Feminism = Female Supremacism: Men are the weaker sex.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by tiamaria2
Trolling much?
Not really.
Original post by Jubz1
Feminism is females>males
Egalitarianism is equality
You don't see much of females campaigning for male rights. Males are discriminated against as well, especially in law. Males tend to pay more in a divorce. Fathers usually have less rights. I don't ever see grants for males entering a female dominated industry.
C'est la vie
Egalitarianism is equality
You don't see much of females campaigning for male rights. Males are discriminated against as well, especially in law. Males tend to pay more in a divorce. Fathers usually have less rights. I don't ever see grants for males entering a female dominated industry.
C'est la vie
There's inequality in loads of different aspects of life.
Fair enough that males generally have more "higher up" jobs and have greater resources.
But it's funny when female perks are ignored in a quest for apparent equality.
The male and female genders are different biologically, physically, psychologically and socially.
Does that mean they have to be exactly equal in all aspects of life?
Original post by Plasticity
Google it, you might learn something about debate and logic.
And considering the Guardian is one of the largest and most well known newspapers, my assumption isn't rash at all. If it had been published in some middling feminist paper, then fair enough.
And considering the Guardian is one of the largest and most well known newspapers, my assumption isn't rash at all. If it had been published in some middling feminist paper, then fair enough.
Googled it; your point is invalid. I wasn't saying women who agreed with the opinions shown in the OP weren't "true feminists". I just said not all feminists agree on the same things especially radical ideas like that. Also I'm slightly confused on what point your trying to make about The Guardian. Are you implying that it's likely to be representing a mainstream feminist opinion through the article?
Original post by Luke_Mckeown
There's inequality in loads of different aspects of life.
Fair enough that males generally have more "higher up" jobs and have greater resources.
But it's funny when female perks are ignored in a quest for apparent equality.
The male and female genders are different biologically, physically, psychologically and socially.
Does that mean they have to be exactly equal in all aspects of life?
Fair enough that males generally have more "higher up" jobs and have greater resources.
But it's funny when female perks are ignored in a quest for apparent equality.
The male and female genders are different biologically, physically, psychologically and socially.
Does that mean they have to be exactly equal in all aspects of life?
I would love to hear about these women's perks?!! I'm actually interested in this...
And FYI the male and female sex is different, gender is arguably an artificial construct. Biologically different yes, men penis, women no penis But the rest? That's very controversial to say and in most academic discourse you would be shot down for that.
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
PSA: Feminism =/= Misandry, thank you.
Unfortunately everyone seems to latch onto the groups who genuinely do show hatred towards men and of course it's those who give feminism a bad name.
Please don't confuse misandrists with feminists, they may call themselves feminists but they've lost the plot as to what it's actually trying to do.
Unfortunately everyone seems to latch onto the groups who genuinely do show hatred towards men and of course it's those who give feminism a bad name.
Please don't confuse misandrists with feminists, they may call themselves feminists but they've lost the plot as to what it's actually trying to do.
Well maybe so but one might argue it's a concern when a major national newspaper (see also Independent Voices) is giving radical misandrists a voice. Even if it is just for clicks.
Original post by tiamaria2
I would love to hear about these women's perks?!! I'm actually interested in this...
And FYI the male and female sex is different, gender is arguably an artificial construct. Biologically different yes, men penis, women no penis But the rest? That's very controversial to say and in most academic discourse you would be shot down for that.
And FYI the male and female sex is different, gender is arguably an artificial construct. Biologically different yes, men penis, women no penis But the rest? That's very controversial to say and in most academic discourse you would be shot down for that.
Of course women have perks
I'm not saying said perks are always what women want - some may not want to coast through life with their beauty or be taken care of by men who think them to be fragile.
As for gender, there are massive differences in the psychology of men and women - it's rather late and I'd rather not recount evidence for this right now but trust me, studying in the psychological field has led me to learn quite proficiently that men and women are different in more ways than in a physical dimension.
