Why do feminists hate women?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by the mezzil
No, social roles as in housewife or the submissive girlfriend, to the other end where the man should always hold the door open etc etc. These are obviously silly and outdated.
Males are stronger than females due to evolution. Men were always the hunters and fighters, so developed stronger Jaws, stronger muscles, stronger bones etc. Now it would be nice to think we could wish away these differences, but we can't, so we may as well accept them. That is the point I am making. Feminists don't seem to understand that men and women are physically not equal.
Males are stronger than females due to evolution. Men were always the hunters and fighters, so developed stronger Jaws, stronger muscles, stronger bones etc. Now it would be nice to think we could wish away these differences, but we can't, so we may as well accept them. That is the point I am making. Feminists don't seem to understand that men and women are physically not equal.
This is the point I am making: you are GENERALISING. Generalisations are useful to nobody but statisticians. Many women are perfectly capable of being physically stronger than many men. I'm an extremely weak person, most women I know are stronger than me.
But I've actually had a thought, just now. With the exception of perhaps certain professions, when does physical strength actually matter in the modern world? That seems to be your main point of contention with feminism, but I think most feminists, male and female, are in educated, less labour-intensive roles. Hell I think most people, everywhere in the first world, today operate in environments which don't require much exertion. Strength differences should have no bearing on your opinion of feminism.
Original post by SoftPunch
Oh, I will speak if I want. I obviously didn't mean every single one, but it would be ignorant not to get that in the first place. Also, this country is as equal as it can be - why don't feminists go over to Saudi Arabia and protest their rights there? 
1) Don't say all when you mean some, it's ignroant
2) No, this country is not equal
3) You seem to be under the impression that caring about inequalities in the UK means you can't care about inequalities in Saudi Arabia. Or you're making a straw man
Original post by MangoFreak
But I've actually had a thought, just now. With the exception of perhaps certain professions, when does physical strength actually matter in the modern world? That seems to be your main point of contention with feminism, but I think most feminists, male and female, are in educated, less labour-intensive roles. Hell I think most people, everywhere in the first world, today operate in environments which don't require much exertion. Strength differences should have no bearing on your opinion of feminism.
But I've actually had a thought, just now. With the exception of perhaps certain professions, when does physical strength actually matter in the modern world? That seems to be your main point of contention with feminism, but I think most feminists, male and female, are in educated, less labour-intensive roles. Hell I think most people, everywhere in the first world, today operate in environments which don't require much exertion. Strength differences should have no bearing on your opinion of feminism.
The only job I can think of is the army and perhaps the police force. I don't agree with less requirements for women, but if women can reach the same requirements as men, why not?
Also as a feminist I've never denied that men are stronger than women
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
1) Don't say all when you mean some, it's ignroant
2) No, this country is not equal
3) You seem to be under the impression that caring about inequalities in the UK means you can't care about inequalities in Saudi Arabia. Or you're making a straw man
2) No, this country is not equal
3) You seem to be under the impression that caring about inequalities in the UK means you can't care about inequalities in Saudi Arabia. Or you're making a straw man
1) Never said the word ''all''
2) That's why I said equal as it gets - start living reality
3) I'm pretty sure women in Saudi Arabia can't read your empathetic thoughts. I was talking about actions.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
The only job I can think of is the army and perhaps the police force. I don't agree with less requirements for women, but if women can reach the same requirements as men, why not?
Also as a feminist I've never denied that men are stronger than women
Also as a feminist I've never denied that men are stronger than women
The statement "men are strong than women" has no foundation, anyway. Unless there's a solid census of every human on the planet showing that no female is stronger than a male, I will consider the statement an overgeneralisation. It may apply to averages, but averages are worthless in everyday life. Nobody should be judging a person on the averages of a group to which they belong.
Original post by SoftPunch
1) Never said the word ''all''
2) That's why I said equal as it gets - start living reality
3) I'm pretty sure women in Saudi Arabia can't read your empathetic thoughts. I was talking about actions.
2) That's why I said equal as it gets - start living reality
3) I'm pretty sure women in Saudi Arabia can't read your empathetic thoughts. I was talking about actions.
1) But saying "feminists" implies all feminists
2) No, you can improve. There are always improvements
3) There are several campaigns that do help women in other countries so not sure what you point is
Original post by MangoFreak
This is the point I am making: you are GENERALISING. Generalisations are useful to nobody but statisticians. Many women are perfectly capable of being physically stronger than many men. I'm an extremely weak person, most women I know are stronger than me.
