singularity. Yet our society is very diverse so how individuals are affected by gender roles will depend on where they live. You might have baby boomer men favoured over baby boomer women in Alabama for employment, yet have millennial women favoured over millennial men in Toronto. You could even have a case where two next-door neighbours experience vastly different levels of gender roles because one lives in a lesbian-atheist household and the other lives in a Sunni-Islamist household and is not allowed to leave the house without wearing a burka.

Who deleted my image of the flying spaghetti monster and why? It's completely relevant to the thread topic. Not to mention all the links and indentation are now messed up.

They specifically list 'I believe the most qualified person should get the job' as an example of micro-aggression, claim that micro-aggressions lead to a hostile work environment and view creating a hostile work environment as legally actionable. If they meant something else and wanted to avoid confusion, they didn't do a very good job at it.

In the spirit of promoting dialogue about gender issues, I thought I would create another thread that I've wanted to create for a while, but haven't gotten around to creating. So in this thread, I want to describe the feminist concept of patriarchy. First let's begin with the dictionary definition. Noun. A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line. a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. a society or community organized on patriarchal lines. These definitions don't sound like they describe Western society today, yet Feminists claim that we live in a Patriarchy. So what is the feminist definition of Patriarchy? Feminist theory defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.%5B32%5D It often includes any social mechanism that evokes male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.%5B33%5D So Patriarchy is oppressive to both men and women? But if so then the definition seems relatively gender neutral while the term Patriarchy is not gender neutral. So if our society is oppressive to both men and women then couldn't you just as easily describe our society as a Matriarchy? The equivalent definition for Matriarchy would be: An unjust social system that enforces gender roles and is oppressive to both men and women.%5B32%5D It often includes any social mechanism that evokes female dominance over men. So we just need 1 case of a social mechanism that evokes female dominance over men to satisfy the definition of Matriarchy? Well one example would be the social expectation where males pay for dates. So the definition of Matriarchy is satisfied so we must live in a Matriarchy. But if the definitions of both Patriarchy and Matriarchy are satisfied, then do we live in both a Matriarchy and a Patriarchy at the same time? Why should we describe our society as a Patriarchy rather than a Matriarchy? And if the definitions are relatively gender neutral, then why not use a gender neutral term like Traditionalism instead? To this I turn to the scientific philosopher Karl Popper. In science a theory is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false". Some philosophers argue that science must be falsifiable. Falsifiability is very important in science because it means you can test predictions and either verify or falsify a theory to obtain a better understanding of reality. Without falsifiability, how can we exclude absurd hypothesis from our set of scientific beliefs such as the idea that a giant flying spaghetti monster created everything? Is the feminist theory of patriarchy falsifiable? What testable predictions does it make that cannot also be explained by Matriarchy? If there are no testable predictions, then I have to conclude that Patriarchy, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is unfalsifiable. Ramen.

One of my biggest issues with using the term feminism to describe a position of gender egalitarianism is that it is an inherently ungender-neutral term and therefore it doesn't make sense to use it to describe a gender neutral position. People who identify as feminists often support gender neutrality. For example, using police officer instead of policeman, or using gender-neutral pronouns. However, if gender neutrality is important then should this not also be applied to feminism itself if feminism means gender equality? Another advantage to using gender egalitarianism over feminism is clarity. There are many different kinds of feminism (1st wave, 3rd wave, etc.) and feminism can mean pretty much anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. So if you tell someone you are a feminist then this can lead to confusion, where as if you tell someone you are a gender egalitarian, there is no confusion. Another issue with using feminism to describe a position of gender egalitarianism is that it subconsciously puts emphasis on a single gender rather than all genders (men, non-binary individuals, etc.). As a result, this can lead to people who would otherwise support gender egalitarianism to dismiss gender issues when they disadvantage a gender that is not female (see men's rights thread that Kimmy started for a list of some men's rights concerns). Lastly, since Feminists frame Feminism as desirable and Patriarchy as undesirable they associate female with desirable and male with undesirable. This perpetuates traditionalist gender roles and male disposability. It also sends a continuous subconscious message to males that they are undesireable (a form of micro-aggression), which can lead to males losing self-esteem and eventually committing suicide (males have 4x as many suicide victims as females). If one promotes gender neutrality, male should be equally desirable to female. So please, don't be a feminist against patriarchy. Be a gender egalitarian against traditionalism.

Only those that have been tried. What issues do you have with technocracy? Possibility of corruption?

The problem with that is it incentivizes inequality of family sizes. So you will have few people having more kids. This increases future income inequality and results in less support per child.

Btw, the people in this thread calling Jenner transgendered are incorrect. Jenner is transsexual but not transgendered. Jenner made it very clear that xe disagrees with gender binaries and is probably more accurately described as a gender fluid person, or maybe even genderqueer or agendered.

Which is what? That I use sarcasm and disagree with financially punishing people that think that the most qualified person should get the job? You know, your comments keep reminding me of the uncyclopedia article on neurotypical syndrome. http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neurotypical_syndrome "a delusional belief that they can read other people’s minds." I think you may suffer from this.

Should? Shouldn't? It should be up to the individual to decide if they want to wear a top or not; male, female or non-binary. The law should apply equally to everyone. Ask creationists why men have nipples and watch them squirm.

You can say what you want. I'm not the speech police.

Saying that a comment contains sarcasm doesn't mean the entire thing is sarcasm. The part about being deeply offended is sarcasm.

Would 'Tax Single Mothers More' be a more appropriate thread title? Unless you are suggesting that single mothers should be exempt from all tax. Well it should be about the children, but in my experience child support often became spousal support and often essentials were not bought for me and my sibling. There aren't any checks to ensure that the support is going to the child.

The premise of those thread is dumb because you don't even try to define feminism. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology and there are differences between 1st wave, 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism.

Pretty much.

See this is what I mean when I say micro-aggressions only matter if the victim is an adherent to the SJW policy. UC Berkeley isn't going to be consistent in their application of their policy nor do SJW care about consistency. This is like when Cenk Uygur tells Karen Straughan to make him a sandwich.