This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Original post by enaayrah
As above.
Because women have priority for rehousing in many circumstances, have more shelters available, have a bigger ability to live with men when they need a place to stay, have more support, etc etc.
Men usually uphold the role and responsibility of the supporter and provider. (Not saying women don't, its just generalised among society) and so seeing as they are unable to offer these two key things, it results in their homelessness. Whilst women, well I'm sure you can figure the rest.
Because there isn't enough support out there for men, making men who fall on hard times more vulnerable than women who fall on hard times.
Feminists make sure they remain homeless 
Pretty much everything above is correct.
Damn good question. Because men embrace, rather than fight, the sexist presumptions that lead to their increased likelihood of becoming homeless. Do they object to being treated as less valuable than "women and children" when it comes to housing/war and peace scenarios? In Romanian there is this phrase used to describe men and women, e.g. the strong/weak sex. It refers to women as the beautiful sex, and to men as the ugly sex. Many men use this term when talking about men generally, and probably "agree" with it. It's an internalised sexism situation, that gets pointed out easily with women (if they get cheated on, abused, etc. but stay with their partner and consider themselves weak, it's internalised sexism) but never with men.
It's meant to erode the self worth of men, which can only be redeemed by doing something to serve "women and children", because outside of that men are just work slaves or whatever, and apart from a minority of high profile celebrities, or high achievers of some sort, the rest are "dead weight" best used in wars. You get the ridiculous result of mansluts with no self esteem who are bullied to believe that because they are "the ugly sex" after all, must have sex with whomever offers.
That's just the beginning, but man this gets so depressing. You get the gist though.
It's meant to erode the self worth of men, which can only be redeemed by doing something to serve "women and children", because outside of that men are just work slaves or whatever, and apart from a minority of high profile celebrities, or high achievers of some sort, the rest are "dead weight" best used in wars. You get the ridiculous result of mansluts with no self esteem who are bullied to believe that because they are "the ugly sex" after all, must have sex with whomever offers.
That's just the beginning, but man this gets so depressing. You get the gist though.
Original post by Flying Cookie
Damn good question. Because men embrace, rather than fight, the sexist presumptions that lead to their increased likelihood of becoming homeless. Do they object to being treated as less valuable than "women and children" when it comes to housing/war and peace scenarios? In Romanian there is this phrase used to describe men and women, e.g. the strong/weak sex. It refers to women as the beautiful sex, and to men as the ugly sex. Many men use this term when talking about men generally, and probably "agree" with it. It's an internalised sexism situation, that gets pointed out easily with women (if they get cheated on, abused, etc. but stay with their partner and consider themselves weak, it's internalised sexism) but never with men.
It's meant to erode the self worth of men, which can only be redeemed by doing something to serve "women and children", because outside of that men are just work slaves or whatever, and apart from a minority of high profile celebrities, or high achievers of some sort, the rest are "dead weight" best used in wars. You get the ridiculous result of mansluts with no self esteem who are bullied to believe that because they are "the ugly sex" after all, must have sex with whomever offers.
That's just the beginning, but man this gets so depressing. You get the gist though.
It's meant to erode the self worth of men, which can only be redeemed by doing something to serve "women and children", because outside of that men are just work slaves or whatever, and apart from a minority of high profile celebrities, or high achievers of some sort, the rest are "dead weight" best used in wars. You get the ridiculous result of mansluts with no self esteem who are bullied to believe that because they are "the ugly sex" after all, must have sex with whomever offers.
That's just the beginning, but man this gets so depressing. You get the gist though.
This a gazillion times. Especially the war bit. Any women that gives me a white feather can **** off.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
This a gazillion times. Especially the war bit. Any women that gives me a white feather can **** off.
I had no clue what the white feather referred to and found this
THE WHITE FEATHER
The notion of a white feather representing cowardice goes back to the 18th century, arising from the belief that a white feather in the tail of a game bird denoted poor quality. To 'show the white feather' was therefore to be 'unmanly'.
“The White Feather Brigade”
On 30 August 1914, less then a month after the declaration of war, a retired Admiral, Penrose Fitzgerald, announced in Folkstone that he had formed a band of 30 women to present a white feather - a danger 'far more terrible than anything they can meet in battle' - to young men 'of public school and university education...found idling and loafing' instead of setting an example to working men.
Thereafter white feathers were given out all over the country, but their frequent bestowal on men invalided from the trenches or otherwise unqualified for military duty made the women concerned unpopular even among those sympathetic to the war effort.
The government's response was to authorise production of a badge bearing the legend "King and Country", thus marking out its wearer as someone effectively excluded from overt moral pressure to enlist.
The notion of a white feather representing cowardice goes back to the 18th century, arising from the belief that a white feather in the tail of a game bird denoted poor quality. To 'show the white feather' was therefore to be 'unmanly'.
“The White Feather Brigade”
On 30 August 1914, less then a month after the declaration of war, a retired Admiral, Penrose Fitzgerald, announced in Folkstone that he had formed a band of 30 women to present a white feather - a danger 'far more terrible than anything they can meet in battle' - to young men 'of public school and university education...found idling and loafing' instead of setting an example to working men.
Thereafter white feathers were given out all over the country, but their frequent bestowal on men invalided from the trenches or otherwise unqualified for military duty made the women concerned unpopular even among those sympathetic to the war effort.
The government's response was to authorise production of a badge bearing the legend "King and Country", thus marking out its wearer as someone effectively excluded from overt moral pressure to enlist.
How messed up
Original post by Flying Cookie
I had no clue what the white feather referred to and found this
How messed up
How messed up
Yup. It is an example of how feminism can still maintain sexism towards men since it was a thing conservative feminists did.
I would like to point out that lots of socialist/anarchist or any anti imperialist feminists would not have done the feather thing. This idea that men had it all good back then just because they were born a man is incredibly simplistic and outright wrong, being guilted into fighting imperialistic wars is hardly a good thing.
Oppression exists in all forms and isn't just limited to gender since most cannon fodder men were most likely of the lower classes.Original post by Serine Soul
As above.
Women can work as a prostitute or find any man to rent for sex - in the worst case scenario
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 ?
