Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Sun)   1) Write byzantine sex-assault regulations for colleges 2) Accept high-dollar job helping colleges evade byzantine sex-assault regulations 3) Profit 4) Repeat   (nysun.com) divider line 406
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

7128 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jul 2014 at 3:04 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



406 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-10 03:34:27 PM  

sinisterben: That's not the overarching patriarchy you are discussing, this is like the Christian claiming god is love. You aren't talking about what you actually believe, you are talking about something much different and greatly diminished from the original claims.


damn son, perhaps you should just quit while you still have some chips left
 
2014-07-10 03:37:26 PM  

Ishkur: Your point that patriarchy doesn't exist?


It's a convenient fabrication in order to create an absurd argument about 'the way things out to be'.
 
2014-07-10 03:37:31 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: I'll just let this post lie, because again you make my point.

Your point that patriarchy doesn't exist?

Tell me: Do you plan on changing your name when you get married?


Does it count if I hyphenate you judgmental ass?
 
2014-07-10 03:39:25 PM  

Inchoate: sinisterben: That's not the overarching patriarchy you are discussing, this is like the Christian claiming god is love. You aren't talking about what you actually believe, you are talking about something much different and greatly diminished from the original claims.

damn son, perhaps you should just quit while you still have some chips left


Yes, I see your refutation of my obviously stupid point. Seriously. Religion.
 
2014-07-10 03:44:17 PM  
Assertion: dodo birds opress me.
Counter: seriously?
Assertion: See this is a dodo bird on Wikipedia.
 
2014-07-10 03:51:43 PM  
I bet a fair amount of people in this thread wear trilbys.
 
2014-07-10 04:10:31 PM  

sinisterben: That's not the overarching patriarchy you are discussing


I'm challenging your assertion that patriarchy doesn't exist. There is overwhelming demonstrable evidence that it does, and has for the past 10,000 years.
 
2014-07-10 04:11:47 PM  

sinisterben: Does it count if I hyphenate you judgmental ass?


The point is you've never had to think about it, have you? Do you think you should discuss it with your spouse first?
 
2014-07-10 04:23:13 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: Does it count if I hyphenate you judgmental ass?

The point is you've never had to think about it, have you? Do you think you should discuss it with your spouse first?


You know nothing about me or my wife, you presumptuous fool. Also, I like that no matter how that was answered I actually couldn't have said anything to your satisfaction.

Now, point to the data of the existing patriarchy that opresses women to this day. Alllll this data exists but all you can manage is shouting about it being obvious.

I mean look at the eye... how is that not evidence of a creator? Right?
 
2014-07-10 04:27:59 PM  

Ishkur: There is overwhelming demonstrable evidence that it does, and has for the past 10,000 years.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-07-10 04:30:26 PM  

Saborlas: I bet a fair amount of people in this thread wear trilbys.


What's wrong with a trilby?

img.fark.net
 
2014-07-10 04:33:35 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Saborlas: I bet a fair amount of people in this thread wear trilbys.

What's wrong with a trilby?


Well, I have been made aware that hat styles and poor shaving techniques create a pocket dimension where nothing has to be explained to anyone.
 
2014-07-10 04:33:48 PM  

sinisterben: You know nothing about me or my wife,


That's irrelevant. But thank you for conceding the argument.
 
2014-07-10 04:38:10 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: You know nothing about me or my wife,

That's irrelevant. But thank you for conceding the argument.


Uhh, you're welcome?
 
2014-07-10 05:11:33 PM  
So, I guess I'll just claim I win on that whole data issue then. Not a bad day.
 
2014-07-10 05:20:57 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: Does it count if I hyphenate you judgmental ass?

The point is you've never had to think about it, have you? Do you think you should discuss it with your spouse first?


I've been married for 7 years. I've never even brought up the idea of changing names to my wife. Not really trying to prove a point here, I just realized how odd it is that it's never come up.
 
2014-07-10 05:28:51 PM  

sinisterben: So, I guess I'll just claim I win on that whole data issue then. Not a bad day.


