Gender equality

Scroll to see replies

Because, I'm not sure if you know this, but **** used to be pretty tough for women.

In comparison to what?

In comparison to men of the past who were forced to work hard laborious jobs from a very young age? Who were forced to go out there and defend their countries in war [certainly wars were very frequent back in the days]?

Only the top 5% of wealthy men were actually allowed to vote, the common man had no right to vote so really you can't say that women had no voting rights without the context of it. So voting really wasn't associated with gender but with wealth and status.

And are you serious? You're using a comedy film to prove that women weren't taken seriously? And how many comedy shows are aired today which reguarly show dads and men to be dumb bumbling idiots whereas they portray women as empowered and independent? What's the difference there?

Yes women had to depend on men for financial assistance because the economy/technology hadn't developed, and most of the jobs back in those days were hard labour in which men are far more efficient at doing than women, so of course it made sense for men to do those jobs and hence for the women to take care of the household duties. It's technology developed by men which allowed women to come into the workforce. Even now men represent 97% of all workplace deaths. Gender roles weren't made for some societal oppression for women they borne out of nature.

Marriage was a two way system, not a one way domination as many feminists and white knights paint it as.

It's point of view which really pisses me off, yes women had it tough in comparison to today, but men also had it a heck of a lot tougher.

Inb4 white knights.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 21

User414413

Original post by Ultimate1

In comparison to the rights and privileges that they have today, I don't deny that men had hard as well. But, this is a thread about women so I'm focusing on their trials and tribulations.

You might want to brush up on your electoral history, dawg. You're correct that generally the adult male population weren't really voting in the beginning for the most part however what you fail to neglect is the progress and the increase in percentage of the male population that was happening, by 1884, 60% of males householders were voting yet women weren't still voting. By 1918, all men over 21 could vote yet women had to meet multiple conditions to vote and the age was much higher for them.

Tut tut, look at what I said. I wasn't using the comedy skit to prove that women were treated like that, I was using it as a visual aid for my claims.

I agree with you on gender roles born out of nature, I've argued this multiple times and it's one of the reasons I hate the concept of patriarchy. But, your underestimating what women are capable of though, are you forgetting how much children were used? The fact that women took many of the traditionally male jobs whilst men were fighting in the world wars shows their capabilities.

Lol you're miscing to much, don't see too many white-knights around.

Reply 22

lightburns

Original post by conquer

Wow, that is shocking stuff. I'm getting tired of feminists using the No True Scotsman fallacy. Fact is feminism is filled with so many misandrists and people sexist against men or after female supremacy. Disregarding those feminists as radfems doesn't quite cut it. These "radfems" are a regular occurrence amongst feminist groups and see themselves as normal feminists. Hence I don't get why many people complain about people generalising feminism in a negative manner. The reality is the most feminists in the media/on the news and on feminist blogs express sexist misandrist "radfem" opinions and behaviour. And hence I don't know why people are eager to associate with such a shameful movement.

And although you're entitled to your opinion, I don't quite share your view that the split of feminism and MRA is justified. All it has done is cause a sex war. If gender equality is the ultimate goal, which includes both men and women, why not have both genders working under the same movement (e.g. egalitarianism)? Surely unity is better than division?

You might be interested in the 'Rights Advocacy Community', which is a new thing that Mr Cappadocia (a Tumblr MRA) is trying to set up and get going.

The premise is that although you're separated by whatever thing you're active in, you would be together under an egalitarian heading. The idea then is that everyone supports equal rights, and therefore everyone supports each other (no matter what the subject is).

You hear of it all the time. Women putting down men when they have the chance, US mixed race couples being homophobic even they were only able to marry in USA since 1967, homosexuals fighting alongside transsexuals then abandoning when they've got their slice of the cake. On and on it goes.

If everyone is fighting for equality rather than the furthering of their singular group (even past equality), then this should go a long way to stopping that sort of thing. I really hope egalitarian movements increase, which is why I'm watching the RAC carefully to see what happens.

Reply 23

Darien

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

...this is a thread about women so...

Right there is a huge problem with feminism and any modern gender discussion.

Anything mentioning of "gender equality" is hijacked by feminism's insistence that the only gender to be cared about is female.

This is NOT a thread about women. It is a thread about gender equality. In today's world, feminists can't name a single matter of legal discrimination against them whereas most aware men and women can list legal discriminations against men.

A thread about gender equality is about both (or 'all' if that's the way you see it) genders. It cannot be anything else.

Reply 24

Boopho

Original post by conquer

If gender equality is the ultimate goal, why split ourselves into different movements?

Because contrary to how many threads people start on here and how much they cry white straight males are not oppressed.

