Dear All TSR Users, please read this, from a Feminist
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Jonny360
Hundreds of thousand of men have been forced to go to war. Conscription for men happened during both world wars and even going back to medieval times, men were expected to fight for their king or queen.
This is due to gender stereotypes (women: weak and for cleaning, men: strong and dominant), which are exactly what feminism is trying to dispel.
Typically, these stereotypes work in the favour of men. War conscription is one of the relatively few cases when it obviously doesn't.
Original post by Lord Frieza
What? So tell the man to keep his DICK in his pants?
What if the man is a civilian the woman meets while on patrol? And all military personnel have to serve a minimum amount of time, leaving is counted as desertion and you can go to prison for that. So what if a female soldier decides she doesn't want to stay in Afghanistan or some other God-forsaken country so she gets herself knocked up to get sent home and then gets an abortion? Or the soldiers are drinking and she has a drunken one night stand?
Original post by nivvy21
Ok, no problem.
Maybe not more oppression, but more serious oppression.
I have asked this question before: would men rather have a choice of education and of having a job or be like women, who in the past, didn't have a choice of education or a job, but to sit at home, like a pretty, chaste, perfect housewife, doing chores around the house and looking after the children?
Maybe not more oppression, but more serious oppression.
I have asked this question before: would men rather have a choice of education and of having a job or be like women, who in the past, didn't have a choice of education or a job, but to sit at home, like a pretty, chaste, perfect housewife, doing chores around the house and looking after the children?
I think feminism was incredibly important up until the past 20 years or so. Maybe only even the past 10 years. Key words are "in the past".
This theme still runs today: women are expected to be chaste, but if they sleep around: they're a slut, whereas if men sleep around they're a 'stud' or 'lad'
Again, this is a point of disagreement. Slut shaming isn't about how much a woman has sex with a man, it's about how easily she offers her body to others. The reason why there's less "slut shaming" towards men is because it is harder for a man to get laid. We studied it in psychology and there is an evolutionary reason for it, being that men, as the sex that holds the sperm and is therefore the instigator, had to compete for women more than women had to compete for men (it's also linked to various other things such as what women look for in men and vice versa, and the fact that it takes 9 months for a female to reproduce, whereas a man can have sex with many women and "reproduce" much faster). There are many studies, apart from the evolutionary side, that demonstrate that men are more willing to have sex where women aren't (thus it's more easier for a man to get laid than for a woman to), e.g. http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf . That is why there is a difference in how society perceives sex. If a guy has had lots of sex it is seen that he as accomplished a greater feat than a woman who has had lots of sex, because the woman could have just gone to a club every night and easily found someone to get with. Personal experience has shown me that it is the case that conventionally unattractive women can get men easier than even attractive men can get women; perhaps it's to do with a man's higher sex drive too. I would also point out that many guys, in my experience have been slut shamed. My friends are constantly being ribbed if they kiss someone deemed as unattractive etc (though I admit that's not necessarily the same thing). I also know of a few girls that have had lots of sex, and nobody slut shames them. I think slut shaming as an issue is blown out of proportion, like many feminist issues.
Im not saying women are a lot more oppressed than men, but just a bit more and this is more severe, as the oppression has been prevalent from the beginning of time. I'm not a Christian, but in one of the Genesis stories: Eve is created from one of Adam's ribs (I think) and the purpose of her creation was to be a helper to Adam.
That's a fairly held opinion, and I'm sure that you believe you have the evidence to back it up, just like I believe I have the evidence to oppose it. I don't believe that feminists like you are immoral or anything, I just believe we have interpreted information differently. I simply do not agree that women have more severe oppression any more (in the UK, anyway).
I don't disagree, I too believe there are extreme feminists that do need to calm down. But, to generalise and from that generalisation, to refuse to listen to any feminists, that is extreme. We are a society, men and women make up this society. Women wouldn't be here without men and men wouldn't be here without women. So, it makes sense to support feminism to even out the equality across both sexes.
I am not one of those people that doesn't listen to any feminists, but I know that there are many people that do that. I hold contempt for them just the same as feminists that generalise all anti-feminists. I can understand why, as someone that's interpreted the evidence as being 55% misogynist or whatever, you would want that to be flattened out and left at a 50/50 balance. If I interpreted it in that way, I would agree. But, for me at least, I really do see it as no one gender being more oppressed. I feel there are areas where women are oppressed and men aren't, but I feel that there are just as many areas where men are oppressed and women aren't, and I feel that neither gender's oppression is more severe.
