Feminists Are Always Unattractive - Is This Generally True?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Unkilled
Try arguing with some empirical evidence instead of feelings.
That's the biggest joke of all, from a troll who has offered nothing but bigoted opinions and insults. There's pages and pages of empirical evidence out there, but why do you want that when you rely on raw prejudice?
Original post by Unkilled
And no, middle-aged white men are not all racist, you racist.
And no, middle-aged white men are not all racist, you racist.
You could say exactly the same about people who aren't feminists, imo. There is no proof either way: it's just an opinion because everyone has their own standards of beauty. I don't believe this at all.
(P.S: No disrespect but I personally don't understand why people wouldn't want equality for everyone? We're all people!)
(P.S: No disrespect but I personally don't understand why people wouldn't want equality for everyone? We're all people!)
Original post by Unkilled
Just look at Kristina Hoff Sommers, right?
Actions speak louder than words, and if you associate yourself with groups that have done bad things you will be labeled as such.
Actions speak louder than words, and if you associate yourself with groups that have done bad things you will be labeled as such.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, it seems as though you think that because I think modern western feminism is stupid I must be right wing and a fan of KHS? In honesty, I know very little about her or the people she associates with, I just recognise the name. In a more general sense I would say that associating with people doesn't necessarily mean you share their beliefs but I would question why you don't speak out against bad things that those people do.
Feminists say very stupid things.
They say women shouldn't be judged on looks. Well tough sh**, life is unfair, some women are better looking than others. Cristiano Ronaldo was born with God given genetics plus the hard work and commitment made him one of the greatest footballers of all time. Not everyone can be professional footballers, not everyone can get a first in maths from oxford university and then eventually earn £300k a year in finance. Life is unfair.
Lets look at genetics, it is in our genes and thinking to be sexually attractive to attractive people. You can't argue against that, it is biology. This is the reason why Chloe from TSR will not get job offers for photoshoots from modelling companies, but Miranda Kerr will have tens and hundreds of offers - because objectively Kerr is more beautiful, looks better, better proportions and more people will enjoy seeing her in a magazine. No disrespect Chloe, I still love you and you're still pretty in my eyes (say about 6 or 7).
This also true the other way round, but men that are not as attractive as say Ronaldo, sit there and cry and think life is unfair. My girl mates literally sit there when we are out and the ones that are single who are on tinder, literally say 'err hes butters' or 'oh he looks nice'.
http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/183270-I-Don-t-Know-What-He-s-Fixing-But-Mine-Just-Broke.jpg
This picture is objectifying men, and many many girls say thinks 'oooof he is fit' - do I care? I don't give a sh**, he's definitely got a better body than me, (but my personality bangs), and although I do get a few girls coming up to me who leave me their number, I'll bet this guy gets way more girls than me. Like I said I don't give a sh**, he's got better genetics, good height and reach, probably has a nice colgate smile and expensive haircut. Far play to him.
This is why feminism is a load crap. Equality disagrees with feminism as it would hurt women (I gave 2 examples in the first post and can give hundreds more) and secondly biology disagrees with feminism. You want me to not at a female's good looks? P*** off, my body is programmed to do that, as is it for women on men.
Go away.
They say women shouldn't be judged on looks. Well tough sh**, life is unfair, some women are better looking than others. Cristiano Ronaldo was born with God given genetics plus the hard work and commitment made him one of the greatest footballers of all time. Not everyone can be professional footballers, not everyone can get a first in maths from oxford university and then eventually earn £300k a year in finance. Life is unfair.
Lets look at genetics, it is in our genes and thinking to be sexually attractive to attractive people. You can't argue against that, it is biology. This is the reason why Chloe from TSR will not get job offers for photoshoots from modelling companies, but Miranda Kerr will have tens and hundreds of offers - because objectively Kerr is more beautiful, looks better, better proportions and more people will enjoy seeing her in a magazine. No disrespect Chloe, I still love you and you're still pretty in my eyes (say about 6 or 7).
This also true the other way round, but men that are not as attractive as say Ronaldo, sit there and cry and think life is unfair. My girl mates literally sit there when we are out and the ones that are single who are on tinder, literally say 'err hes butters' or 'oh he looks nice'.
http://www.lovethispic.com/uploaded_images/183270-I-Don-t-Know-What-He-s-Fixing-But-Mine-Just-Broke.jpg
This picture is objectifying men, and many many girls say thinks 'oooof he is fit' - do I care? I don't give a sh**, he's definitely got a better body than me, (but my personality bangs), and although I do get a few girls coming up to me who leave me their number, I'll bet this guy gets way more girls than me. Like I said I don't give a sh**, he's got better genetics, good height and reach, probably has a nice colgate smile and expensive haircut. Far play to him.
