Feminism - The Official Debate!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mankytoes
Good post. The crux of why online discussion seems so awful on feminism is that both sides often just ignore issues relating to the other gender. Like the OP, just ignoring all women's issues when introducing the topic, exactly what some feminists do to men.
Patriachy is supposed to be the enemy of feminism, and patriachy definitely hurts men a lot- basically it hurts anyone who doesn't fit traditional gender roles.
Patriachy is supposed to be the enemy of feminism, and patriachy definitely hurts men a lot- basically it hurts anyone who doesn't fit traditional gender roles.
Thank you very much!
I wish it was more recognised that feminism does concern men too
.
Original post by instrumentality
Oh man, you have made me angry.
Ignorant?
So you are saying that you don't acknowledge basic human rights without discussion? DO YOU EVEN understand what it feels like when people that are in favour are *~*~debating*~**~ on how you should be treated.
Why feminism should be a natural thing in society? So that women wouldn't have their dignity stepped on everyday, abused and oh dear, the list could go on.
Feminism is not only for women - it acknowledges that men shouldn't be brought up with the pressure of being the only breadwinners of the family or they HAVE to act masculine in every freaking way.
Ignorant?
So you are saying that you don't acknowledge basic human rights without discussion? DO YOU EVEN understand what it feels like when people that are in favour are *~*~debating*~**~ on how you should be treated.
Why feminism should be a natural thing in society? So that women wouldn't have their dignity stepped on everyday, abused and oh dear, the list could go on.
Feminism is not only for women - it acknowledges that men shouldn't be brought up with the pressure of being the only breadwinners of the family or they HAVE to act masculine in every freaking way.
I, and a great many anti-feminists, do not believe in stepping on women, do not believe men should be the breadwinners, and do not believe men should always behave masculinely or that women should always behave femininely. A great many anti-feminists are actually egalitarians and very progressive individuals.
If you think that fighting for gender fairness and equal treatment is what feminism really does and what it really achieves, then you too have been swindled by a biased, hypocritical and misandric circle-jerk of a movement that these days does little more than to perpetuate double standards, sew mistrust and fear, and create a women-only viewpoint that enforces more unfairness than it alleviates.
By the way, even if you do not believe that sexism still exists, I recommend this website to you all:
http://everydaysexism.com/
It's a website where people submit their experiences of everyday sexism. I think many of you will find it interesting to see how minor incidents can make women really feel.
I also do not mean to downplay the difficulties men face as a result of the patriarchy, but I think it's good to share experiences with each other
.
http://everydaysexism.com/
It's a website where people submit their experiences of everyday sexism. I think many of you will find it interesting to see how minor incidents can make women really feel.
I also do not mean to downplay the difficulties men face as a result of the patriarchy, but I think it's good to share experiences with each other
.Original post by QuantumOverlord
But are we really living in a paitriarchy? I see very little evidence of that, men generally prefer leadership roles to women, that's a free choice. I have no problem with women being in leadership, but I do have an issue with people being pressured into it (men and women).
I wouldn't say we are living in a patriarchy, I'd say we are in a society that has evolved from a strong patriachial one, so there is still a great cultural legacy of that.
You seem to assume men generally have leadership roles in our society because of "free choice". It's quite a complex issue, sociologists will go all the way to childhood, girls being told they're like a "princess", a passive role, while boys are more likely to play at soldier or fireman or something. I'm not saying there isn't a natural division there, but when babies tend to be loaded with highly gendered crap before they have reached the stage where they understand things outside their eyeline still exist, it's hard to feel we aren't all socialised to some extent.
No one can be sure how much different genders would "naturally" pursue power. What we can do is look at other countries, and see our record of women in parliament is very low- http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm I think most Brits would be shocked to see us below the likes of Iraq, which most of us I think would say had some sexist characteristics. Do women in Sweden, Senegal and Nicaragua get pushed into being more political? Or do our women get influenced the other way?
Original post by OrlaCarmel
By the way, even if you do not believe that sexism still exists, I recommend this website to you all:
http://everydaysexism.com/
It's a website where people submit their experiences of everyday sexism. I think many of you will find it interesting to see how minor incidents can make women really feel.