People believe these extremists aren't a minority because they are a lot more publicised and outspoken for their views, so people don't hear the other 80% of feminists, who aren't as extreme and just want a fairly equal society.
Here's the thing, though: feminism is a movement (of many different ideologies, I might add) aimed at defending women's rights. The definition of feminism isn't "equality for all". It's "rights for women". So when you say feminists want an equal society, that is probably true, but they're basing that want on the assumption that women are more oppressed than men, and therefore the rights of women need to be addressed more than the rights of men. If that isn't the case then it is not feminism. It really irks me when feminists say "feminism isn't about women's rights it's about equality across all boards". EVERYONE wants equality across all boards (except the minority of bigots), the point is that we disagree on what to do in order to get there. There is no point in feminism if you're going to re-define it to be a gender-neutral movement. Look into the history and the politics and the various types of feminism, and you'll see that it is a movement aimed at liberating and giving rights to women. Which is fair enough, if you feel that that is what's necessary for equality to exist in society. But anti-feminists don't think that; they think that a movement dedicated to womens' rights is ignoring the fact (in their opinion) that there is just as much inequality directed towards men. And on top of this, many anti-feminists disagree with feminism in practice as well as in principle. Even if someone agreed that there is more inequality directed towards women, they might not agree with what modern feminism defines as inequality, and therefore wishes to get rid of.
Sexism is, of course, subjective. Its is based on discrimination and people have a right to be offended. So is racism.
What needs to be done is people need to be more aware of what they're saying and other people need to be more aware that such comments aren't serious.
Thank you for your opinion.
What needs to be done is people need to be more aware of what they're saying and other people need to be more aware that such comments aren't serious.
Thank you for your opinion.
I would like to point out that I have nothing against (most) feminists. I personally believe that we are all looking for equality, as much as it is possible, but we differ on our interpretation of society's prejudices. That's all it is: a different interpretation. Feminists see women as the most oppressed, anti-feminists don't. (Note: I'm not calling myself an MRA, because I don't feel that men are the most oppressed either, and I don't want to associate myself with a group that is sometimes as bad as radical feminism). I am possibly one of the most liberal people you will speak to. I believe in a global egalitarian society with no borders and no capitalist economy, little to no state, all in order to reduce the amount of artificial differences that cause such conflict on the earth: class, race, gender, religion, etc etc.
Original post by smile:D
I have to disagree with your 1st point: I think that ultimately this oppression is no longer as obvious as it once was, and is much more cultural than enshrined in law, but I still believe there are a number of issues, take the pay gap between men and women. I agree that in some areas, men are in a weaker position, e.g. in terms of child custody, but there are so many more cases where women are oppressed. Ultimately we need an equal society so both women and men must be treated equally.
I do feel that in some cases, yes, it has gone too far, but by the same token, surely if anything this is a reflection of the times and that, ultimately, while legal recognition has come for women, there are cultural barriers to true equality, especially in developing countries.
I do feel that in some cases, yes, it has gone too far, but by the same token, surely if anything this is a reflection of the times and that, ultimately, while legal recognition has come for women, there are cultural barriers to true equality, especially in developing countries.
We just disagree there, I think. I understand that feminists say there is a cultural sexism prevalent in society rather than an institutional one, but I disagree with that, too, to be honest. If we were going to debate about it it could take forever, because there are hundreds of examples of inequality that we would have to address. I've already said that I don't agree that rape culture exists, and I've explained slut shaming in my above response. I know it's commonly said, and is somewhat mocked by feminists when anti-feminists say it, but the pay gap is a myth.
I will say that, on your last point, I am in agreement (and who couldn't be?). The vast majority of the world is sexist. Go to Iran and try to argue that it's not a deeply misogynist society, and you probably wouldn't be able to get the words out of your mouth in revulsion at the moral dishonesty. But ultimately modern feminism is argued for in the western world, so that's what we have to discuss; not many would disagree that developing (and theocratic, I might add) countries are sexist.
Original post by Lord Frieza
It's not, there is an increasing rate of sexual abuse and rape crimes against women, which pretty much matches what she says.
That's not what she said at all. She said having no strings attached sex (consensual) is bad because it treats people like sex objects. Who is she to decide if the reasons two people want to have consensual sex are good or bad?
Original post by nivvy21
Fair enough, my apologies, I was assuming that men brought the term slut to society, as it does not make sense for women to call other women sluts
And well done, youtube is a really credible and trustworthy source!
