Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Feminism!

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rad_student)
    Ugh, name calling. Are you what they call a troll?
    Or did you forgot to write up the rest of your rational, well researched argument? There should be a mental age limit at least 4 years old & the capacity to learn before some people should post. Are you homophobic & discriminatory as well? Or just in need of contacting http://www.mindincroydon.org.uk/?
    I hope I have not made any assumption greater then your post? I find it difficult to get to your level without :banghead:.
    All this angsty, vitriolic writing full of pointless ad hominem and a picture to say.......... essentially nothing.

    OK I'll bite. Let's first talk about the women in the army thing (since that was the post I was replying to). He was saying that he does not agree that women should be on the front line on the basis that there should be no armies full top. It's hard to believe but that was literally his argument.

    Are you in agreement with such nonsense? I hope not.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    All this angsty, vitriolic writing full of pointless ad hominem and a picture to say.......... essentially nothing.

    OK I'll bite. Let's first talk about the women in the army thing (since that was the post I was replying to). He was saying that he does not agree that women should be on the front line on the basis that there should be no armies full top. It's hard to believe but that was literally his argument.

    Are you in agreement with such nonsense? I hope not.
    No I disagree with such nonsense. Have you had a look at my posts here (or on false rape allegations)? I am new to forums, that was my first picture!
    It wasn't an ad hominem attack, I was inferring that contributors should be mentally able to write an opposing/agreeing sentence, I made no assumption that you could so offered 'helpful' mental health direction to a local charity. The pic: I picked a troll with a small head (subtle?) & put a face to you for others to mentally see. Youtube guy said "Gay": wasn't that argumentum ad hominem on When you see it...?:confused: U implied it negatively, so inferred that you were saying being gay in a made-fun-of-way manner as bad; hence questioned if u were homophobic & discriminatory. So did I really say "essentially nothing," or did you not wanna analyse it(?) :rolleyes:

    Your only comments were "No" below my post & "For this and all your feminist posts I say this:" to When you see it... If u gonna disagree well say it properly. How about: how will the country defend itself, avoid other dictatorships, provide jobs for the army as they go back into civvies, when police/fireperson can't handle, etc. Just cause u think its the word of a madman/youngster/idealist/whatever, have the respect to address him. That is all.

    I think the more women are on the front line like they are allowed now in OZ (or NZ?) the less fighting there will be; all those bodybags & women with limbs missing. Won't be so heroic anymore.

    His recent post showed emotional dishonesty, probably I did not get it as am tired.
    "Why are there more men working in high-paying or competetive jobs when, if anything, more women should be working in these jobs (due to women being, on average, better qualified even ignoring intelligence/workrate)? Why are women payed less than men for the same job?"
    I'm not gonna pick on him, I'd hoped I had addressed this in my other posts as the nature of wo/men, along with posts #90 & 107, 126 & 128. If I was playing devil's advocate I would fail to win proper arguments For Modern Feminism as there is too much denial!

    "why shouldn't earnings be linked to effort?" Talent (Miss World, opera singers), uniqueness, networking, nepotism & luck (timing!) can play a part. Real world is not straightforward.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    All this angsty, vitriolic writing full of pointless ad hominem and a picture to say.......... essentially nothing.

    OK I'll bite. Let's first talk about the women in the army thing (since that was the post I was replying to). He was saying that he does not agree that women should be on the front line on the basis that there should be no armies full top. It's hard to believe but that was literally his argument.

    Are you in agreement with such nonsense? I hope not.
    No. No I wasn't. :facepalm:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    No. No I wasn't. :facepalm:
    If you abolish government and armies everyone will be on the front line everyday of their lives; it would be a return tribal society where instead of worrying about school grades etc, people will be worrying for fear of armed fighters raiding their settlements at night, or whether or not they'll be able to find food. Nations improve peoples lives because people want structure and they want security, in fact without nations the welfare state could not exist as it does today. If all nations were to be torn down, after many years they would just be rebuilt and all the violence and bloodshed which has led up to the relative security we enjoy today would happen all over again.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    No. No I wasn't. :facepalm:

    Originally Posted by I Persia I
    I hope you support the motion that female soldiers should be required to fight on the front line.