I also do not mean to downplay the difficulties men face as a result of the patriarchy, but I think it's good to share experiences with each other.
http://everydaysexism.com/
It's a website where people submit their experiences of everyday sexism. I think many of you will find it interesting to see how minor incidents can make women really feel.
I also do not mean to downplay the difficulties men face as a result of the patriarchy, but I think it's good to share experiences with each other
.At least two thirds of the entries on that site are either made up, exaggerated, shear paranoia, or barely sexist at all.
Original post by Dandaman1
I, and a great many anti-feminists, do not believe in stepping on women, do not believe men should be the breadwinners, and do not believe men should always behave masculinely or that women should always behave femininely. A great many anti-feminists are actually egalitarians and very progressive individuals.
If you think that fighting for gender fairness and equal treatment is what feminism really does and what it really achieves, then you too have been swindled by a biased, hypocritical and misandric circle-jerk of a movement that these days does little more than to perpetuate double standards, sew mistrust and fear, and create a women-only viewpoint that enforces more unfairness than it alleviates.
If you think that fighting for gender fairness and equal treatment is what feminism really does and what it really achieves, then you too have been swindled by a biased, hypocritical and misandric circle-jerk of a movement that these days does little more than to perpetuate double standards, sew mistrust and fear, and create a women-only viewpoint that enforces more unfairness than it alleviates.
I do agree partially with you on this - my view is that a certain amount of feminists have been extremely hypocritical and unfair. It's what has given feminism a bad name.
However, I don't think we should get rid of feminism all together. I think to dismiss such a powerful movement is a great shame. I think feminism should be more tailored to men, which is difficult to do since men aren't usually willing to admit that they are feminists and therefore don't become part of the movement.
By getting more men involved it'd work wonderfully, but I guess that's just my opinion and I can't shove my view down a guys throat.
Original post by Dandaman1
At least two thirds of the entries on that site are either made up, exaggerated, shear paranoia, or barely sexist at all.
So.. all the thousands of woman on there are utter liars? I think it's fair enough to say that there will be some lies or over exaggeration, but I think you're being a bit unfair here.
For example, you cannot deny that women still shouted 'catcalls' at them. You can even test this offline by asking women you know, who I'm sure are happy to discuss it, as I can say on behalf of many women that we are very angry about it. It's humiliating and degrading.
Original post by Mankytoes
I wouldn't say we are living in a patriarchy, I'd say we are in a society that has evolved from a strong patriachial one, so there is still a great cultural legacy of that.
You seem to assume men generally have leadership roles in our society because of "free choice". It's quite a complex issue, sociologists will go all the way to childhood, girls being told they're like a "princess", a passive role, while boys are more likely to play at soldier or fireman or something. I'm not saying there isn't a natural division there, but when babies tend to be loaded with highly gendered crap before they have reached the stage where they understand things outside their eyeline still exist, it's hard to feel we aren't all socialised to some extent.
No one can be sure how much different genders would "naturally" pursue power. What we can do is look at other countries, and see our record of women in parliament is very low- http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm I think most Brits would be shocked to see us below the likes of Iraq, which most of us I think would say had some sexist characteristics. Do women in Sweden, Senegal and Nicaragua get pushed into being more political? Or do our women get influenced the other way?
You seem to assume men generally have leadership roles in our society because of "free choice". It's quite a complex issue, sociologists will go all the way to childhood, girls being told they're like a "princess", a passive role, while boys are more likely to play at soldier or fireman or something. I'm not saying there isn't a natural division there, but when babies tend to be loaded with highly gendered crap before they have reached the stage where they understand things outside their eyeline still exist, it's hard to feel we aren't all socialised to some extent.
No one can be sure how much different genders would "naturally" pursue power. What we can do is look at other countries, and see our record of women in parliament is very low- http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm I think most Brits would be shocked to see us below the likes of Iraq, which most of us I think would say had some sexist characteristics. Do women in Sweden, Senegal and Nicaragua get pushed into being more political? Or do our women get influenced the other way?