But I've actually had a thought, just now. With the exception of perhaps certain professions, when does physical strength actually matter in the modern world? That seems to be your main point of contention with feminism, but I think most feminists, male and female, are in educated, less labour-intensive roles. Hell I think most people, everywhere in the first world, today operate in environments which don't require much exertion. Strength differences should have no bearing on your opinion of feminism.
But I've actually had a thought, just now. With the exception of perhaps certain professions, when does physical strength actually matter in the modern world? That seems to be your main point of contention with feminism, but I think most feminists, male and female, are in educated, less labour-intensive roles. Hell I think most people, everywhere in the first world, today operate in environments which don't require much exertion. Strength differences should have no bearing on your opinion of feminism.
Obviously there will be outliers. Jessica Ennis is far faster than your average Joe blogs. But she has trained for years to get to her standard, and if you put her in the same league as a male who has trained to the exact same standard, it is likely the male will win. That is the point. On a level playing field, when there is biological differences, the one that has the benefit that biological difference that benefits them will win. It can be taken out of the sporting arena, and for example but into the world of work. A doctor has to multitask but concentrate very intensely. Now a woman's mind is far better suited than a mans mind for this, the same way a male would make a better investment banker than a female simply because a man is far more competitive and aggressive psychologically than a woman. That does not mean males or females should be discriminated against in opportunity, but in ability at the end of the working week, one sex will perform better on average than the other.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by MangoFreak
The statement "men are strong than women" has no foundation, anyway. Unless there's a solid census of every human on the planet showing that no female is stronger than a male, I will consider the statement an overgeneralisation. It may apply to averages, but averages are worthless in everyday life. Nobody should be judging a person on the averages of a group to which they belong.
I do agree with that, averages are a bad way to judge
Original post by imtelling
Of course. No one should be forced into roles. But, modern feminism shames those women who do want to conform to stereotype.
I suppose the most absurd example of this is the disdain feminism has for stay at home mums.
Barely a week goes by without a feminist venting their fury at stay at home mums. Just last month feminist wrote a piece called "I look down on young women with husbands and kids and i'm not sorry"
http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/
These feminists are angry at women for being, well, women.
The monkey research says us that its not social conditioning which makes male and female choose different toys but rather biological differences; in particular differences in the hormone testosterone.
I suppose the most absurd example of this is the disdain feminism has for stay at home mums.
Barely a week goes by without a feminist venting their fury at stay at home mums. Just last month feminist wrote a piece called "I look down on young women with husbands and kids and i'm not sorry"
http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/
These feminists are angry at women for being, well, women.
The monkey research says us that its not social conditioning which makes male and female choose different toys but rather biological differences; in particular differences in the hormone testosterone.
I've seen other research suggesting the opposite; that any of the very few psychological differences between the genders are miniscule. I'd link it but it's behind a pay wall.
I also really want to press a point here; you are completely generalising
You do realise that in the bolded section, you do effectively say that it's the natural state of the woman to be a housewife, right?
That piece is obviously not articulated very well, but it does raise a good point: there is SO MUCH social pressure on women to start families. It's actually ridiculous.
I agree in a way. If you look at the likes of Karen Brady, she's trying so hard to come across as some hard dominant business woman with a real cutting edge. I admire her ambition and enthusiasm to succeed but in ways it does seem forced because of the way she goes about it. I wouldn't say they hate 'women' but I'd say they do seem to want to put themselves on a pedestal. Whether thats right or wrong is different issue entirely.
I do think the whole thing has got out of hand tbh. A minority of women to either extreme cannot speak on behalf of all women, even more so when the opinions of these women vary so much.
I do think the whole thing has got out of hand tbh. A minority of women to either extreme cannot speak on behalf of all women, even more so when the opinions of these women vary so much.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
The only job I can think of is the army and perhaps the police force. I don't agree with less requirements for women, but if women can reach the same requirements as men, why not?
Also as a feminist I've never denied that men are stronger than women
Also as a feminist I've never denied that men are stronger than women
Sports
Construction
Stunt services
Engineering
Roustabout
Farmer
Sailor (fishing)
Mechanic
plenty more physically demanding jobs
Original post by the mezzil
Obviously there will be outliers. Jessica Ennis is far faster than your average Joe blogs. But she has trained for years to get to her standard, and if you put her in the same league as a male who has trained to the exact same standard, it is likely the male will win. That is the point. On a level playing field, when there is biological differences, the one that has the benefit that biological difference that benefits them will win. It can be taken out of the sporting arena, and for example but into the world of work. A doctor has to multitask but concentrate very intensely. Now a woman's mind is far better suited than a mans mind for this, the same way a male would make a better investment banker than a female simply because a man is far more competitive and aggressive psychologically than a woman. That does not mean males or females should be discriminated against in opportunity, but in ability at the end of the working week, one sex will perform better on average than the other.