    No, I am against the idea of war and armies altogether. If we had a world country, there would be no international conflict, so there wouldn't be a 'front line', so this would be a non-issue.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    "Yet women are, on average, paid less despite being, on average, more intelligent and it is harder for women to gain power"

    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Why is the pro-life society thread associated with this group? I don't think many feminists would support the idea of taking away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Originally Posted by I Persia I
    I hope you support the motion that female soldiers should be required to fight on the front line.


    No, I am against the idea of war and armies altogether. If we had a world country, there would be no international conflict, so there wouldn't be a 'front line', so this would be a non-issue.
    I can see how you read it like that, but what I meant was that it isn't a hypothetical scenario I feel comfortable with. I do however think that women should have the same responsibilities as men (I think that was the implication of the question) but the thing is I don't like war so ignored the question.

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Why is the pro-life society thread associated with this group? I don't think many feminists would support the idea of taking away a woman's right to choose what she does with her body.
    I associated it with all the socs I was in/had started (I just did). I didn't specifically target it at this group.
    Also, you shouldn't associate feminism with a pro-choice viewpoint. Most iconic western feminists from the 20th and 19th centuries were pro-life (equally that doesn't mean you should associate feminism with a pro-life viewpoint).
    They are different issues and the sort of 'feminists' that mindlessly support abortion (i.e. just supporting it because they want to identify with the movement) are the same sort of 'feminists' who are ignorant as to the real-life issues affecting women today and only focus on petty pointless issues (i.e. they campaign against rappers who use words like c**t and pus** whilst ignoring people who use words like c**k (like any of these words are sexist anyway!) and they don't even know about (let alone campaign against) issues such as the gender pay gap).
    BTW please don't interpret this as me hating on your (pro-choice?) viewpoint, I just don't accept the notion that feminism and abortion are linked. What proportion of aborted foetuses are female?
    Anyway, this thread isn't really for discussion about abortion so what I will say is that I respect your viewpoint and ask you to respect mine (rather than implying that it is in some way 'wrong' or 'incompatible' with feminism).
    • 62 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    I can see how you read it like that, but what I meant was that it isn't a hypothetical scenario I feel comfortable with. I do however think that women should have the same responsibilities as men (I think that was the implication of the question) but the thing is I don't like war so ignored the question.


    I associated it with all the socs I was in/had started (I just did). I didn't specifically target it at this group.
    Also, you shouldn't associate feminism with a pro-choice viewpoint. Most iconic western feminists from the 20th and 19th centuries were pro-life (equally that doesn't mean you should associate feminism with a pro-life viewpoint).
    They are different issues and the sort of 'feminists' that mindlessly support abortion (i.e. just supporting it because they want to identify with the movement) are the same sort of 'feminists' who are ignorant as to the real-life issues affecting women today and only focus on petty pointless issues (i.e. they campaign against rappers who use words like c**t and pus** whilst ignoring people who use words like c**k (like any of these words are sexist anyway!) and they don't even know about (let alone campaign against) issues such as the gender pay gap).
    BTW please don't interpret this as me hating on your (pro-choice?) viewpoint, I just don't accept the notion that feminism and abortion are linked. What proportion of aborted foetuses are female?
    Anyway, this thread isn't really for discussion about abortion so what I will say is that I respect your viewpoint and ask you to respect mine (rather than implying that it is in some way 'wrong' or 'incompatible' with feminism).
    Liberation movements are about opposing oppression, whatever form it may take, against a particular group, the reason I imagine many feminists campaign against words like "****" are the same reasons LGBT movements campaign against homophobic language or that ethnic minorities campaign against racist and xenophobic language, the words themselves are not neccesarily the issue, but the fact they exist and are used the way they are in our culture/society is an issue as it represents an aspect of oppression of certain groups, the reason this is not the same for words like "cock" is because men are not and have not been oppressed because of their gender in our culture/society. the gender pay gap is something I think pretty much all feminists would agree on though, though different people may have different views and approaches to tackling this issue. I think you will also find that female feminists are rarely pro-life...certainly I have yet to meet one.