Jesus christ, do you need data on the sun being in the sky, too?

upload.wikimedia.org

i.imgur.com

thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com

cdn.theatlantic.com

www.npr.org
 
2014-07-10 05:45:38 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: So, I guess I'll just claim I win on that whole data issue then. Not a bad day.

Jesus christ, do you need data on the sun being in the sky, too?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x531]


Men take more risks in general than women and entering politics is a risky career choice.

[i.imgur.com image 850x637]

It doesn't matter the gender that someone is quoting -it matters if they have something significant to say

[thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com image 603x1500]
 Men take more risks in general than women and becoming a CEO is a risky career choice. 

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 850x510]

Women entering the sciences actually have a leg up on men because of equal opportunity hiring quotas.

[www.npr.org image 624x390]

Men in a family don't normally take years out of their careers to raise children.
 
2014-07-10 05:49:46 PM  
Do women have a choice of careers in your world? Are they allowed to vote and represent people in government? Are they choosing the exact same lifetime goals as men?

Do we have to force these choices so you feel better about those numbers?

Are you aware more women than men are graduating from college and on average they are making more than their counterparts? How is this possible in your freaking patriarchy?

Are you aware that just because the sexes aren't equally represented that it isn't evidence of your overarching patriarchy?

You are just saying there isn't equal outcome in places you want to point out, therefore patriarchy. But will you accept evidence of other imbalances towards women as evidence of matriarchy? I bet not.
 
2014-07-10 05:54:54 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Men take more risks


Oh, so you've finally admitted that patriarchy does in fact exist and now you want to move on to justify its continued existence?
 
2014-07-10 05:58:20 PM  
You two really are uniquely incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
 
2014-07-10 06:06:21 PM  
Let's discuss anecdotes since you seem more interested in lived experience than facts.

I work in a job for much less than I could earn elsewhere, however I am also afforded a lot more flexibility and time off tp deal with family needs. My wife? She works much harder and more hours in an inflexible job to support our family. Not many families work that way. More than ever for sure but still not in a completely balanced score.

So why should we expect to see this equality in numbers when the situation in the world doesn't reflect a world which would have those equal numbers?

No freaking patriarchy needed, just an unjust world where PEOPLE have many options and face many hardships.
 
2014-07-10 06:08:31 PM  

Ishkur: Oh, so you've finally admitted that patriarchy does in fact exist and now you want to move on to justify its continued existence?



You are kinda like a broken record.

images.rapgenius.com

A true patriarchy is a form of government and is not some worldwide conspiracy.

We in the US live in a Democracy not a patriarchy.
 
2014-07-10 06:13:58 PM  

Inchoate: You two really are uniquely incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.


Sure I mean a claim that 50% of the population is in collusion to hold the other 50% down certainly isn't extraordinary. Nah, that's like every day simple stuff, like the sky is blue, or grass is green.
 
2014-07-10 06:14:36 PM  

sinisterben: You are just saying there isn't equal outcome in places you want to point out, therefore patriarchy.


Patriarchy means rule by men. That's what I showed you: Men overwhelmingly in control of the highest and most powerful positions in politics, economics, media and science. Do a GIS for gender gap and you can find many, many more. We can argue the hows and whys later, but for now let's just focus on this: Does it exist? As I have just demonstrated, it does.

sinisterben: But will you accept evidence of other imbalances towards women as evidence of matriarchy?


Give me an example of a matriarchal social institution -- created by women, controlled and serviced by women, with certain positions and edicts that strictly forbid men, and overall place men as having lesser stature.

There isn't one. Men have dominated society for so long, even our languages are male-centric (think of that the next time you use words like mankind, chairman, salesman, businessman or any job title with -man as a suffix, "all men are created equal", etc... we only started recognizing this within the last generation and have made some strides to eliminate gender bias in language).
 
2014-07-10 06:15:39 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Ishkur: Oh, so you've finally admitted that patriarchy does in fact exist and now you want to move on to justify its continued existence?


You are kinda like a broken record.



A true patriarchy is a form of government and is not some worldwide conspiracy.

We in the US live in a Democracy not a patriarchy.