Same reason why we have gay/black rights groups and they are not called blanket terms for sexuality/race groups, because there are specific people who need focusing on.

Why can't men and women work together under one movement to improve men and women's rights?

Because I'm sorry but the oppression of women in places like India outweighs you crying about paying child support, it does. If men were oppressed as women I would advocate for this, but women need specific attention and to deny that is to deny sexism.

What is feminism's justification for focusing mainly on women's rights if gender equality is the ultimate goal?

Surely, if feminism continues to focus on women's rights while neglecting men's, their end goal is female supremacy, not gender equality?

Given that females all over the world don't have equal rights, and in the places that do they are constantly attacked, if not politically then socially.

There's no logic behind that. You can't fight for something 50/50 when the problems aren't 50/50.

Is it so difficult for men and women to form a movement that will address both men and women's issues?

No but it would focus mainly on women's issues, like feminism does given they face more oppression. Which is why it is good there is an MRA movement, what isn't good about it is them attacking feminism for only focusing on women and then going and only focusing on men.

It's interesting how you preach about coming together yet completely contradict yourself in the exact same post. Why are you only singling out feminists and not MRA activists for fighting for only men?

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 25

Boopho

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Hahaha, holy ****, this is hard to watch. It reminds me of all those guys in the "I need feminism" pictures.

Because a male who supports women's rights is bad why? :rolleyes:

Being male does not equal being a bigot. Oh look I'm a feminist sticking up for men, happy thread author?

Reply 26

User414413

Original post by Boopho

Because a male who supports women's rights is bad why? :rolleyes:

Being male does not equal being a bigot. Oh look I'm a feminist sticking up for men, happy thread author?

Yo dawg, if you look above you'd see I've pretty much said everything you said so it's not like I'm some sort of anti-feminist. These men go way beyond that and are ****ing pathetic and engaging in some vagina worship, makes me want to :puke:

. Look at this guy:

http://www.mgtowforums.com/forums/attachments/mens-general-discussion/1918d1351039858-get-ready-puke-why-we-need-feminism-ows-style-fem.jpg

His a ****ing misandrist ****.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 27

HarryJames

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

Because, I'm not sure if you know this, but **** used to be pretty tough for women. Like I recall them not being able to be able to vote, they struggled to find employment which meant they had to rely on men for financial support and they weren't seen as equal to men which meant men generally didn't take them seriously. They were treated like that little kid that gets paraded around for being cute when he tries to talk like a grown up. Here's a good example;

So this lead women to group with each other and try to achieve gender equality through this way. This is nothing new to women, blacks had the same struggle in America which is why they grouped together but this time to achieve racial equality.

Now you can argue that women should stop grouping with each other and group with men to fight gender equality as a whole but you can't ignore the context which made it important for women to group with each other and focus on fighting for their rights.

Sounds like a lot of pent up frustration there. I'm not sure if you know this but there were men in the late 19th/early 20th century who helped fight for women's rights.

Equality among groups is something that simply won't happen and it seems students in particular are particular idealist about them. There are areas where women have it easier and areas where men do

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

Boopho

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

. Look at this guy:

His a ****ing misandrist kunt.

And do you hold the contempt for women who want to be submissive wives and worship penis?

I don't find these men pathetic, what you posted was extreme, but the majority give sound reasons and show courage to stand up to the sexist/homophobic retorts used against male feminists.

Reply 29

User414413

Original post by Boopho

No and I don't hold contempt for men who want to be submissive husbands and worship vagina but these men aren't doing it in that sexual context. They are engaging in "spiritual worship" which is what makes me hold contempt for them.

Psh courage, takes courage to be a stereotypical college/university liberal standing up to oppression? Please, it takes more courage to be openly sexist/homophobic in college/university. And am I liberal whose against sexism/homophobia.

Reply 30

Boopho

Original post by Annoying-Mouse

College? He spelt opinion with two p's.

Most males don't call themselves feminist and it is made fun of so I do think it shows courage in the majority of the world, which is not a liberal university.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 31

conquer

Original post by Boopho

Because contrary to how many threads people start on here and how much they cry white straight males are not oppressed.

Typical feminist.

Completely ignorant to men's problems, especially white men, while spouting some casual racist crap.

Same reason why we have gay/black rights groups and they are not called blanket terms for sexuality/race groups, because there are specific people who need focusing on.

But they're minority groups. Women are not a minority in the West.

Well the main goal is to get females to have equal rights to males by the basic definition. What is MRA justification for focusing on mainly men when women suffer much worse than their alleged oppression?

No but it would focus mainly on women's issues, like feminism does given they face more oppression.

Prove women face more oppression than men and we can carry on debating.

Why are you only singling out feminists and not MRA activists for fighting for only men?