I'm not saying social factors don't exist, but I don't think there is anything patriarchal about it. There have actually been studies on infants, and girls and boys do prefer different toys when these factors are controlled for. Sexual dimorphism is a factor, that some people refuse to take into account.
And the interesting thing is, yes as you get more egalatarian the number of women in parliment does not hugely increase, hence the fact we are lower than iraq. Look at norway the most egalatarian country in the world!
There will be elements of both, but sexual dimorphism is almost seen as a taboo subject or something that cannot be discussed. This isn't right.
Original post by gman10
- Women can see our chests, so if you want equality whip off that bra and expect the same back
- Women can see our chests, so if you want equality whip off that bra and expect the same back
This. The rest of the entire thread and every reply in it is completely pointless. This is the thing we should be striving for.
EDIT:
Original post by OrlaCarmel
From that website:
Mary 2013-12-11 20:22
I had just finished ranting over a song to my little brother while driving him home from school when he turned to me and said "Want to hear a joke?...womens rights!" I pulled over and told him he could walk home if he didn't like my right to drive.
I had just finished ranting over a song to my little brother while driving him home from school when he turned to me and said "Want to hear a joke?...womens rights!" I pulled over and told him he could walk home if he didn't like my right to drive.
You think that that is a reasonable reaction to what's clearly a joke by a young boy? How can anyone take that website seriously when thats on the front page.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by QuantumOverlord
I'm not saying social factors don't exist, but I don't think there is anything patriarchal about it. There have actually been studies on infants, and girls and boys do prefer different toys when these factors are controlled for. Sexual dimorphism is a factor, that some people refuse to take into account.
And the interesting thing is, yes as you get more egalatarian the number of women in parliment does not hugely increase, hence the fact we are lower than iraq. Look at norway the most egalatarian country in the world!
There will be elements of both, but sexual dimorphism is almost seen as a taboo subject or something that cannot be discussed. This isn't right.
And the interesting thing is, yes as you get more egalatarian the number of women in parliment does not hugely increase, hence the fact we are lower than iraq. Look at norway the most egalatarian country in the world!
There will be elements of both, but sexual dimorphism is almost seen as a taboo subject or something that cannot be discussed. This isn't right.
"Those factors are controlled for"- you mean they don't view the general way that men and women act and are treated differently in society? Surely no one could ethnically do a study like that?
Look at Norway? It's on about 40%, which I think is a good bench mark, allowing for factors like pregnancy and different aims. Rwanda is of course a tragic anomaly, oweing to the massive gender inbalance caused by the genocide, but it's interesting their female led parliament has precided over a spell of strong economic growth. There's different measures of gender equality, some we'd score highly on, some lower.
I don't think people are in denial of sexual dimorphism, it just hasn't ever really backed up our traditional male dominated society. IQ levels are very similar, with men having bigger brains but a lower grey matter percentage. The only truly significant dimophism that we really know of is the obvious physical ones. That isn't PC, that's science.
You've got to consider, we've only, historically, very recently moved away from our whole society being based around a religion where woman was made from the rib of man. We shouldn't beat ourselves up about inequalities in our society, we've progressed a lot in the last few decades, but we shouldn't deny created inequality exists either.
Original post by QuantumOverlord
OK a few suggestions on this type of thread.
Keep the tone as civilized as possible, irritating or annoying people is not a good idea if it can be avoided, or is unnecessary.
Avoid one liners, this is to all concerned. By one liner I do not mean something benign or something off topic, but something that is fishing for likes/approval or is just satire. I don't have a problem with satire, but a serious discussion isn't the place for it.
Avoid antagonistic or loaded terms such as 'check your privilege' or 'feminazi'. Clearly if you want to express an opinion about privilege or radical feminism it can be done in a way that doesn't use language that is virtually guaranteed to annoy someone. I'm not advocating tip toeing around everyone's sensitivities, merely avoiding the thread trashing terms that everyone is acutely aware of.
Avoid common argumentation fallacies. Don't strawman people - i.e misinterpret their position so it becomes easier to refute. Avoid all ad homenin attacks, i.e attacking someones character rather than their point.