Well he did like to a Wikipedia entry about Roman patriarchal families... that was pretty similar to the world wide collusion of men against women everywhere.
 
2014-07-10 06:21:24 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: You are just saying there isn't equal outcome in places you want to point out, therefore patriarchy.

Patriarchy means rule by men. That's what I showed you: Men overwhelmingly in control of the highest and most powerful positions in politics, economics, media and science. Do a GIS for gender gap and you can find many, many more. We can argue the hows and whys later, but for now let's just focus on this: Does it exist? As I have just demonstrated, it does.

sinisterben: But will you accept evidence of other imbalances towards women as evidence of matriarchy?

Give me an example of a matriarchal social institution -- created by women, controlled and serviced by women, with certain positions and edicts that strictly forbid men, and overall place men as having lesser stature.

There isn't one. Men have dominated society for so long, even our languages are male-centric (think of that the next time you use words like mankind, chairman, salesman, businessman or any job title with -man as a suffix, "all men are created equal", etc... we only started recognizing this within the last generation and have made some strides to eliminate gender bias in language).


Patriarchy is a form of government dude. Not a freaking world wide Alex Jones, fluoride in the drinking water conspiracy which somehow doesn't manage to do anything you claim it does.

Show me how the patriarchy isn't just a religion painted over an unjust universe.
 
2014-07-10 06:21:33 PM  

sinisterben: Well he did like to a Wikipedia entry about Roman patriarchal families... that was pretty similar to the world wide collusion of men against women everywhere.


I'm pretty sure he's an alt of Theaetetus. They have the same writing style, the same views and when they interacted on this thread it was used as a (*shudder*) vehicle to share lovemaking tips.
 
2014-07-10 06:24:07 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: A true patriarchy is a form of government and is not some worldwide conspiracy.


It's neither. It's simply a description of rule.
 
2014-07-10 06:25:45 PM  
Also, I don't agree to answer your false dichotomy of either men make a system or women do. See, I actually believe we all work together to affect change, not point the finger at some other group and cry opression. Also, democracy, we have one, you could maybe try working with that before blowing up the whole god damn planet in order to remake it as you think it should be.
 
2014-07-10 06:26:50 PM  

Ishkur: It's neither. It's simply a description of rule.


I think you mean a hegemonic phallocracy.
 
2014-07-10 06:27:42 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: sinisterben: Well he did like to a Wikipedia entry about Roman patriarchal families... that was pretty similar to the world wide collusion of men against women everywhere.

I'm pretty sure he's an alt of Theaetetus. They have the same writing style, the same views and when they interacted on this thread it was used as a (*shudder*) vehicle to share lovemaking tips.


I was wondering about that part. Heck, with allies like them I almost don't need to discuss anything, just let them talk about utopia, 1984/Animal Farm style.
 
2014-07-10 06:31:36 PM  

Ishkur: Because People in power are Stupid: Men take more risks

Oh, so you've finally admitted that patriarchy does in fact exist and now you want to move on to justify its continued existence?


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-07-10 06:35:28 PM  

sinisterben: I don't agree to answer your false dichotomy of either men make a system or women do.


I never once asserted it has to be either-or. Things were egalitarian pre-Agriculture so we know that it is not a function of evolution but of social organization. We can do that again.
 
2014-07-10 06:36:09 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I'm pretty sure he's an alt of Theaetetus. They have the same writing style, the same views and when they interacted on this thread it was used as a (*shudder*) vehicle to share lovemaking tips.


lol

seriously?

Have you actually spent any time reading Fark? Other than "intelligence and confidence in their opinions" those two aren't especially similar.
 
2014-07-10 06:45:22 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: I don't agree to answer your false dichotomy of either men make a system or women do.

I never once asserted it has to be either-or. Things were egalitarian pre-Agriculture so we know that it is not a function of evolution but of social organization. We can do that again.


I like every post you respond to is snipped down to only the part you want to acknowledge. Even your data was a flippant posting of charts which honestly don't do anything to explain patriarchy, just show inequality of outcome. You don't acknowledge that I may be liberal enough to not fit into your grabsack of what your world view has to assume dissenters to your assertions are, you even manage to somehow bring my family into this as if you have any clue as to our household values.

