Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Men and women are equal

Announcements Posted on
Post on TSR and win a prize! Find out more... 10-04-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aftrglw)
    Are all people who fail to see you as the mouthpiece of truth and reason very biased, or just most of them?
    I never said he was biased for not agreeing with me, I have actually said he was biased, after what he said himself.

    (Original post by Mexican Red Knee)
    Then don't continue it, I've seen some of your other posts... you are just (urgh can't put the word to it). :facepalm:
    How can you comment on my posts with 5 warning points yourself? Weird to know I've got a stalker...



    Ok, let me explain why I think what you've said is biased.

    Why use the notion of media’s influence and people’s susceptibility to it, in a thread about men and women’s differences. How about actually making a constructive analysis about how the media influences both sexes?
    Instead of men attacking women’s defects and vice versa, why not a discussion with neutral people analysing how both sexes differ?
    When I said : "If you think that the media is a representation of today's society and not the opposite.."
    What I meant is that I do not think of the media as being a reliable source for someone to build their notion of today's society. Even though I do believe some groups of society do base their identity on what the media represents of their age group, sex etc.
    If you actually understood my statement, you would realize there is nothing suggesting that I believe that "the media is somehow detached and divested in the society it seeks to profit from".
    I just believe there is more to society that is not necessarily shown by the media, so why create a notion of today's women based on what the media is trying to represent as being today's women, if you said it yourself: the media is a negative imprint of (amplified) societal values.
    Also, how is your generalisation any more useful than mine is, if both are derived from the same source? "media's negative imprint" They may not serve the same purposes but still, they are imprecise because of the sources chosen to derive to them.
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    " If that doesn't float your boat, you can easily attain figures that show that despite better academic performance, most top/high earning jobs are dominated by male positions, rather than any form of balance".
    I do not understand how the statement of yours is relevant to this discussion, as I actually asked you if you had conducted a research with the large majority of females in this country to claim what you said with such certainty.
    Anyhow, I am not going to explain the historical reasons for what you have said because I am sure that you must be aware that in the very recent past women did not have the same rights as men. And still today, some women and men think of women as being somehow less capable then men. Nevertheless, that did not stop many women get to top/high earning jobs.
    I do not see why "asking for an answer by quantitative means is a rather fruitless ambition", when your initial statement about women was not only qualitative but also quantitative, because you have included most women in your generalisation.
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    " That's exactly my point. 'Media bosses' do not think it would be fruitful to do so, because that's not what women buy into. It's not the 'media bosses' to blame, it's the populous. If there is a demand for it, it'll translate into a wider public consciousness and that'll be reflected across media formats.
    This is where I disagree most; I actually think that it is the media bosses to blame for which sort of series is shown. How would they feed today's capitalism, if they did not show Sarah Jessica Parker's obsession of shoes and idealised her for millions of young girls watching her on tv?
    Ok you might say: “ If millions of girls did not watch sex and the city, media bosses would not show such series” Well girls and boys are bombarded with advertising, soap operas, tv series, music videos and lyrics from an early age to be conditioned to behave in a certain way. Or do you think that people today grow up in a completely neutral society/media and then choose to be manipulated by the media into behaving in a destructive way?
    This issue is deeper than what you think and it is just very naive to use society’s vulnerability to the media as a sort of feature of modern women because it also apply to men.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jessie*lou)
    How can you comment on my posts with 5 warning points yourself? Weird to know I've got a stalker...
    I got 5 for speaking my mind... so much for freedom of speech eh?
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Again, very little of what you're saying makes any sense or is in someway valid. I'll do my best to trundle through, making sense of what I can.

    (Original post by jessie*lou)
    Ok, let me explain why I think what you've said is biased.

    Why use the notion of media’s influence and people’s susceptibility to it, in a thread about men and women’s differences. How about actually making a constructive analysis about how the media influences both sexes?
    A) I would argue that my analysis is constructive
    B) I'm not making a point of 'how the media influences men and women'.