And finally, use metaphor/allegory appropriately and usefully. It can be a very useful technique to illustrate a point, but don't use it when it can be expressed better without.
Keep the tone as civilized as possible, irritating or annoying people is not a good idea if it can be avoided, or is unnecessary.
Avoid one liners, this is to all concerned. By one liner I do not mean something benign or something off topic, but something that is fishing for likes/approval or is just satire. I don't have a problem with satire, but a serious discussion isn't the place for it.
Avoid antagonistic or loaded terms such as 'check your privilege' or 'feminazi'. Clearly if you want to express an opinion about privilege or radical feminism it can be done in a way that doesn't use language that is virtually guaranteed to annoy someone. I'm not advocating tip toeing around everyone's sensitivities, merely avoiding the thread trashing terms that everyone is acutely aware of.
Avoid common argumentation fallacies. Don't strawman people - i.e misinterpret their position so it becomes easier to refute. Avoid all ad homenin attacks, i.e attacking someones character rather than their point.
And finally, use metaphor/allegory appropriately and usefully. It can be a very useful technique to illustrate a point, but don't use it when it can be expressed better without.
This post, though absolutely spot on will get lost in the myriad of insults that'll be traded on the boards later this evening. You've got far too much sense to be posting on the society boards, mate.
Original post by Gjaykay
This. The rest of the entire thread and every reply in it is completely pointless. This is the thing we should be striving for.
EDIT:
From that website:
You think that that is a reasonable reaction to what's clearly a joke by a young boy? How can anyone take that website seriously when thats on the front page.
EDIT:
From that website:
You think that that is a reasonable reaction to what's clearly a joke by a young boy? How can anyone take that website seriously when thats on the front page.
Actually, don't you find it shocking that people tell jokes like that so often? I used to think they were ok too - you know, it wasn't serious, and that no one actually meant it at all. I thought it was harmless.
However, as I got older, I heard more and more of these kinds of jokes. Once you hear them on at least a weekly basis, you start to realise that, they aren't just jokes. You hear these jokes very often, and this begins to send out a very interesting message.
This is in an interesting quote as to why I think sexists jokes are never okay:
"Sexist jokes not only allow men (and sadly, women) to believe that sexist behaviour falls within the bounds of social acceptability, it also reveals people's deep-rooted -- and often undetected -- prejudices about a woman's place in our world."
Original post by Gjaykay
This. The rest of the entire thread and every reply in it is completely pointless. This is the thing we should be striving for.
EDIT:
From that website:
You think that that is a reasonable reaction to what's clearly a joke by a young boy? How can anyone take that website seriously when thats on the front page.
EDIT:
From that website:
You think that that is a reasonable reaction to what's clearly a joke by a young boy? How can anyone take that website seriously when thats on the front page.
Btw I do want to make it clear that I am not judging you for this - I used to find them funny too. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm criticising you but I just want to explain the implications of these light-hearted jokes, that often seem like nothing.
Original post by OrlaCarmel
Actually, don't you find it shocking that people tell jokes like that so often? I used to think they were ok too - you know, it wasn't serious, and that no one actually meant it at all. I thought it was harmless.
However, as I got older, I heard more and more of these kinds of jokes. Once you hear them on at least a weekly basis, you start to realise that, they aren't just jokes. You hear these jokes very often, and this begins to send out a very interesting message.
This is in an interesting quote as to why I think sexists jokes are never okay:
"Sexist jokes not only allow men (and sadly, women) to believe that sexist behaviour falls within the bounds of social acceptability, it also reveals people's deep-rooted -- and often undetected -- prejudices about a woman's place in our world."
Actually, don't you find it shocking that people tell jokes like that so often? I used to think they were ok too - you know, it wasn't serious, and that no one actually meant it at all. I thought it was harmless.
However, as I got older, I heard more and more of these kinds of jokes. Once you hear them on at least a weekly basis, you start to realise that, they aren't just jokes. You hear these jokes very often, and this begins to send out a very interesting message.