Not.
And well done, youtube is a really credible and trustworthy source!
Not.
A you're not a very trustworthy source either! This whole thread is just an opinion piece. "Both men and women suffer but women have it a bit worse.". "Once we get down from 55% to 50% then the genders will be equal.".
Complete and utter nonsense.
Original post by Lord Frieza
Did I say that? Stop making up rubbish.
While someone was insinuating that 'females getting pregnant' causes expenses and more troubles, I can easily argue that the sperm that causes fertilising plays a key ROLE and can also be prevented.
While someone was insinuating that 'females getting pregnant' causes expenses and more troubles, I can easily argue that the sperm that causes fertilising plays a key ROLE and can also be prevented.
Sex is going to happen whether it's convenient or not. You can't just stop human beings having sex (or indeed, developing romantic relationships) on a lengthy tour of wherever.
I can't see it being that frequent an occurrence though, if everyone is provided with contraception. Hardly the problem the poster was suggesting.
TBH i'm a feminist and I do think that there are inequalities between men and women. But I think that the main difference between the genders is that they are discriminated against in different ways. For example, men find it harder to gain custody of children whereas womens' wages tend to be lower. Even still, I think women have it slightly worse off, but not drastically. Men use women and women use men, just in different ways. Hell, i've used a male friend of men as a sex object just as much as he used me. I think the main problem is that each gender doesn't consider the hardships that the other gender faces. So in that sense i'm a feminist as I want equality (although think that compared to the past, we're not that unequal at all) but i'm also an equalitist (no clue what it's called....so made a word up 
) as I want men AND women not to be discriminated against in all areas of society.
So basically, inequality:
Men 50%
Women 55%
and I want:
Men 0%
Women 0%
) as I want men AND women not to be discriminated against in all areas of society.So basically, inequality:
Men 50%
Women 55%
and I want:
Men 0%
Women 0%
Original post by nivvy21
Not chaste per se, but women aren't exactly allowed to sleep around. Im not denying girls don't call other girls sluts, but it originated from men, who used sluts (prostitutes) for sexual favours and likened it to women who sleep around. Exactly, most men want no strings attached sex, theyre using women as sexual objects and then, later wanting them to be exclusive to them only (say in a marriage)
See, now you sound like you have an agenda. It's 2014 now; this happens equally with women as it does men. Over the past 2 years, 3 of the women I've been interested in were only interested in NSA and nothing more.
Original post by nivvy21
Fair enough, my apologies, I was assuming that men brought the term slut to society, as it does not make sense for women to call other women sluts
And well done, youtube is a really credible and trustworthy source!
Not.
And well done, youtube is a really credible and trustworthy source!
Not.
It's not about whether Youtube itself is a credible source but whether the the people and content in the actual video are credible or trustworthy.
Original post by Катя
The options are limited, though, especially if the father is a) no longer involved with the kid's life or b) full-time childcare/nannies etc are not affordable.
Ok. I agree with that.
That is why affordable/free childcare like in Sweden for working mothers should be looked into.
Original post by pmc:producer
You're such a nice person man, it saddens me that you can't form a proper argument! 
Also, to any extreme feminists reading my replies, unless it is absolutely necessary, please refrain from talking to me. I'm talking to Nivvy directly here, not a group of hormonal 16 year old men-haters. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think feminists have a hard time because the exaggerate everything. Nivvy, why if the purpose of a true feminist is to promote equality, are feminists campaigning to ban 'lads mags' from the top shelf?
What purpose does that serve? The woman in said magazines (sometimes extremely famous actors, singers etc) have chosen to accept work (and actually really enjoy it) - isn't that counter productive and actually making woman feel like the should be embarrassed about working for well established magazines (such as FHM), or that their sleazy for doing a photoshoot/interview? No to mention putting more woman out of work?
This of course is only one example of what makes the majority of feminists I've encountered tiresome.
Also, about gender inequality in the workplace, of course this is unfair. But woman are at a massive disadvantage in that they are more prone to fall pregnant and take time off that guys (for obvious reasons haha!). And no, of course woman shouldn't be viewed as 'risky' for this, but in a world where time is money, this is the sad reality. A lot of the gender pay gap is down to men negotiating better, should men really be subjected to scrutiny for this?
Finally, I think the word 'feminist' has been tarnished. It now in effect, means 'man hater' (be it in a jokey fashion or not) when in fact, it should have nothing to do with hating men - if it wasn't for men, feminists wouldn't have a voice right now.