I'm not disagreeing in the respect that these can be artificial; shaped by the world we live in, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Original post by tiamaria2
It's because females aren't generally speaking as prominent as males in the world of politics/current affairs etc.. so they have less of a voice.
Well yes I agree overall but clearly there ought to be affirmative action for say male primary school teachers if there is going to be for women in say engineering. What's the problem, especially if you suppose that primary school teacher is a poorly paid job due to being a "woman's job" - you're not handing the male applicant much power.
And you're bang on, modern feminism is all about breaking down these gender constraints. I'm really please that you pointed out that males are stereotyped as well as females, and there is pressure of guys to behave like 'real men' which is a load of gender bullish*t.
Yes but this is not in my view due to "patriarchy".
And it's too true, the family law courts have bias to side with women over men and this isn't fair. And it shouldn't be so.
Easy to say, but where are the leaflets, the hashtags, the seminars, the articles, the campus debates? Clearly feminism isn't as inclusive as it likes to pretend.
This is what I mean when I say modern feminism isn't an women's only club it's for everyone, whether you be male or trans. It's about breaking down these gender stereotypes.
So far, so happy-clappy. Bear it out with actions and then I will believe it.
Original post by Plasticity
Hmm most 'normal' feminists ramble on about equality, so it seemed that was it's core purpose.
And why would you want to break down the notion of masculine and feminine? Also I would argue that gender is directly related to sex, and so breaking this natural and normal link is highly questionable.
And why would you want to break down the notion of masculine and feminine? Also I would argue that gender is directly related to sex, and so breaking this natural and normal link is highly questionable.
'Normal' right. The majority don't always know what they're talking about. And to be honest most people don't when it comes to feminism, even women! Yeah it is about equality too, but it has moved on as a concept so much since the 70's and I feel that a lot of people still associate 'feminism' with what it was in the 70's but it's changed.
Right, you can argue that, but in the accademiic world the theory that sex and gender are different isn't controversial. You can believe what you want and I believe in the sex and gender distinction.
Original post by tiamaria2
Don't take offence to an article written with humour, which if written by a male author would be represented as quality 'banter'.
Rubbish, if a man wrote an equivalent article he would be subject to trial by Twitter within the hour. Though I suppose we are doing just the same thing to this woman here, if on a much smaller scale.
Original post by maskofsanity
The biological differences between men and women aren't limited to reproductive rogans though. They are different in many ways, physically and psychologically, which has resulted in "gender stereotypes", which is really just another way of saying years and years of trends resulting from differences between sexes. They don't need to be broken; they are like that for good reason. This isn't women's rights or men's rights or equality, it's arguing against how society has shaped itself and, frankly, it's arguing against extremely trivial preferences and nothing more.
really excellent summary of everything in a single paragraph (prsom).
you're exactly right; men and women are different in so many ways.
it doesn't mean a woman will DEFINITELY have a high level of compassion, it just means that women in general will.
even something as simple as a single trait like that can have a massive effect on perception and behavioural differences between a man and a woman.
the fact is that there will always be an argument - this is a system that can never be perfect.
i don't forsee a future where men and women will be viewed equally in every aspect of life.
i just don't seehow that could ever happen, given just how long it takes humans to extinguish even the most trivial of gender stereotypes.
Original post by Ruthless Dutchman
It says peanuts about the movement. But you're assuming that it's only misandrists who have their works published. But of course something that would cause a disagreement would come into view! Anything negative or controversial look at how quickly it spreads and detracts from what the actual meaning is!
Nobody wants to talk about things that make sense and make people realise that what they're doing is wrong, oh no, defend your right to call women sluts because she called me a bastard.
I'm sure you know that all newspapers are to be taken with more than a pinch of salt, in fact, the media is pretty damn corrupt that they'll only publish stuff that'll cause people to buy in their masses, 'Scandal!', 'Lies', etc etc. Again, if there was sensible stuff and actual news, they'd lose a lot of money because no one would be interested in sensible stuff.
Nobody wants to talk about things that make sense and make people realise that what they're doing is wrong, oh no, defend your right to call women sluts because she called me a bastard.