    I am pro-choice btw, I do not believe that women should be told what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, whether people approve of it or not.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    I associated it with all the socs I was in/had started (I just did). I didn't specifically target it at this group.
    Also, you shouldn't associate feminism with a pro-choice viewpoint. Most iconic western feminists from the 20th and 19th centuries were pro-life (equally that doesn't mean you should associate feminism with a pro-life viewpoint).
    They are different issues and the sort of 'feminists' that mindlessly support abortion (i.e. just supporting it because they want to identify with the movement) are the same sort of 'feminists' who are ignorant as to the real-life issues affecting women today and only focus on petty pointless issues (i.e. they campaign against rappers who use words like c**t and pus** whilst ignoring people who use words like c**k (like any of these words are sexist anyway!) and they don't even know about (let alone campaign against) issues such as the gender pay gap).
    BTW please don't interpret this as me hating on your (pro-choice?) viewpoint, I just don't accept the notion that feminism and abortion are linked. What proportion of aborted foetuses are female?
    Anyway, this thread isn't really for discussion about abortion so what I will say is that I respect your viewpoint and ask you to respect mine (rather than implying that it is in some way 'wrong' or 'incompatible' with feminism).
    I realise that feminists are not a homogeneous group with one view point on everything, but I have difficulty reconciling feminism with pro-life arguments. It seems like the ultimate act of oppression to me - forcing a woman to have a baby she does not want is a massive step backwards in terms of women's rights. I also don't know how you can think that feminism and abortion aren't linked. Legalised abortion and increasing availability of contraception had a greater impact on most women's lives than the right to vote did. However, I accept that some feminists have different opinions to me, and that doesn't mean they're not feminists.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    You can prove that the average man is stronger than the average woman and it's possible to prove (if indeed it is the case) that the average woman is more intelligent than the average man, but you cannot. As james22 said, the differences in academic attainment at school can easily be explained by the faster maturation rates of females. As for the idea that women work harder and should thus be paid more, firstly earnings are not and should not be linked to effort anyway, and secondly, measuring how hard a person works is pretty difficult to do meaningfully, but I would welcome a link to a study. You should also note that young women earn more than young men and the evidence for a national conspiracy against women by men is wearing thin indeed.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-2364675.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...y-shrinks.html

    This idea that women are not physically less strong but are more intelligent is in no way, "self-evident" you can gather evidence to support or refute both these things.

    You should also be aware that in the UK paying a woman less for doing the same job is illegal and so with a few notable exceptions where the employer is now having his/her ass sued, this probably isn't a national epidemic.
    There's also the point that men are more likely to do degrees involving maths, and that such degrees offer better employability (on average) than a good majority of arts degrees.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    There's also the point that men are more likely to do degrees involving maths, and that such degrees offer better employability (on average) than a good majority of arts degrees.
    Agreed.

    I think most things which the, "progressive" left puts down to discrimination/classism can be explained in similar ways. Do you think it's possible than generally speaking a man's brain can think in the more concrete ways required to excel is such areas?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    Liberation movements are about opposing oppression, whatever form it may take, against a particular group, the reason I imagine many feminists campaign against words like "****" are the same reasons LGBT movements campaign against homophobic language or that ethnic minorities campaign against racist and xenophobic language, the words themselves are not neccesarily the issue, but the fact they exist and are used the way they are in our culture/society is an issue as it represents an aspect of oppression of certain groups, the reason this is not the same for words like "cock" is because men are not and have not been oppressed because of their gender in our culture/society. the gender pay gap is something I think pretty much all feminists would agree on though, though different people may have different views and approaches to tackling this issue. I think you will also find that female feminists are rarely pro-life...certainly I have yet to meet one.

    I am pro-choice btw, I do not believe that women should be told what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, whether people approve of it or not.
    The words aren't used with sexist intent though. It is often different for words like '******' or 'faggot' (I have left these uncensored to test the swear filter) as these do have racist/homophobic undertones. I do see where you're coming from though, but I believe in unconditional free speech even if people are racists/homophobes/fascists/any other label that is negative by consensus/etc.
    So basically I think it is wrong to try to censor words, even if they upset people.
    Also, just because many feminists are pro-choice, that doesn't mean that the movements should be associated with each other. They are different issues.