It's about promoting equal opportunities for both sexes - something more people than not advocate! If the TSR feminists focused more on cooperating with males than working against them, they'd go much further.
Also, to any extreme feminists reading my replies, unless it is absolutely necessary, please refrain from talking to me. I'm talking to Nivvy directly here, not a group of hormonal 16 year old men-haters. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think feminists have a hard time because the exaggerate everything. Nivvy, why if the purpose of a true feminist is to promote equality, are feminists campaigning to ban 'lads mags' from the top shelf?
What purpose does that serve? The woman in said magazines (sometimes extremely famous actors, singers etc) have chosen to accept work (and actually really enjoy it) - isn't that counter productive and actually making woman feel like the should be embarrassed about working for well established magazines (such as FHM), or that their sleazy for doing a photoshoot/interview? No to mention putting more woman out of work?
This of course is only one example of what makes the majority of feminists I've encountered tiresome.
Also, about gender inequality in the workplace, of course this is unfair. But woman are at a massive disadvantage in that they are more prone to fall pregnant and take time off that guys (for obvious reasons haha!). And no, of course woman shouldn't be viewed as 'risky' for this, but in a world where time is money, this is the sad reality. A lot of the gender pay gap is down to men negotiating better, should men really be subjected to scrutiny for this?
Finally, I think the word 'feminist' has been tarnished. It now in effect, means 'man hater' (be it in a jokey fashion or not) when in fact, it should have nothing to do with hating men - if it wasn't for men, feminists wouldn't have a voice right now.
It's about promoting equal opportunities for both sexes - something more people than not advocate! If the TSR feminists focused more on cooperating with males than working against them, they'd go much further.Haha, thanks, if that wasn't sarcastic! It wasn't really an argument, but stating what I thought, in my defence
I don't agree with completely banning lad mags, but I can understand they may view lad mags as using women as sexual objects.
Understandable about the point it may put more women out of work.
Some women feel that overly sexual people, like Rihanna who pose for lad mags regularly mis-represent all females and so guys think that we like to be used as sexual objects, e.g. wolf-whistling, groping in clubs, porn, prostitutes, rape, etc
Maybe we should invest more time and resources in helping women to become more successful and better business people (ie negotiating)
I agree, men give feminists a voice, but a wrong voice. Men only respond to the extreme-feminists and thus, extreme feminists are too publicised and feminists are mis-represented!
Im here to work with men. All those who agree, quote and say aye
Original post by Machop
Feminism was relevant back in the day when women were not allowed to work, had no education, no right to vote etc. All these problems have been addressed by the law. Feminism has now effectively been hijacked by the fundamentalists to favor women. And not all women are feminists anyway
Didn't say they were all feminists, most have feminists ideas. But, inequality still remains.
Original post by nivvy21
Didn't say they were all feminists, most have feminists ideas. But, inequality still remains.
yes for bother genders and unfortunately feminism only focuses on one of them, so you never reach true equality.
Original post by nivvy21
I agree, men give feminists a voice, but a wrong voice. Men only respond to the extreme-feminists and thus, extreme feminists are too publicised and feminists are mis-represented!
I can't believe you're just lapping up a comment that basically gives men credit for the women's movement's successes and almost begs a 'thank you' for men being so generous as to allow it to exist.
Edit: So much fail in this thread, both from people claiming to push feminist ideas while often coming out with crap that would make most feminists shudder/bang their heads against a wall, and other people revealing rather dreadful views. Obviously there are lots of reasonable people somewhere in the middle, but... for now... (in the voice of Duncan Bannatyne) I'm out.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by CJKay
See, now you sound like you have an agenda. It's 2014 now; this happens equally with women as it does men. Over the past 2 years, 3 of the women I've been interested in were only interested in NSA and nothing more.
Agenda? Please expand and are you saying women and men are now truly equal. I can understand that, but not all women want to have NSA and some may take the chance because NSA is all they are offered?
Original post by Prandtl
A you're not a very trustworthy source either! This whole thread is just an opinion piece. "Both men and women suffer but women have it a bit worse.". "Once we get down from 55% to 50% then the genders will be equal.".
Complete and utter nonsense.
Complete and utter nonsense.
Yes, it is my opinion. And judging by the rep on the OP, a few other's opinion too.
That is your opinion and I am not judging.
Original post by Machop
yes for bother genders and unfortunately feminism only focuses on one of them, so you never reach true equality.
feminism, by definition focuses on both.