You are a bully, nothing more, you want everyone to agree to your rules and righteousness. You are a poor representative of equality movements, and it's kinda sad because on other issues you seem pretty on the level.
 
2014-07-10 07:04:44 PM  

sinisterben: I like every post you respond to is snipped down to only the part you want to acknowledge.


I snip for brevity and ignore that which is irrelevant, which most of your posts mostly are. You have great difficulty staying on topic, and most of your posts are slippery slopes, 99 = 0, hasty generalizations and ad hominems. I don't respond to fallacies.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept. We live in a male-dominated society and always have. That doesn't automatically make it a bad thing, but it is important to recognize and acknowledge so we can go about fixing its injustices.

sinisterben: Even your data was a flippant posting of charts which honestly don't do anything to explain patriarchy,


Patriarchy means rule by men. That's it. That's all it describes. This is the third time I've said this to you. It means rule by men. What part of that don't you get? The data isn't trying to explain patriarchy and doesn't need to. It's only evidence of its existence. We haven't even gotten past the "does it exist" part of the argument because you're too stubborn to admit simple and obvious facts.

sinisterben: You don't acknowledge that I may be liberal enough


Why would I give a shiat what political stripe fills your drawers? Your views on other issues are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
2014-07-10 07:12:50 PM  
So, if rule is magically given to women all imbalances will be resolved right? Because the problem isn't people, it's men. Right? No more inequality no more injustices just happy bliss because... matriarchy.
 
2014-07-10 07:22:24 PM  

sinisterben: So, if rule is magically given to women all imbalances will be resolved right?


Holy shiat, no. When have I ever advocated that? You keep doing this. It's like you are incapable of understanding anyone's arguments, ever. Seriously, what is wrong with your reading comprehension?
 
2014-07-10 07:29:36 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: So, if rule is magically given to women all imbalances will be resolved right?

Holy shiat, no. When have I ever advocated that? You keep doing this. It's like you are incapable of understanding anyone's arguments, ever. Seriously, what is wrong with your reading comprehension?


Dude, if the crux of your argument is that the rule by men is the issue, one has to assume men are the problem. Because you are unwilling to acknowledge democracy and current rights people have, it can't be a people issue. Every point I raise is met with a question of "did women make it?" One has to assume your issue is with men and that the gender is important to your position. You are a presuppositionalist of government theory.
 
2014-07-10 07:33:09 PM  

Ishkur: sinisterben: I like every post you respond to is snipped down to only the part you want to acknowledge.

I snip for brevity and ignore that which is irrelevant, which most of your posts mostly are. You have great difficulty staying on topic, and most of your posts are slippery slopes, 99 = 0, hasty generalizations and ad hominems. I don't respond to fallacies.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to accept. We live in a male-dominated society and always have. That doesn't automatically make it a bad thing, but it is important to recognize and acknowledge so we can go about fixing its injustices.

sinisterben: Even your data was a flippant posting of charts which honestly don't do anything to explain patriarchy,

Patriarchy means rule by men. That's it. That's all it describes. This is the third time I've said this to you. It means rule by men. What part of that don't you get? The data isn't trying to explain patriarchy and doesn't need to. It's only evidence of its existence. We haven't even gotten past the "does it exist" part of the argument because you're too stubborn to admit simple and obvious facts.

sinisterben: You don't acknowledge that I may be liberal enough

Why would I give a shiat what political stripe fills your drawers? Your views on other issues are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


Ruled in what way?
Do women have to be completely excluded?
At what percentage does male leadership become oppressive?
At what percentage does it stop being a patriarchy?
Do you ever believe we could enter into a post-patriarchal society?
Can you imagine a system where men could be the decision makers by a higher percentage, but not be considered a patriarchy?
How do you feel about gender roles in egalitarian societies?
Do you think that there were negative/positive societal views attached to those gender roles?
Serious questions.
 
2014-07-10 07:46:29 PM  

sinisterben: Dude, if the crux of your argument is that the rule by men is the issue, one has to assume men are the problem.


