Values do not come from logic, and what is logical depends on our values.

So, how do you find out what your values are if not from observation and evidence?

If you think of MGTOW as a boycott until things improve, it's smart. If you think it's a permanent thing then you're delusional.

You can still argue for your own values, after all, most people don't realize values are not derived from logic. Values really come from your family, your culture and, hopefully, God.

my values aren't really from any of those that i can think of personally

If you value equality, you will see the differances of man and woman as a bad thing. If you value inequality, you will see it as a good thing. Both of these perspectives are equally logical, they both recognize the truth of the differance. However, they view it in different ways.

@ham addition Ideaologies can also have a value system.

that's true

i take my personal values more from my ideology than family, culture, or religion

but honestly it's mostly bc i don't believe my culture has any values in particular tied to it and i'm not religious

I derive my values from tradition. Why? Because I want to. You can list a bunch of things that you think are good with doing that, but, in the end, what you think is good is based on your values.

yeah

anyway about the original question

what would you mean by sexism

Well, I have reappropriated the word "sexism".

I don't mean that I hate women by it, but most of the things that are now seen as sexist, I see as good.

what sort of things would you mean by that

Not allowing women as rulers, for example.

how would that be an issue though

What do you mean?

women being rulers

That is not their role, it is not appropriate for them to be rulers.

i mean, some countries' arguably greatest leaders have been women

e.g. elizabeth i/victoria, catherine the great, maria theresa, indira gandhi, margaret thatcher, cleopatra, etc

you might disagree with a few of them, i know i certainly don't agree with thatcher, but you can't deny at least that they were good leaders

Take note on how most of those examples were monarchs.

They were born and bread to rule. Of course they would be atleast somewhat compitent even if they were women.

This does not change the fact that governance is not appropriate for women.

why isn't it appropriate for them though

what is it about being a woman that somehow makes you inherently worse in the exact same role as a man

It's not that they are worse as rulers, although most are, it is that it isn't approptiate.

And this comes from values

alright, then why is it not appropriate

and from my point of view i haven't seen female rulers doing any worse of a job than male ones so i'm not sure where you're getting that from

It isn't appropriate because my values say so. It doesn't make any sense trying to explain it after that.

It is so because it is.

well you're right about it not making any sense because i am thoroughly confuzzled

Like how peadophilia is wrong because it is. Not because children can't consent, they can, but because it simply is.

are you comparing women being rulers to pedophilia

i don't think those are remotely comparable

It is the same principle. Peadophilia is bad, so is female rulers (not to the same degree of course). Why are these two things bad? Well, they just are.