The tawdry female bosses are tiresome, and we could do with more male fanservice.

[Joven]

I think you are conflating Neo-Feminism with modern Feminism. Neo-Feminism is a small counter-movement that believes Women are superior to Men, and that Women should conform to gender roles, rather than seeking equality.

Look, Women can do whatever they like, if they want to do historically "feminine" things then that's their choice. My issue is when society tells you what a Woman should do. If a Woman wants to stay home and be a housewife and cook and clean, it should be because it's something she chooses to do, not because society dictates that it's something she should do, as a Woman.

There is no inherent Masculine or Feminine activities, or interests. Only thousands of years of men, the ruling class, the church, telling women what they can and can't do.

Feminism once was about equality. Now women have equal rights, but this new wave of feminism wants more than that and as such they're the only ones I've seen shaming women into not following their proposed doctrine.

Sorry but that's just BS. You can't just say something and then say the burden of proof is on other to disprove you, that's not how the world works at all. Otherwise I could make any insane claim I wanted and say the burden is on you to prove me wrong.

If I make a statement and you say that I'm wrong then it is entirely your responsibility to provide proof to the contrary. If it wasn't then all you would have to do to end an argument is to just say "you're wrong".

[VirusOnline]

Feminism once was about equality. Now women have equal rights, but this new wave of feminism wants more than that and as such they're the only ones I've seen shaming women into not following their proposed doctrine.



If I make a statement and you say that I'm wrong then it is entirely your responsibility to provide proof to the contrary. If it wasn't then all you would have to do to end an argument is to just say "you're wrong".

If I followed the conversation, the burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim.

Attempting to shift burden of proof to those who should disprove you is in fact a fallacy within itself.

So, no, it is not the burden of proof for others to disprove the original claim.

[Joven]

If I followed the conversation, the burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim.

Attempting to shift burden of proof to those who should disprove you is in fact a fallacy within itself.

So, no, it is not the burden of proof for others to disprove the original claim.

If that were the case it wouldn't matter how many sources someone could site to make their claim, the opposing side could just dismiss them with "you're wrong" without having to show any evidence.

[jameseoakes]

If that were the case it wouldn't matter how many sources someone could site to make their claim, the opposing side could just dismiss them with "you're wrong" without having to show any evidence.

But women don't have equal rights, they're still institutionally discriminated against

[VirusOnline]

If that were the case it wouldn't matter how many sources someone could site to make their claim, the opposing side could just dismiss them with "you're wrong" without having to show any evidence.

This is where types of sources come in handy.
We accept and respect scholarly and peer reviewed sources.

Just remember, anyone can make an argumentative claim. But to say a claim is true until disproven ? No, rather you present your claim and its value stands atop the proof you provide for it.

Edit : I'm one hasty poster. In a public forum such as this, you're right. Even with all the reputable proof someone could say what they want without providing evidence for refuting. Something we just have to accept in daily life outside of official debates. Providing good proof can make for a valid argument. Those who refute without evidence are often not taken seriously. So, there's that peace of mind ahahaha.

[Joven]

This is where types of sources come in handy.
We accept and respect scholarly and peer reviewed sources.

Just remember, anyone can make an argumentative claim. But to say a claim is true until disproven ? No, rather you present your claim and its value stands atop the proof you provide for it.

Tell that to those who keep making statements like this:

But women don't have equal rights, they're still institutionally discriminated against

and the other person I was replying to earlier.

[jameseoakes]

Tell that to those who keep making statements like this:



and the other person I was replying to earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-exclude-women there's an example, this kinda thing keeps happening of varying scale

[Joven]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-exclude-women there's an example, this kinda thing keeps happening of varying scale

You miss the part where that university was caught and called out on their actions. This shows that those actions are not tolerated. Unfortunately the article didn't say what penalties the university accrued due to their actions. Hopefully a hefty fine at the least and a loss of their accreditation at best. This also isn't proof of widespread discrimination on either a national or global scale.

[VirusOnline]

Tell that to those who keep making statements like this:



and the other person I was replying to earlier.

Apologies, I slammed that post button faster than a Google Lucky search.
I edited my post to respond to the rest of your comment.

Basically, you're right. People can simply so no to you despite what proof you bring. Have you seen the world today ? It's laughable. But then again, you hold a valid argument with a good foundation of sources. Those who refute with nothing ? Eh.