Men are also the solution.

sinisterben: Because you are unwilling to acknowledge democracy and current rights people have


You think democracy isn't patriarchal? The same democracy that has, in its preamble, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." and that "all men are created equal" -- this isn't a neutral use of the word. Jefferson meant just males, in a time when women couldn't vote and could neither give nor withhold consent. And it probably didn't occur to him that anyone in the future would think otherwise.

sinisterben: Every point I raise is met with a question of "did women make it?"


You haven't raised any points. You only think patriarchy doesn't exist, and you once pointed at the Queen as evidence. As if that solves everything. That's as stupid as claiming racism is dead because a black man is President.

sinisterben: You are a presuppositionalist of government theory.


I don't know what this means. What presuppositional axiom am I declaring and what's government theory?
 
2014-07-10 08:18:28 PM  

o_blah: Ruled in what way?
Do women have to be completely excluded?
At what percentage does male leadership become oppressive?
At what percentage does it stop being a patriarchy?
Do you ever believe we could enter into a post-patriarchal society?
Can you imagine a system where men could be the decision makers by a higher percentage, but not be considered a patriarchy?
How do you feel about gender roles in egalitarian societies?
Do you think that there were negative/positive societal views attached to those gender roles?
Serious questions.



These are good questions, and not just the usual JAQing off nonsense by all the MRAs in the thread. Unfortunately, the thread's about to close and I'm not up for writing an essay's worth of explanations for each question (I have other shiat to do today), but I will say this:

First of all, you're looking at it wrong. Understand that when humans organize themselves socially, the typical trend is for males to seek hierarchy and females to seek consensus. So asking things like how much or how little percentages define the type of rule are malformed questions. These are hierarchical (ie: patriarchal) institutions and they'll always be patriarchal institutions no matter how many or how little men are running things (although an all-female government would be an interesting experiment). It's analogous to replacing all the players on a baseball team and then calling it a different sport. Yes, you've changed the players, but they're still playing baseball. The hierarchical power structure has not changed.

A woman-dominated society would not have hierarchies in it because that's not the way women like to run things. I can't speculate whether a matriarchal system would be any better or worse since its never actually been implemented at any level of development, but the Neolithic Age was largely egalitarian, with more importance placed on communal living and tribe/clan unity, and less importance on family and dynastic lineage (so parentage was not an issue -- it didn't matter who the baby daddy was, since the whole tribe/village raised the child. Maury Pauvich would have been irrelevant in ancient times).

There's actually been an interesting trend that probably only became prominent within the last generation or so: Societies with the most free and empowered women have the most crumbling family infrastructure. Marriage is low, divorce is high, the newer generation seems not too eager to engage in lifetime monogamy. Because things like marriage/divorce are patriarchal institutions (ie: control exclusive sexual access to women), harkening back to the days when women were property of their husbands or fathers and marriage was for politics and power rather than love.

But with the empowerment of women over the last century, what has happened? They've aggressively pushed for social services emphasizing family and children -- essentially, modern versions of the communal unity they afforded when they were neolithic nomads, including child welfare programs, family planning, tax subsidies, counseling.... essentially, the State has replaced the Tribe.

That's not to say that women do not want a husband/men in their lives to help raise the child, but its curious to see the declining status of family values and the rise of state-assisted living ever since women were empowered....because that's the way they had it before. Funny to see, after 10,000 years, the basic social desires and values reassert itself after being silenced for so long, like a gyroscope returning to equilibrium.

And that's enough from me. I'm outty.
 
2014-07-10 08:32:14 PM  
I heard that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, but that is probably just underground agitprop.
 
2014-07-10 08:44:48 PM  

Inchoate: lol

seriously?

Have you actually spent any time reading Fark? Other than "intelligence and confidence in their opinions" those two aren't especially similar.


Just coming out of web to do a little anonymous brown nosing? Seriously?
 
2014-07-10 08:49:23 PM  

Ishkur: typical trend is for males to seek hierarchy and females to seek consensus.


Thank you Deborah Tannen for that highly contested theory.