Original post by pmc:producer
You're such a nice person man, it saddens me that you can't form a proper argument!
Also, to any extreme feminists reading my replies, unless it is absolutely necessary, please refrain from talking to me. I'm talking to Nivvy directly here, not a group of hormonal 16 year old men-haters. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think feminists have a hard time because the exaggerate everything. Nivvy, why if the purpose of a true feminist is to promote equality, are feminists campaigning to ban 'lads mags' from the top shelf?
What purpose does that serve? The woman in said magazines (sometimes extremely famous actors, singers etc) have chosen to accept work (and actually really enjoy it) - isn't that counter productive and actually making woman feel like the should be embarrassed about working for well established magazines (such as FHM), or that their sleazy for doing a photoshoot/interview? No to mention putting more woman out of work?
This of course is only one example of what makes the majority of feminists I've encountered tiresome.
Also, about gender inequality in the workplace, of course this is unfair. But woman are at a massive disadvantage in that they are more prone to fall pregnant and take time off that guys (for obvious reasons haha!). And no, of course woman shouldn't be viewed as 'risky' for this, but in a world where time is money, this is the sad reality. A lot of the gender pay gap is down to men negotiating better, should men really be subjected to scrutiny for this?
Finally, I think the word 'feminist' has been tarnished. It now in effect, means 'man hater' (be it in a jokey fashion or not) when in fact, it should have nothing to do with hating men - if it wasn't for men, feminists wouldn't have a voice right now. It's about promoting equal opportunities for both sexes - something more people than not advocate! If the TSR feminists focused more on cooperating with males than working against them, they'd go much further.
Also, to any extreme feminists reading my replies, unless it is absolutely necessary, please refrain from talking to me. I'm talking to Nivvy directly here, not a group of hormonal 16 year old men-haters. Thank you for your cooperation.
I think feminists have a hard time because the exaggerate everything. Nivvy, why if the purpose of a true feminist is to promote equality, are feminists campaigning to ban 'lads mags' from the top shelf?
What purpose does that serve? The woman in said magazines (sometimes extremely famous actors, singers etc) have chosen to accept work (and actually really enjoy it) - isn't that counter productive and actually making woman feel like the should be embarrassed about working for well established magazines (such as FHM), or that their sleazy for doing a photoshoot/interview? No to mention putting more woman out of work?
This of course is only one example of what makes the majority of feminists I've encountered tiresome.
Also, about gender inequality in the workplace, of course this is unfair. But woman are at a massive disadvantage in that they are more prone to fall pregnant and take time off that guys (for obvious reasons haha!). And no, of course woman shouldn't be viewed as 'risky' for this, but in a world where time is money, this is the sad reality. A lot of the gender pay gap is down to men negotiating better, should men really be subjected to scrutiny for this?
Finally, I think the word 'feminist' has been tarnished. It now in effect, means 'man hater' (be it in a jokey fashion or not) when in fact, it should have nothing to do with hating men - if it wasn't for men, feminists wouldn't have a voice right now.
It's about promoting equal opportunities for both sexes - something more people than not advocate! If the TSR feminists focused more on cooperating with males than working against them, they'd go much further."If it wasn't for men, feminists wouldn't have a voice right now"
If it wasn't for men, feminists would never have even had to exist. Men were the ones who've denied women basic rights for centuries. Your statement literally makes no sense.
"...down to men negotiating better"
Why do you state that men are "better" than women at this like it's a fact?
See:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/women-as-directors-beat-men-only-boards-in-company-stock-return.html
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/returns-at-hedge-funds-run-by-women-beat-the-industry-report-says/?_r=0
"Hormonal 16-year olds" "man-haters"
...sorry, what?
"why if the purpose of a true feminist is to promote equality, are feminists campaigning to ban 'lads mags' from the top shelf?"
Because where are the "gals mags" with naked men on the top shelf? Why are women usually seen as the object and not in the subject in the porn industry?
Original post by Ronove
I can't believe you're just lapping up a comment that basically gives men credit for the women's movement's successes and almost begs a 'thank you' for men being so generous as to allow it to exist.
Excuse me? Please expand, I don't understand. Its true, if men didn't react so outrageously, no one would care!
Original post by felamaslen
Dear all feminists, please move to Somalia where you are much needed.
Women in Somalia are still at stage one of the fight for gender equality, so to speak: basic rights. Women in Britain are at stage three: the fight for gender equality on a more subtle/social level.
See: difference between first-, second-, and third-wave feminism.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