I'm sure you know that all newspapers are to be taken with more than a pinch of salt, in fact, the media is pretty damn corrupt that they'll only publish stuff that'll cause people to buy in their masses, 'Scandal!', 'Lies', etc etc. Again, if there was sensible stuff and actual news, they'd lose a lot of money because no one would be interested in sensible stuff.
Original post by SophieSmall
It's published because it sells, it sells because it controversial.
People love controversy, they love to get annoyed and argue.
People love controversy, they love to get annoyed and argue.
Yes, but there's usually a limit to the controversy a mainstream publication can tout before it loses all credibility. This is why British newspapers do not generally carry articles written by Holocaust deniers, or those calling for a violent overthrow of the ruling classes, or forced sterilisation of the poor - you can bet your bottom dollar those articles would spread like wildfire, but for all the wrong reasons.
As such, the fact that a very mainstream paper can publish what is essentially a polemic against a gender is an indication that the material is not so viewed as so controversial as to cause backlash. But that's precisely what's worrying! It indicates that feminism is not really quite as moderate as true equity feminists hope/think - rather, that feminism is sufficiently radicalised for such an article to generate so little controversy that a national newspaper has no hesitation in printing it.
Original post by Luke_Mckeown
Of course women have perks
I'm not saying said perks are always what women want - some may not want to coast through life with their beauty or be taken care of by men who think them to be fragile.
As for gender, there are massive differences in the psychology of men and women - it's rather late and I'd rather not recount evidence for this right now but trust me, studying in the psychological field has led me to learn quite proficiently that men and women are different in more ways than in a physical dimension.
I'm not disagreeing in the respect that these can be artificial; shaped by the world we live in, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm not saying said perks are always what women want - some may not want to coast through life with their beauty or be taken care of by men who think them to be fragile.
As for gender, there are massive differences in the psychology of men and women - it's rather late and I'd rather not recount evidence for this right now but trust me, studying in the psychological field has led me to learn quite proficiently that men and women are different in more ways than in a physical dimension.
I'm not disagreeing in the respect that these can be artificial; shaped by the world we live in, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
So we have one very questionable perk beauty. What about women who aren't judged to be attractive? And there are a lot of men out there who are totally hot. Beauty is an advantage but not exclusive to women. And as for pretty women been taken care of men, eugh. The blokes must be getting something out of it right? And some guys do it to boost their self-esteem, looking after a pretty woman. And then there's all the hassle that comes with being pretty, endless catcalling, guys trying to ask you out all the time and then getting angry when you turn them down. Only ever being judged on your beauty, you then start to link beauty to selfworth, blah blah blah... you should know this being in the 'psychology field'.
It is disputable that there are psychology difference between men and women. They have different way of thinking about things, looking at things, expressing emotion etc... yes, but that's not for biological reasons, it's cultural reasons, mainly brought about by gender stereotyping.
Original post by tiamaria2
So we have one very questionable perk beauty. What about women who aren't judged to be attractive? And there are a lot of men out there who are totally hot. Beauty is an advantage but not exclusive to women. And as for pretty women been taken care of men, eugh. The blokes must be getting something out of it right? And some guys do it to boost their self-esteem, looking after a pretty woman. And then there's all the hassle that comes with being pretty, endless catcalling, guys trying to ask you out all the time and then getting angry when you turn them down. Only ever being judged on your beauty, you then start to link beauty to selfworth, blah blah blah... you should know this being in the 'psychology field'.
It is disputable that there are psychology difference between men and women. They have different way of thinking about things, looking at things, expressing emotion etc... yes, but that's not for biological reasons, it's cultural reasons, mainly brought about by gender stereotyping.
It is disputable that there are psychology difference between men and women. They have different way of thinking about things, looking at things, expressing emotion etc... yes, but that's not for biological reasons, it's cultural reasons, mainly brought about by gender stereotyping.