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    I realise that feminists are not a homogeneous group with one view point on everything, but I have difficulty reconciling feminism with pro-life arguments. It seems like the ultimate act of oppression to me - forcing a woman to have a baby she does not want is a massive step backwards in terms of women's rights. I also don't know how you can think that feminism and abortion aren't linked. Legalised abortion and increasing availability of contraception had a greater impact on most women's lives than the right to vote did. However, I accept that some feminists have different opinions to me, and that doesn't mean they're not feminists.
    Well to me forcing an unborn female child to die is an 'ultimate act of repression' and a 'massive step back in women's rights'. See what I did there?
    I accept your opinion and understand why you hold it, but you seem to not know where I am coming from. If, hypothetically, you believed that a foetus had the same rights as a grown person, would you support abortion? I think that is the most fundamental difference between our viewpoints. You believe that they don't have the same rights yet I do. The rest of our viewpoints stem from that (would you beg to differ?). You need not consider the relevance of abortion to women's rights when forming your opinion.
    BTW I am definitely in favour of contraception. :yes:
    Also, I don't think that abortion should be made illegal - it would still happen either way. I do however think that people should make more of an effort to use contraception and perhaps favour adoption over abortion in the event of rape/failed condom/accident/etc.
    I can go into more detail about my perspective if you like?

    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    I think you will also find that female feminists are rarely pro-life...certainly I have yet to meet one.
    Again, I don't think that matters (why should I be pro-choice just because most feminists are?) but seing as people will keep fixating on this, here are a few historical feminists who were pro-life (not that it matters, but I just want to show you that old school feminists had radically different views on abortion to the likes of Gloria Steinem et al. and perhaps give you some idea as to why I don't think that the issues of women's rights and abortion should be conflated):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-lif...tury_feminists
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliet_Stillman_Severance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony (her opinion is heavilly disputed though)
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/
    http://www.feministsforlife.org/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminists_for_Life
    ...and a more modern example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    I know you never said that, I'm just saying that it is an axiomatic fact and that I believe women being more intelligent is also an axiomatic fact.
    The statements on wikipedia are based on statistics, not facts, therefore I don't accept that as proof. I could provide you with statistics showing that women do better at school. Does that prove that they are more intelligent?
    It doesn't even matter - I am just saying that in general they are more intelligent and that in general men are stronger. I can't provide proof and neither can you, so get over it. It is my opinion based on what I have observed. You disagree- fine, but don't ask me to provide evidence as it is obviously subjective.
    (I know you will say that strength is objective, but just let it go - I merely used this as an (admittedly bad) example of how you can't prove this and that it just seems self-evident to me. Also, what I will say is how do you explain why women do better at school other than by concluding that they are more intelligent.)
    Even if they are not more intelligent, they are definitely harder working (one or the other or both - otherwise how would they do better at school?) and better qualified for jobs that there are a higher proportion of men working in. Therefore, regardless of whether you agree with me about intelligence, you have to see my point. Why are there more men working in high-paying or competetive jobs when, if anything, more women should be working in these jobs (due to women being, on average, better qualified even ignoring intelligence/workrate)? Why are women payed less than men for the same job?
    Will people stop fixating on this now?
    I'm going to tackle a couple of points you've brought up here (not all of them, because quite frankly I don't have the time to properly address all your points, but I'm sure other users have and will address them).

    Firstly. You claim that women being more intelligent than men is an axiomic fact that isn't based on statistics. I'm sorry but there appears to be a striking contradiction there. How on earth can you claim something to be true yet at the same time claim to reject all evidence for/against the claim. The claim is based on nothing. There's a phrase for that. It's called pulling it out of your a***.

    Secondly. The wage gap. It's a complete myth (well mostly complete, I'm sure there are a negligible amount of women who are discriminated against for their gender). Do you want to know the real reason for women being paid less on average? It's quite simple. PREGNANCY. The obvious result of this is that women have (on average) more time off than men. More time off means less time at work means less experience means less hours in (so lower earnings as a result) and a decreased chance of promotion (again due to less experience on average than her male co-workers who do not have maternity leave).