This is in an interesting quote as to why I think sexists jokes are never okay:
"Sexist jokes not only allow men (and sadly, women) to believe that sexist behaviour falls within the bounds of social acceptability, it also reveals people's deep-rooted -- and often undetected -- prejudices about a woman's place in our world."
Bull****, to all of that. Jokes are jokes. People choose to take them seriously or get offended by them. They make that choice and then bitch and moan about it. Just because I make a joke about shagging my neighbors misses or a black guy robbing someone's house doesn't mean I find those things socially acceptable. It means I find those jokes funny.
Just because you think sexist jokes aren't ok doesn't mean dick to me nor should it to anyone else. You could easily choose to not be offended by it.
EDIT:
Original post by OrlaCarmel
Btw I do want to make it clear that I am not judging you for this - I used to find them funny too. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm criticising you but I just want to explain the implications of these light-hearted jokes, that often seem like nothing.
Fair enough, but the only implications of jokes are laughter and uptight people making a big deal out of nothing. No offence.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by OrlaCarmel
Thank you very much!
I wish it was more recognised that feminism does concern men too.
I wish it was more recognised that feminism does concern men too
.Well its an aspect of feminism a lot of people don't realize exists due to either misinformation or vacuous presumptions on the matter.
I really think it would have made a world of difference if feminism was just termed "fight for gender equality"...something that both and women would campaign/fight for together. The term, along with some poor predispositions on the matter + the aggressive extreme feminists really make it quite difficult for people to see that that if a lot of feminist goals were achieved, men, could, in fact be better off.
There was a great post by Robbie242 about this stuff a few weeks back, I'll try to look it up and link it to the thread.
Western feminism is more self-promotion that promoting equality.
There is no patriarchy.
There is no "rape culture.
Feminism is unnecessary in the Western world.
That's the crux of my views on the matter.
There is no patriarchy.
There is no "rape culture.
Feminism is unnecessary in the Western world.
That's the crux of my views on the matter.
Original post by Gjaykay
Bull****, to all of that. Jokes are jokes. People choose to take them seriously or get offended by them. They make that choice and then bitch and moan about it. Just because I make a joke about shagging my neighbors misses or a black guy robbing someone's house doesn't mean I find those things socially acceptable. It means I find those jokes funny.
Just because you think sexist jokes aren't ok doesn't mean dick to me nor should it to anyone else. You could easily choose to not be offended by it.
Just because you think sexist jokes aren't ok doesn't mean dick to me nor should it to anyone else. You could easily choose to not be offended by it.
I'll agree to disagree with you - I know I can't persuade you.
But please just think about this one more time: the more and more a women hears these supposed 'jokes', don't you agree that it has some sort of effect on them? It feels like the jokes are told so much that society is trying to tell us something.
Mhm, jokes both serve as an interesting indicator of what people believe is acceptable and as a factor in making certain opinions okay. (For comparison's sake, try replacing "women's rights" in the punchline with the minority of your choice, see if it still feels like a silly little joke.)
Original post by elpistolero7
Well its an aspect of feminism a lot of people don't realize exists due to either misinformation or vacuous presumptions on the matter.
I really think it would have made a world of difference if feminism was just termed "fight for gender equality"...something that both and women would campaign/fight for together. The term, along with some poor predispositions on the matter + the aggressive extreme feminists really make it quite difficult for people to see that that if a lot of feminist goals were achieved, men, could, in fact be better off.
There was a great post by Robbie242 about this stuff a few weeks back, I'll try to look it up and link it to the thread.
I really think it would have made a world of difference if feminism was just termed "fight for gender equality"...something that both and women would campaign/fight for together. The term, along with some poor predispositions on the matter + the aggressive extreme feminists really make it quite difficult for people to see that that if a lot of feminist goals were achieved, men, could, in fact be better off.
There was a great post by Robbie242 about this stuff a few weeks back, I'll try to look it up and link it to the thread.
Yeah, I have thought about the terminology of it. I'm on the fence on whether there should be a new term or not still - it's a difficult one for me to decide on.
And awesome, I'll look forward to reading it
.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 ?