This is why feminism is a load crap. Equality disagrees with feminism as it would hurt women (I gave 2 examples in the first post and can give hundreds more) and secondly biology disagrees with feminism. You want me to not at a female's good looks? P*** off, my body is programmed to do that, as is it for women on men.
Go away.
Original post by CookieButter
Those numbers that you have quoted above, those are percentages not rates .... etc ....etc
Those numbers that you have quoted above, those are percentages not rates .... etc ....etc
I have no wish to humiliate you any further, but for your own benefit lets go through this slowly, one point at a time, to see where we differ. I'll list points. You reply and tell me which you disagree with. Then give a short and precise explanation of your interpretation.
Point 1- The numbers I quoted above are from a source that you linked to earlier, as evidence that women were treated more leniently by the courts.
Point 2 - The title for the table is 'Overview of women and the CJS [Criminal Justice System]: Proportion of individuals in the CJS by gender compared to general population.
Point 3. The first row is 'Population aged 10 and over. Female 51% Male 49% Total 49,994, 815' To me, this means that in mid 2013 there were 49,994,815 people in the UK aged 10 and over. Of these, 51% were female and 49% were male.
Point 4 The second row is titled 'Arrests'. Female 15% Male 85% Total 1,072,068. This means that in 2013 there were 1,072,068 arrests. 15% of people arrested were female and 85% of people arrested were male. (If you add the two percentages it shows that 100% of those arrested were either male or female.)
Point 5 Rows three and four are for Out Of Court Disposals. For each of these, 23% of the people who received a penalty notice or caution were female and therefore the remaining 77% were male.
Point 6 Row six is titled Court proceedings. Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,347, 276 This means that there were 1,347,276 instances of people appearing in court. Of these, 25% involved women and the remaining 75% involved men.
Point 7 Row seven is titled 'Convictions Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,112,148 Therefore, bearing in mind the title of this table, the proportion of those 1,112,148 convicted is 25% female and 75% male.
Point 8 Since the proportion of people in court who were female is 25%, and the proportion of those convicted who are female is also 25%, there is an equal chance of a man or woman being convicted.
Tell which of the points above you disagree with, in turn, and why.
If you have to resort to personal insults I will again assume that you have no facts to support your opinions.
I'll move on to your other beliefs about single-parent families later.
Original post by Dheorl
Umm, where did I say that?
Here: "The instant I see or read about a shop worker being crushed to death whilst stacking shelves"
Original post by Dheorl
The notion of higher pay for more dangerous work has always been fairly accepted.
The notion of higher pay for more dangerous work has always been fairly accepted.
Original post by EqualitySloth
What kind of evidence would you like?
Preferably empirical.
Original post by Lit teacher
Yes, that's why I didn't say that. Making up your own statements to then challenge is not a credible means of debate
Then why did you say that middle-aged straight white men only hire middle-aged straight white men?
You know, for all the talk of misogyny, there is an awful lot of misandry going around.
Original post by Underscore__
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, it seems as though you think that because I think modern western feminism is stupid I must be right wing and a fan of KHS? In honesty, I know very little about her or the people she associates with, I just recognise the name. In a more general sense I would say that associating with people doesn't necessarily mean you share their beliefs but I would question why you don't speak out against bad things that those people do.
No, what I meant was that all the other feminists hate her. Yet she is a highly intelligent and reasonable woman.
Original post by daisydb
A feminist is literally just someone who wants men and women to be equal. You lot need to all calm down
That is an egalitarian.
Original post by Lit teacher
I have no wish to humiliate you any further, but for your own benefit lets go through this slowly, one point at a time, to see where we differ. I'll list points. You reply and tell me which you disagree with. Then give a short and precise explanation of your interpretation.
Point 1- The numbers I quoted above are from a source that you linked to earlier, as evidence that women were treated more leniently by the courts.
Point 2 - The title for the table is 'Overview of women and the CJS [Criminal Justice System]: Proportion of individuals in the CJS by gender compared to general population.
Point 3. The first row is 'Population aged 10 and over. Female 51% Male 49% Total 49,994, 815' To me, this means that in mid 2013 there were 49,994,815 people in the UK aged 10 and over. Of these, 51% were female and 49% were male.
Point 4 The second row is titled 'Arrests'. Female 15% Male 85% Total 1,072,068. This means that in 2013 there were 1,072,068 arrests. 15% of people arrested were female and 85% of people arrested were male. (If you add the two percentages it shows that 100% of those arrested were either male or female.)