I completely reject the notion that the psychology of genders is set in stone, because we know that brains are not fixed machines. They change based on their experiences.
Regardless, you still seem to be ignoring me when I say that generalisations are worthless. You're making pointless statements about averages, which has no bearing on the decisions of any reasonable person. You're agreeing that equal opportunity is a good thing, but you contradicted this sentiment by suggesting that male and female children should be told that they don't have equal opportunity as a result of the way they were born, which is frankly abusive. If a child is biologically predisposed to a certain activity, let them find that out themselves, don't tell them from a young age that they'll never be able to do anything else.
Original post by the mezzil
Sports
Construction
Stunt services
Engineering
Roustabout
Farmer
Sailor (fishing)
Mechanic
plenty more physically demanding jobs
Construction
Stunt services
Engineering
Roustabout
Farmer
Sailor (fishing)
Mechanic
plenty more physically demanding jobs
None of those jobs are impossible for women to do
Original post by MangoFreak
But why treat male children different to female children?
I can't help thinking that if children weren't told their roles as males and females - the difference between "girl" toys and "boy" toys - many problems could disappear in a generation or two. Brains are not man-made computers, constructed out of fixed circuits and wires; they're molded, relatively easily, with experience. Neural pathways change. Perhaps if female children are placed into situations in which the parents expect females to be, their brains adapt to those situations.
I can't help thinking that if children weren't told their roles as males and females - the difference between "girl" toys and "boy" toys - many problems could disappear in a generation or two. Brains are not man-made computers, constructed out of fixed circuits and wires; they're molded, relatively easily, with experience. Neural pathways change. Perhaps if female children are placed into situations in which the parents expect females to be, their brains adapt to those situations.
Just so you know you are my new favourite person.
Also I don't think most fenists do frown upon femininity, only the fact that socially we are expected to fit that role and those of us with more masculine tendencies face more struggles as a result.
Original post by SoftPunch
Oh, I will speak if I want. I obviously didn't mean every single one, but it would be ignorant not to get that in the first place. Also, this country is as equal as it can be - why don't feminists go over to Saudi Arabia and protest their rights there?
Yeah and why don't all the food banks just shut down and go to Somalia, there are far more starving people there, the problem of hunger is much worse! We should probably just ignore poverty in this country because they don't have it as bad.
Original post by MangoFreak
I completely reject the notion that the psychology of genders is set in stone, because we know that brains are not fixed machines. They change based on their experiences.
Regardless, you still seem to be ignoring me when I say that generalisations are worthless. You're making pointless statements about averages, which has no bearing on the decisions of any reasonable person. You're agreeing that equal opportunity is a good thing, but you contradicted this sentiment by suggesting that male and female children should be told that they don't have equal opportunity as a result of the way they were born, which is frankly abusive. If a child is biologically predisposed to a certain activity, let them find that out themselves, don't tell them from a young age that they'll never be able to do anything else.
Regardless, you still seem to be ignoring me when I say that generalisations are worthless. You're making pointless statements about averages, which has no bearing on the decisions of any reasonable person. You're agreeing that equal opportunity is a good thing, but you contradicted this sentiment by suggesting that male and female children should be told that they don't have equal opportunity as a result of the way they were born, which is frankly abusive. If a child is biologically predisposed to a certain activity, let them find that out themselves, don't tell them from a young age that they'll never be able to do anything else.
Well the science of Psychology is still developing, so I don't accept or reject it. The guardian article earlier was one example of the differences of the male and female brain, but there are others who would dispute the science.
How are generalisations worthless? 99% of the population will not beat Kimbo Slice in the ring. 99% of the population will not beat Hussein bolt in a 100 m race. Generalisation, but a true one. People should learn why these two are superior to the rest of us in the given sport. Hardly a generalisation. A child should learn why a woman will never beat Hussein bolt in a race, or survive 12 bouts in a bout with Kimbo Slice. The same way a child should learn why a man will never give birth.
If they want to try and become the exception to the rule, so be it. But the point is the opportunity should be there (sex change/ sport acitivities/ education etc), but they should realise what will limit their ability, and what will benefit there ability.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
None of those jobs are impossible for women to do
No obviously not. But they will be less abled to do those jobs. If they have the required standard then that is okay, but they should understand that a male will find it much easier to get fit to lift up bricks in construction than a woman. We should not have quotas saying 50% of builders must be women and other such positive discrimination. It is just absurd.
(edited 10 years ago)
I can't stand it when people say 'they're brains are hard-wired differently'.
You've no clue what you're talking about when you say that.
You've no clue what you're talking about when you say that.
They don't? Feminism is about equality.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 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 3 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 ?