    I'm making a point about differences in attitudes between men and women and highlighting how broadcast media isn't helping in trying to make some form of balance.

    Instead of men attacking women’s defects and vice versa, why not a discussion with neutral people analysing how both sexes differ?
    Ah I see what's going on here. You've taken offence to my commentary on female attitudes , and decided that it's an 'attack'. Two things; my discourse isn't an 'attack' and I'm not highlighting 'defects'. To imply that men and women have the same attitudes is nonsensical, and to judge that highlighting such differences is a bad thing because people like yourself are likely to get offended is equally nonsensical.


    When I said : "If you think that the media is a representation of today's society and not the opposite.."
    What I meant is that I do not think of the media as being a reliable source for someone to build their notion of today's society.
    It is though. In fact, it is incredibly reliable due to market forces. Due to the fact that we have an open market for our media consumption, our societal values show through what we choose to read, listen to and watch. It's ingrained in our media. And that's why films, TV shows, books and music are such money makers; producers plow millions into capturing the market just right, because they are incentivised to do so.

    Even though I do believe some groups of society do base their identity on what the media represents of their age group, sex etc.
    If you actually understood my statement, you would realize there is nothing suggesting that I believe that "the media is somehow detached and divested in the society it seeks to profit from".
    See but you're making the folly of believing that dictated trends only work in one direction; from the media producers onto the people. And that, is fundamentally idiotic. The people feed into their media and vice versa. Lady Gaga for example, is just as much a product of us as consumers as we are of her. The reason she is successful is because we as consumers make the choice to do so, to buy her records. Such a decision is born out of our societal values, and is the reason that she isn't successful in markets where the societal values differ, such as Islamic nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia

    I just believe there is more to society that is not necessarily shown by the media, so why create a notion of today's women based on what the media is trying to represent as being today's women,
    Of course there is more to society. I never claimed that every facet of our being, every corner of our humanity is represented within the TV shows I highlighted. No, you're trying to draw a false conclusion based on a misinterpretation of the point I was making. If you go back and read again what I said, you would have noticed that I made a comment about female attitudes and highlighted shows that demonstrated those attitudes. I was referring to the link between appearance and female self-value and then pointed to the fact that shows like Gok Wan's Gok's Fashion Fix do little to nothing to re-address the imbalance of those attitudes. That said, the assertion you make that the media interpretation of female attitudes are wrong is absurd and moronic. The media are informed by the people they profit from. For some reason you seemed to have this notion that media formats are isolated from the people you say they are foisting their interpretations onto. No, the public and the people they are selling to are the very people they get their interpretation from. That's why, and I'll say this again: where the female attitudes change, so to does the media interpretation of those attitudes. That is the reason why the female identity and it's media interpretation are different in Bangladesh, Nigeria and Egypt than they are in Britain, the United States and France.

    if you said it yourself: the media is a negative imprint of (amplified) societal values.
    Also, how is your generalisation any more useful than mine is, if both are derived from the same source? "media's negative imprint" They may not serve the same purposes but still, they are imprecise because of the sources chosen to derive to them.
    Okay, you appear to have misunderstood what I meant by 'negative imprint', so I'll let you off this one. I was using a metaphor to demonstrate my point. This metaphor being like a carbon copy, or an ink stamp (i.e. 'negative imprint'), not an imprint of female society that was literally 'negative' in its outlook.

    The generalisation is different because the assertion you're making is nonsensical, and that's the problem, not the source. That said, the generalisation you're using as evidence that the assertion that I'm making is invalid is as such: "men are only interested in the physical aspects of life, because there is a lot of men footballers". You leave out the fact that I'm not making an alienated statement without any addendum or factual basis. At this point, you're making very little sense and are failing miserably to demonstrate any useful point. Again, there is a distinction to be made between a useless generalisation, and a useful generalisation.

