Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Certainly. Men always teamed up when it became necessary, just go through the story. All revolutions were made by men who united for a greater purpose.
A more or less fair modern society is achieved thanks to the spilled male blood. If men unite, they take up arms and are ready to shed blood.
However, women are not able to shed blood for the sake of a big goal or unite. They can't do that in principle, because a big goal doesn't fit in their brain?
For example, feminists try to convince the world that men are inherently inferior-aggressive, violent, and so on. there is a certain masculinity in the community, all this, in their opinion, should be etched out by society.
Roughly speaking, on the basis of alleged millennial oppression to achieve a new position of men and women in society, heh. In fact, the new status of women has long been obtained with the approval of men and depends on women themselves, because people will seek their own position in society in any case. So what remains is the condemnation of the past and the new status of men? As you can see, the goal of feminists is not a big one. They are trying to polish off the roughness that will eventually disappear, thereby whipping up unnecessary hysteria.
Medvedev renamed the police to the police, and feminists are renaming bloggers to bloggers. Their intellectual and ideological depth is the same.
Feminists and women with feminist views are shallow dummies. The former will simply get hysterical, and the latter do not know what they are doing. You shouldn't argue with them.
It makes sense to unite in the fight for human rights and common sense. Putting men in a separate social category is a rather absurd idea in itself, and it becomes obvious when you think about it.
By consistently promoting the presumption of innocence and the need for evidence, it is easy to avoid the tragic curiosity of Harvey Wenstein. And competence as a criterion for promotion will allow you to avoid appointing empty-headed women to the post because they are women. Sex quotas are, without a doubt, nonsense, which is unacceptable in a secular state governed by the rule of law, since the position is ruled not by any sexual organs, but by brains and character.
PS The recent failures of major Hollywood franchises such as “Star Wars” are a direct result of gender quotas and tolerance policies. Instead of talented people, they recruited women, LGBT people, and national minorities.small businesses. Let's learn not only what they do in the West, but also what it leads to.
Such a movement already exists – masculism. It opposes gender discrimination against men, and stands for the right of men to express their emotions freely and not be judged. In other words, against being forced to perform certain actions motivated by the phrase “You're a man”.