Point 5 Rows three and four are for Out Of Court Disposals. For each of these, 23% of the people who received a penalty notice or caution were female and therefore the remaining 77% were male.
Point 6 Row six is titled Court proceedings. Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,347, 276 This means that there were 1,347,276 instances of people appearing in court. Of these, 25% involved women and the remaining 75% involved men.
Point 7 Row seven is titled 'Convictions Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,112,148 Therefore, bearing in mind the title of this table, the proportion of those 1,112,148 convicted is 25% female and 75% male.
Point 8 Since the proportion of people in court who were female is 25%, and the proportion of those convicted who are female is also 25%, there is an equal chance of a man or woman being convicted.
Tell which of the points above you disagree with, in turn, and why.
If you have to resort to personal insults I will again assume that you have no facts to support your opinions.
I'll move on to your other beliefs about single-parent families later.
Point 1- The numbers I quoted above are from a source that you linked to earlier, as evidence that women were treated more leniently by the courts.
Point 2 - The title for the table is 'Overview of women and the CJS [Criminal Justice System]: Proportion of individuals in the CJS by gender compared to general population.
Point 3. The first row is 'Population aged 10 and over. Female 51% Male 49% Total 49,994, 815' To me, this means that in mid 2013 there were 49,994,815 people in the UK aged 10 and over. Of these, 51% were female and 49% were male.
Point 4 The second row is titled 'Arrests'. Female 15% Male 85% Total 1,072,068. This means that in 2013 there were 1,072,068 arrests. 15% of people arrested were female and 85% of people arrested were male. (If you add the two percentages it shows that 100% of those arrested were either male or female.)
Point 5 Rows three and four are for Out Of Court Disposals. For each of these, 23% of the people who received a penalty notice or caution were female and therefore the remaining 77% were male.
Point 6 Row six is titled Court proceedings. Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,347, 276 This means that there were 1,347,276 instances of people appearing in court. Of these, 25% involved women and the remaining 75% involved men.
Point 7 Row seven is titled 'Convictions Female 25% Male 75% Total 1,112,148 Therefore, bearing in mind the title of this table, the proportion of those 1,112,148 convicted is 25% female and 75% male.
Point 8 Since the proportion of people in court who were female is 25%, and the proportion of those convicted who are female is also 25%, there is an equal chance of a man or woman being convicted.
Tell which of the points above you disagree with, in turn, and why.
If you have to resort to personal insults I will again assume that you have no facts to support your opinions.
I'll move on to your other beliefs about single-parent families later.
Seems legit.
Original post by Lit teacher
That's the biggest joke of all, from a troll who has offered nothing but bigoted opinions and insults. There's pages and pages of empirical evidence out there, but why do you want that when you rely on raw prejudice?
Define bigoted.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Unkilled
That is an egalitarian.
No mate, google the definition of feminism
Original post by Unkilled
Preferably empirical.
I would give you some, but i would just be repeating and retyping what other people have written here. Lit Teacher gave a perfect response to your question
Original post by Lit teacher
That's the biggest joke of all, from a troll who has offered nothing but bigoted opinions and insults. There's pages and pages of empirical evidence out there, but why do you want that when you rely on raw prejudice?
Original post by Unkilled
Then why did you say that middle-aged straight white men only hire middle-aged straight white men?
I wrote "Middle-aged white men tend to select middle-aged white men"
Here's evidence about the gender gap.
And for the lack of non-white people at senior levels " Over half of the FTSE 100 firms do not have any ethnic minorities on their board at all."only 85 of the 1,050 director positions in the FTSE 100 are held by ethnic minority people, and only two per cent of director positions are held by ethnic minorities who are UK citizens, though this group makes up 14 per cent of the total UK population."
People tend to choose people who they consider are like themselves. It's up to government and business to overcome this so that there is equal opportunity for all.
Original post by EqualitySloth
And feminists aren’t unattractive, i think everyone should be a feminist because that literally means equality and who wouldn’t want that? You would have to be stupid to not want everyone to be equal. Do you think Emma Watson is unattractive? How about Jessica Chastain, or Kristen Bell, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Charlise Theron, Rowan Blanchard, Cate Blanchet, Ellen page? They’re all feminists.
How about the men? But as you seem to think that men who are feminists are scum, and you’re such a mans man, you probably wouldn’t appreciate how men can be attractive - even to straight men.
How about the men? But as you seem to think that men who are feminists are scum, and you’re such a mans man, you probably wouldn’t appreciate how men can be attractive - even to straight men.
Rowan Blanchard a cute tbh
Original post by Yukikobestgirl
Rowan Blanchard a cute tbh
Ikr?
Original post by EqualitySloth
Ikr?
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 ?