    I do not understand how the statement of yours is relevant to this discussion, as I actually asked you if you had conducted a research with the large majority of females in this country to claim what you said with such certainty.
    And I responded that a host of secondary research can be used to demonstrate my point. Are you actually asserting that no opinion is valid unless it is quantified by primary research because if so, you really shouldn't be on this forum (or even try to make a point against me).

    Anyhow, I am not going to explain the historical reasons for what you have said because I am sure that you must be aware that in the very recent past women did not have the same rights as men. And still today, some women and men think of women as being somehow less capable then men. Nevertheless, that did not stop many women get to top/high earning jobs.
    At this point, I presume your cat is typing for you, because you're barely making a coherent point.

    A) I'm highlighting the fact that discussion needs to be taken off events that happened during the early 20th Century and moved into contemporary current events

    B) Female abilities aren't the same as their male counterparts. That's why women don't serve in front-line combat positions in the British armed forces.

    C) Women currently occupy only a tiny fraction of top positions at firms.

    If you actually read between the lines, I'm being defensive of female rights. However, you've extrapolated far more from my argument than I've even stated. I'm not making a statement about female capabilities.


    I do not see why "asking for an answer by quantitative means is a rather fruitless ambition", when your initial statement about women was not only
    qualitative but also quantitative
    , because you have included most women in your generalisation.
    :facepalm: I struggle to see how you're capable of dressing yourself in the morning given this assertion. If you weren't aware, the term 'most women' isn't a quantitative statement. You're asking me to provide 'statistical primary research' to defend my argument, though despite your apparent incapability to understand how nonsensical that is, I demonstrated how my assertions could be backed up. If you're not willing to listen to modern reason, don't bother replying.


    This is where I disagree most; I actually think that it is the media bosses to blame for which sort of series is shown. How would they feed today's capitalism, if they did not show Sarah Jessica Parker's obsession of shoes and idealised her for millions of young girls watching her on tv?
    Because they're not giant evil overlords determined to foist material down your unwilling gut. They listen to trends that WE dictate. They don't need to 'feed today's capitalism' because British women as a market force do that anyway. This obsession you have with 'media bosses' leads me to believed you must have been partially lobotomised. Do you really believe women have been watching TV shows against their own will?

    Ok you might say: “ If millions of girls did not watch sex and the city, media bosses would not show such series” Well girls and boys are bombarded with advertising, soap operas, tv series, music videos and lyrics from an early age to be conditioned to behave in a certain way.
    And being 'conditioned' doesn't take away free will. Let's say argument sake, that we are all universally conditioned into zombies with no independence whatsoever. Even if we are, we still have a choice as to what we identify with. Which role models we chose, how we interact, what we find appealing. It just so happens that women, advertising or not, choose to identify with others based on their appearance and their sexuality. And the fact that you feel that highlighting that flaw, is an 'attack' shows you have no authority with which to speak on gender identities. The fact that all you want is to have contemporary female identity flaws whitewashed because it's not the narrative you want demonstrates that you can't have a sensible discussion about such matters. Using your logic, I can just as easily whitewash centuries of female oppression by saying 'men were conditioned to behave that way' and claim that anyone willing to highlight the fallacy of that behaviour is 'attacking' the male cause.

    Or do you think that people today grow up in a completely neutral society/media and then choose to be manipulated by the media into behaving in a destructive way?
    Of course we do. Placing a cake in front of a child and telling the child not to eat it may be manipulative, sure - and that's a valid point to highlight in another discussion, but at no point is the child's free will being compromised. Oddly enough you're the one making the generalisation here, the generalisation being that all humankind has the inability to make independent and rational decisions. Hey, if you're incapable of being in control of your own brain, that's your own flaw, but don't speak for others, let alone the entire female world. You have no right to do so, and frankly are an embarrassment to your own gender for thinking you can speak for them.

    And strangely enough, you've failed to demonstrate my 'bias'. If you can do so in single, one sentence argument, that'd be very helpful.

    :facepalm:

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By completing the slider below you agree to The Student Room's terms & conditions and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

    You don't slide that way? No problem.

Updated: June 3, 2012
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.