I've stated in the past that I disagree with MRA. I prefer egalitarianism. However, I've singled out feminism because it's mainstream, many feminists try to deceive people that feminism cares about men when it doesn't and many feminists are misandrists and have campaigned against men's rights.

Reply 32

chappers-94

Original post by Boopho

College? He spelt opinion with two p's.

Most males don't call themselves feminist and it is made fun of so I do think it shows courage in the majority of the word, which is not a liberal university.

no it don't being a feminist: feminism means no matter what, putting women first.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

Boopho

[QUOTE="Ultimate1;43320121"]In comparison to what?

In comparison to men of the past who were forced to work hard laborious jobs from a very young age? Who were forced to go out there and defend their countries in war [certainly wars were very frequent back in the days]?

Only the top 5% of wealthy men were actually allowed to vote, the common man had no right to vote so really you can't say that women had no voting rights without the context of it. So voting really wasn't associated with gender but with wealth and status.

Wealthy women were allowed to vote at that time?

Yes women had to depend on men for financial assistance because the economy/technology hadn't developed, and most of the jobs back in those days were hard labour in which men are far more efficient at doing than women, so of course it made sense for men to do those jobs and hence for the women to take care of the household duties.

Lol, I love how you're trying to rewrite history. So that explains why women weren't allowed in government how? Not to mention your complete omission of countries where sexist polices still exist, such as not being allowed to vote are still in place. But la de da de da sexism never happened. :rolleyes:

It's technology developed by men which allowed women to come into the workforce.

Because women could really develop it given their access to education. :rolleyes:

Gender roles weren't made for some societal oppression for women they borne out of nature.

How does nature stop women from getting an education, working or voting?

Marriage was a two way system, not a one way domination as many feminists and white knights paint it as.

Hence why it wasn't until 1993 until all fifty states revised laws to include marital rape.

It's point of view which really pisses me off, yes women had it tough in comparison to today, but men also had it a heck of a lot tougher.

You confuse factual recollection of history as a point of view. Men had it tougher, but you intentionally ignore that was due to poverty and not gender restrictions as well as the fact sexist countries still exist today which destroy the entire idiotic point of this post.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 34

Boopho

Original post by conquer

Typical feminist.

Why thank you, but I'm actually a sex positive feminist.

Completely ignorant to men's problems, especially white men, while spouting some casual racist crap.

Because recognising the reality that white straight men oppression is rare is so racist.

But they're minority groups. Women are not a minority in the West.

They don't have to be a minority, Asians aren't a minority they can still be oppressed.

Prove women face more oppression than men and we can carry on debating.

I've already proven that self evident fact, there's nothing to debate. All you people bring up is the same tired debunked and thoroughly addressed rhetoric.

many feminists are misandrists and have campaigned against men's rights.

But most are just normal women who want equality for all women around the world.

Reply 35

chappers-94

Original post by Boopho

Why thank you, but I'm actually a sex positive feminist.

Because recognising the reality that white straight men oppression is rare is so racist.

They don't have to be a minority, Asians aren't a minority they can still be oppressed.

I've already proven that self evident fact, there's nothing to debate. All you people bring up is the same tired debunked and thoroughly addressed rhetoric.

But most are just normal women who want equality for all women around the world.

Like the fact that male genital mutation is legal and male rape by women isn't even legally recognized? Yeah....

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

anarchism101

Original post by Boopho

Wealthy women were allowed to vote at that time?

Technically, yes, but the law made it almost impossible for women to own property. Basically, if you were a woman, you had to be either a dead rich man's widow or a dead rich man's unmarried daughter to vote.

Reply 37

conquer

Original post by Boopho

Because recognising the reality that white straight men oppression is rare is so racist.

You said white straight men are not oppressed. You couldn't be more wrong. Some face discrimination.

I've already proven that self evident fact, there's nothing to debate. All you people bring up is the same tired debunked and thoroughly addressed rhetoric.

It is not self evident in the West. Just because you say it's a fact doesn't make it so.

Show me the proof that women face more discrimination than men in the West, if not the world and then, we'll have a real debate.

Reply 38

truffle_girl

Original post by Boopho

I've already proven that self evident fact, there's nothing to debate. All you people bring up is the same tired debunked and thoroughly addressed rhetoric.

You've barely even TRIED to substantiate the claim. What are you talking about?

Hence why it wasn't until 1993 until all fifty states revised laws to include marital rape.

And in the UK, meanwhile, male rape wasn't recognised by law until 1994. What's your point?

Reply 39

Boopho

Original post by anarchism101

Source?

When the country was founded, in most states, only white men with real property (land) or sufficient wealth for taxation were permitted to vote. Freed slaves could vote in four states. Unpropertied white men, women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise. At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.