There is indisputable evidence linking sex hormones directly to a wide range of psychological behaviours, including aggression, empathy, verbal development, risk-seeking. The first two lines of the wikipedia article on testosterone in the 'brain' section say: "As testosterone affects the entire body (often by enlarging; males have bigger hearts, lungs, liver, etc.), the brain is also affected by this "sexual" differentiation", and "the literature suggests that attention, memory, and spatial ability are key cognitive functions affected by testosterone in humans."
It is also indisputable that the vast majority of humans fall into the gender which matches their sex and respective sex hormones.
Arguments are better conducted with science and biology than pseudo-science and pop-lit sociology.
feminism is a joke
that is all
that is all
This article gave me a good giggle, and its un-deniable feminism is a movement which has been all but taken over by radicals, however its easier just to sit back and laugh at them.
The less society actually takes them seriously, and looks at them as more of a form of amusement, the sooner they'll either tone it down or just disappear.
The less society actually takes them seriously, and looks at them as more of a form of amusement, the sooner they'll either tone it down or just disappear.
Original post by TheWorldEndsWithMe
Because one woman who calls herself a feminist automatically defines what all other people who call themselves feminists think, clearly.
Implying the Guardian is a popular newspaper because nobody reads it.
Gotta say, I'm pretty sick of bull**** feminist Guardian articles being plastered everywhere I look.
Original post by tiamaria2
So we have one very questionable perk beauty. What about women who aren't judged to be attractive? And there are a lot of men out there who are totally hot. Beauty is an advantage but not exclusive to women. And as for pretty women been taken care of men, eugh. The blokes must be getting something out of it right? And some guys do it to boost their self-esteem, looking after a pretty woman. And then there's all the hassle that comes with being pretty, endless catcalling, guys trying to ask you out all the time and then getting angry when you turn them down. Only ever being judged on your beauty, you then start to link beauty to selfworth, blah blah blah... you should know this being in the 'psychology field'.
It is disputable that there are psychology difference between men and women. They have different way of thinking about things, looking at things, expressing emotion etc... yes, but that's not for biological reasons, it's cultural reasons, mainly brought about by gender stereotyping.
It is disputable that there are psychology difference between men and women. They have different way of thinking about things, looking at things, expressing emotion etc... yes, but that's not for biological reasons, it's cultural reasons, mainly brought about by gender stereotyping.
You're just trying to be difficult here.
Beauty as an advantage is much much more beneficial to women than to men.
You're somehow not saying anything noteworthy in a large post - I understand where your opinion lies, but please never conclude your own point with "blah blah blah"...
There is near-zero dispute that there are psychological or otherwise differences between men and women.
Don't insult my intelligence by trying to falsely teach me about a field of study that I already have proficient knowledge in.
I don't mean to sound snappy by the way, it's just late and I'm tired
Original post by imtelling
Feminist's have finally shown their hand. Told the world what their true intentions and motivations are. Writing in the Guardian on Friday, prominent Feminist Hannah Betts said that, quote:
Without a glimmer of irony, she justifies these extraordinarily sexist and hate filled quotes on the back of some 'research' (scientific sexism), which says that males are the biologically weaker sex.
It really is a telling piece. It tells us men what we are up against. You can read the full diatribe here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/oh-how-we-fret-about-girls
Without a glimmer of irony, she justifies these extraordinarily sexist and hate filled quotes on the back of some 'research' (scientific sexism), which says that males are the biologically weaker sex.
It really is a telling piece. It tells us men what we are up against. You can read the full diatribe here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/oh-how-we-fret-about-girls
She's an extremist who clearly doesn't understand what feminism is, just like a lot of radical muslims they to are not acting as true muslims as she is not acting like a true feminist. You can't take the words of a group of radicals and use them to represent all members of feminism.
Original post by maskofsanity
Please list the mainstream newspapers that support and publish radical Islamic articles.
I wasn't aware any of them supported radical feminism, there is a difference between supporting something and reporting about something.
Original post by victoriajackson
I wasn't aware any of them supported radical feminism, there is a difference between supporting something and reporting about something.
The Guardian isn't exactly unknown for spouting [stupid] feminist crap.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 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 ?