And to be honest, it's not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word -it's actually a hypothesis.
 
2014-07-10 08:52:42 PM  

Ishkur: o_blah: Ruled in what way?
Do women have to be completely excluded?
At what percentage does male leadership become oppressive?
At what percentage does it stop being a patriarchy?
Do you ever believe we could enter into a post-patriarchal society?
Can you imagine a system where men could be the decision makers by a higher percentage, but not be considered a patriarchy?
How do you feel about gender roles in egalitarian societies?
Do you think that there were negative/positive societal views attached to those gender roles?
Serious questions.


These are good questions, and not just the usual JAQing off nonsense by all the MRAs in the thread. Unfortunately, the thread's about to close and I'm not up for writing an essay's worth of explanations for each question (I have other shiat to do today), but I will say this:

First of all, you're looking at it wrong. Understand that when humans organize themselves socially, the typical trend is for males to seek hierarchy and females to seek consensus. So asking things like how much or how little percentages define the type of rule are malformed questions. These are hierarchical (ie: patriarchal) institutions and they'll always be patriarchal institutions no matter how many or how little men are running things (although an all-female government would be an interesting experiment). It's analogous to replacing all the players on a baseball team and then calling it a different sport. Yes, you've changed the players, but they're still playing baseball. The hierarchical power structure has not changed.

A woman-dominated society would not have hierarchies in it because that's not the way women like to run things. I can't speculate whether a matriarchal system would be any better or worse since its never actually been implemented at any level of development, but the Neolithic Age was largely egalitarian, with more importance placed on communal living and tribe/clan unity, and less importance on family and dynastic lineage (so parentage was not an issue -- it didn't matter who the baby daddy was, since the whole tribe/village raised the child. Maury Pauvich would have been irrelevant in ancient times).

There's actually been an interesting trend that probably only became prominent within the last generation or so: Societies with the most free and empowered women have the most crumbling family infrastructure. Marriage is low, divorce is high, the newer generation seems not too eager to engage in lifetime monogamy. Because things like marriage/divorce are patriarchal institutions (ie: control exclusive sexual access to women), harkening back to the days when women were property of their husbands or fathers and marriage was for politics and power rather than love.

But with the empowerment of women over the last century, what has happened? They've aggressively pushed for social services emphasizing family and children -- essentially, modern versions of the communal unity they afforded when they were neolithic nomads, including child welfare programs, family planning, tax subsidies, counseling.... essentially, the State has replaced the Tribe.

That's not to say that women do not want a husband/men in their lives to help raise the child, but its curious to see the declining status of family values and the rise of state-assisted living ever since women were empowered....because that's the way they had it before. Funny to see, after 10,000 years, the basic social desires and values reassert itself after being silenced for so long, like a gyroscope returning to equilibrium.

And that's enough from me. I'm outty.


I know you said you were leaving the thread so I'm just sorta responding into the wind here.
But, the original questions were presented more to fill in conversational gaps I felt were causing issues in this thread. The last few were the ones I was really looking forward to an answer on....
Oh well.
 
2014-07-10 09:02:10 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Ishkur: typical trend is for males to seek hierarchy and females to seek consensus.

Thank you Deborah Tannen for that highly contested theory.

And to be honest, it's not a "theory" in the scientific sense of the word -it's actually a hypothesis.


Yeah but it sounds really nice.
 
2014-07-10 09:13:10 PM  
I really enjoy when someone won't even own up to what they said earlier in the thread. I mean lets retcon the entire discussion!
 
2014-07-10 09:18:15 PM  

sinisterben: Yeah but it sounds really nice.


I think he's gone. Too bad. I set up a trap. The criticism I posted was because another feminist didn't think that it went far enough.

He acts like this is something that nobody else has ever heard this nonsense before and that if he can just repeat it back enough then somehow that will make it true. If you blindly accept that feminism cultural theories are the only theories then yeah, it makes sense. In fact there are multiple competing ideas that fluctuate throughout history.

And "cultural theory" is a misnomer. There is no conclusive single uniting theory that explains all of culture throughout all of time.
 
Displayed 50 of 406 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report