The Student Room Group

Is a male feminist more likely to date a more masculine woman?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by joecphillips
There are stereotypes about everyone, if the door is open and they don't go through it then they can only blame themselves, there are 2 threads recently on this forum where people have tried to talk males out of going into their chosen career paths but they took the path as they were committed. The opportunity is there for everyone if they do not have the mental strength to take it that is on them.

If you want to talk about the reason why people might be scared to go through the door I would say it is a self fulfilling prophecy when people tell you that if you go through a door you will be abused then that isn't really helping people go through the door is it?

It exists it isn't widespread unless you keep extending the definition like the bbc poll did. The rape case I linked earlier the victim had previously been sexually assaulted by the 'victim' but it was ignored for reasons if they were said to a woman would of caused uproar. It exists but it isn't a cultural thing people who sexually harass people are not exactly at the top of society's most liked people.

It is a fair point, labour do not hold female MPs to the same standards of men for nomination and they don't reach the top, I would suggest there could be a reason for that link, whereas nobody misses out due to sexual discrimination when you actively openly discriminate.

It does not show that there is gender discrimination it shows that there is problems with the way labour MPs are selected I'm sure there are plenty of male deserving candidates that miss out but that could possibly be because of the clear discrimination labour enjoy.

Also in rl I do not class my self as lib dem, labour, Tory or any other party I will vote for the party I feel is best at that time rather than being loyal to a brand.


So you're telling me that glass ceilings and the education system's failure to encourage little girls to pursue careers that have traditionally been exclusive to men is the fault of 'mental strength' on the part of those affected?

Extending the definition? So I presume a little bit of harassment is ok then?

That's moronic. More women reach Labour cabinets than Tory ones. Thatcher and May don't change that. I showed you the facts so you can 'suggest a link' all you'd like but it would be based wholly on your prejudices and not on reality.

"the clear discrimination labour enjoy" Bitter much? You say that it shows a problem with the way Labour MPs are selected and that's the very problem all-women short lists seek to correct.
Reply 41
Original post by RayApparently
So you're telling me that glass ceilings and the education system's failure to encourage little girls to pursue careers that have traditionally been exclusive to men is the fault of 'mental strength' on the part of those affected?

Extending the definition? So I presume a little bit of harassment is ok then?

That's moronic. More women reach Labour cabinets than Tory ones. Thatcher and May don't change that. I showed you the facts so you can 'suggest a link' all you'd like but it would be based wholly on your prejudices and not on reality.

"the clear discrimination labour enjoy" Bitter much? You say that it shows a problem with the way Labour MPs are selected and that's the very problem all-women short lists seek to correct.


If you want to talk about education failing a group that would be white working class boys who perform worst, do you want to talk about education failing them?

So you would prefer we become more like Mongolia where 59% of doctoral students are female and 49% of researchers than Sweden where the numbers are 48% and 37%?

The bbc ran a poll where it ended up classing has anyone looked in your direction and made you feel uncomfortable as harassment that is what I mean by expanding the definition once again you are changing what has been said to suit your argument.

No I say that the problem is how they are selected not the gender of who they select, If I ran a company and said to someone I'm sorry you can't apply for this job because you are a woman I would be sued to hell but you defend it the opposite way, 'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.' how is it justified to give preferential treatment to one group of people not the other?

You assume that it is because women are less likely to be nominated that it must be discrimination but there are many reasons why it could be.
Original post by joecphillips
If you want to talk about education failing a group that would be white working class boys who perform worst, do you want to talk about education failing them?

So you would prefer we become more like Mongolia where 59% of doctoral students are female and 49% of researchers than Sweden where the numbers are 48% and 37%?

The bbc ran a poll where it ended up classing has anyone looked in your direction and made you feel uncomfortable as harassment that is what I mean by expanding the definition once again you are changing what has been said to suit your argument.

No I say that the problem is how they are selected not the gender of who they select, If I ran a company and said to someone I'm sorry you can't apply for this job because you are a woman I would be sued to hell but you defend it the opposite way, 'the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.' how is it justified to give preferential treatment to one group of people not the other?

You assume that it is because women are less likely to be nominated that it must be discrimination but there are many reasons why it could be.


And immediately you revert back to this absurd idea that caring about one group means you don't care about the others.

Why would I prefer that?

I don't know what poll you're talking about, I was thinking of one YouGov ran that the BBC reported on.

I care about the results. That's why I stopped opposing all-women shortlists when it became clear that they put worthy candidates in when they may not be able to otherwise due to the fact that we don't live in a gender-blind society.

And what reasons are those?
Reply 43
Original post by RayApparently
And immediately you revert back to this absurd idea that caring about one group means you don't care about the others.

Why would I prefer that?

I don't know what poll you're talking about, I was thinking of one YouGov ran that the BBC reported on.

I care about the results. That's why I stopped opposing all-women shortlists when it became clear that they put worthy candidates in when they may not be able to otherwise due to the fact that we don't live in a gender-blind society.

And what reasons are those?


Because you clearly care about numbers and top research jobs in Mongolia are more evenly split between than in Sweden so if you care about the numbers that would mean that Mongolia is a more equal society than here.

I'm going to guess most of the candidates on the labour shortlists are worthy but not everyone gets a seat, maybe instead of looking at are they worthy people should look at are they the best?

This explains the problems with one of the surveys that you gov ran.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/take-the-uk-sexual-harassment-survey-with-a-grain-of-salt/article/2585236?custom_click=rss
The % are still to high but when it includes have you ever thought someone was staring at you as sexual harassment then it is going to far, also it only surveyed 889 women.

That people disagree with their stances on certain issues or they feel that someone else better represents them, I don't know about you but I would never vote for Jess phillips is that sexist? No it is because I oppose downplaying mass sexual assault (actually sexual assault not someone looked at me and I think it was sexual).

If you think the best way to make women successful is to tell them they can't do something so sit back while you sort it out fair enough but I think we are best by stopping the lies and telling women if you put the hours in and take engineering rather than feminist dance theory then you can be successful you have a chance to make it to the top it won't be easy it isn't for most people.
Original post by Anonymous
The girls who he does notice are the ones who are quite butch in body type and appearance who are very outspoken (especially on feminist issues), blunt, competitive, domineering and who drink and sleep around like 'one of the guys'.

Perhaps I am narrow minded but I really can't wrap my head around it. What are your thoughts?


This is probably just a case of "Different people like different things" and "Not all men are the same"

You describe yourself as having traditional values. For some of us, that's an immediate turn off. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with you, it's just not exactly what he's looking for in a life partner. You don't need to understand it, just move on
Original post by Another
This is probably just a case of "Different people like different things" and "Not all men are the same"

You describe yourself as having traditional values. For some of us, that's an immediate turn off. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with you, it's just not exactly what he's looking for in a life partner. You don't need to understand it, just move on
Another like feminine men who like to play dress up. Different strokes for different folks.
Original post by trustmeimlying1
Another like feminine men who like to play dress up. Different strokes for different folks.


Goodness, are you psychic?!?

But yeah, I prefer men that are kind and generous rather than popular and intelligent. I suppose society classes such people as "feminine" these days!
I'd imagine there's a correlation with male feminists and effeminacy/cucks

Quick Reply