    And another thing. If employers could actually get away with paying women less for the exact same work. Do you think they'd ever employ men? You'd have to have a completely idiotic businessperson who would put personal prejudice above profit.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Completely for equality, but favouring women as many feminists do is just disgusting.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by When you see it...)
    You can't prove it because it is subjective - get ovr it. Also why shouldn't earnings be linked to effort? I believe that everyone should be payed the same, but if you had to pay people different amounts, surely effort is the criteria.
    Physical strength is certainly not subjective and neither is intelligence. I think you've defeated yourself here, as you claimed that, "on average women are more intelligent, but seem to think that intelligence is subjective. Now, even if intelligence is subjective (which it isn't ) you're being very dishonest in presenting women being of greater intelligence is an average, as surely something which is subjective can't be averaged and presented as being a fact?
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Agreed.

    I think most things which the, "progressive" left puts down to discrimination/classism can be explained in similar ways. Do you think it's possible than generally speaking a man's brain can think in the more concrete ways required to excel is such areas?
    It's been studied; they followed kids maths performance in the US up until they could choose extra classes...etc. Found that boys performed better...

    Did a few studies since then and found that teachers were more likely to encourage male students i.e. more likely to ask a boy for the correct answer....etcetc. There were more examples, but, yeah, it's very subtle. Math scores are slightly greater in favour of women in Sweden, which has better gender equality.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Agreed.

    I think most things which the, "progressive" left puts down to discrimination/classism can be explained in similar ways. Do you think it's possible than generally speaking a man's brain can think in the more concrete ways required to excel is such areas?
    You'd better not be the president of Harvard. You'll lose your job for asking questions like that.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article/20...n-and-science/

    "MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins ’64 said she felt physically ill as a result of listening to Summers’ speech at a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) luncheon, and she left the conference room half-way through the president’s remarks."

    How on earth can she claim to call herself a scientist when she objects the asking of a reasonable scientific question (the question being essentially is there a biological explanation for the reason that more men appear to excel in maths and science) just because it objects with her own views?
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    I'm going to tackle a couple of points you've brought up here (not all of them, because quite frankly I don't have the time to properly address all your points, but I'm sure other users have and will address them).

    Firstly. You claim that women being more intelligent than men is an axiomic fact that isn't based on statistics. I'm sorry but there appears to be a striking contradiction there. How on earth can you claim something to be true yet at the same time claim to reject all evidence for/against the claim. The claim is based on nothing. There's a phrase for that. It's called pulling it out of your a***.

    Secondly. The wage gap. It's a complete myth (well mostly complete, I'm sure there are a negligible amount of women who are discriminated against for their gender). Do you want to know the real reason for women being paid less on average? It's quite simple. PREGNANCY. The obvious result of this is that women have (on average) more time off than men. More time off means less time at work means less experience means less hours in (so lower earnings as a result) and a decreased chance of promotion (again due to less experience on average than her male co-workers who do not have maternity leave).

    And another thing. If employers could actually get away with paying women less for the exact same work. Do you think they'd ever employ men? You'd have to have a completely idiotic businessperson who would put personal prejudice above profit.
    Most of the issues you just brought up have been debated many times over on this thread. I still think the wage gap is unfair. Even if you disagree with me that women are more intelligent it is still wrong that they are paid less? No?
    IMO everyone should be paid the same, or at least have the same opportunities.
    BTW businesspeople are stupid. People always blame the bankers for stuff and call them greedy but I think that businesspeople (by comparison) get away with murder with the ridiculous amounts of money that they have for doing next to nothing - at least bankers work (although I agree that they earn too much, I just think that they are treated unfairly and are the target of most scapegoats).
    I know that I just went off on a tangent but oh well...
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PendulumBoB)
    Physical strength is certainly not subjective and neither is intelligence. I think you've defeated yourself here, as you claimed that, "on average women are more intelligent, but seem to think that intelligence is subjective. Now, even if intelligence is subjective (which it isn't ) you're being very dishonest in presenting women being of greater intelligence is an average, as surely something which is subjective can't be averaged and presented as being a fact?
    I never said it was a fact, I know that it is my opinion. Why are people fixating on this? I'll remove it if you really want (it is just my opinion after all ).
    ...and no, intelligence is not objective.
Updated: August 21, 2012
New on TSR

A-level results day

Is it about making your parents proud?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.