Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

feminism

Scroll to see replies

It's rare you'll find an online comment this...enlightening, shall we say. Great comment mate, honestly taught me a lot.

I'm happy that you found it interesting and informative.

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Just a quick question relating to what you wrote:

"The government here in the UK at the time was moving towards giving everyone the vote this before the appearance of the Suffragette movement to which this achievement is ascribed by feminists. Had they not existed women and men would have been given the vote anyway."

Do you have any sources to back up the last sentence?

This all started with electoral reform in this country in the 1800s. The house of parliament, after decades worth of campaigns by the public for governmental reform, recognised in the early 1800s that we do not live in a true democracy and that our system was in fact a dictatorship where a few powerful and wealthy individuals decided who ruled over us. People at the time did not have a right to vote unless they owned land. Women were allowed to vote if they owned land and men too and such persons only made up a minority of the population. This was recognised as being unfair. So the government set about reforming the electoral system with successive reform bills between 1832 and 1930. In 1817, one hundred years before the Suffragette movement the parliament in this country began as part of the reform process discussing allowing all women and all men the right to vote. Jeremy Bentham, a british philosopher published a plan for electoral reform called the Plan of Parliamentary Reform In the Form of Catechism. In it he advised the government on what needed to be changed and in it he suggested that all women be allowed the right to vote alongside all men, this 100 years prior to the Suffragettes. Electoral reform carried on from the 1800s to the mid 1900s. It took 100 years to completely reform the electoral system...had the suffragettes not existed women would have got the vote as their right to vote was put on the table a century before these women ever came to be.

Neil Lyndon sums up the history of electoral reform very beautifully in an article for The Daily Telegraph titled "Why has everyone forgotten about male suffrage?" In it he writes the following:

"There is a reason why our view of this history is as biased, one-sided and prejudiced as the account of the Eighth Route Army that was taught to Chinese children under Mao. The reason is that the whole truth is extremely inconvenient. It conflicts with the dominant feminist narrative which portrays women as the victims of repressive men, from whom liberation and progress had to be wrested by militant uprising. The true history of votes for women, however, is not a story of sex war but of a continuous progress of electoral reform over a century from 1832-1928.

It is also true that, as a whole, that complete story does credit both to Britain and to men whose memory deserves our continuing honour, compassion and respect."

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

Also, why do you think academic feminists choose to ignore this stuff. Surely, the must know about it, so why is it that they choose to blind themselves to the (rather large) ugly side of feminism in your opinion? As an extension, why do you think the founders of feminism, are hailed as heros despite their awful deeds? Misconeption? Lack of education? Cognitive bias?

Because it does not serve their interests. These are women who make a living from feminism. Exposing it as a lie is threatening their livelihood. It threatens the privileges that they receive thanks to the false victimhood status that they ascribe to women. These are women who are given tens of billions of dollars in donations and tax payer money every year to support their endeavours. Additionally feminism is highly institutionalised in most countries in the west and its extremely draconian. You cannot question feminism in this part of the world without being totally and utterly destroyed. So it takes a special person to criticise feminism. Persons like Erin Pizzey. This is the woman who founded the first women's shelter in the world. She founded the women's shelter movement. She was a British feminist who abandoned feminism and stood up to it after she became exposed to its rotten esoteric doctrine. They totally and utterly destroyed her life. They planted bombs outside her family home and attempted to murder her. She could not leave her house without a police escort. They eventually drove her into exile out of the UK for 15 years. Time during which they hijacked the domestic violence shelter movement, all her hostels and expelled men and all boys from them.

If you put forward any idea that is disagreeable with feminism...you loose your job, your reputation and your livelihood. People in power do not criticise this rotten ideology because they have much to loose form doing that.

Furthermore, many academic feminists, so far as feminism is concerned, do not know their ass from their elbow. They join this movement out of ignorance and become entrapped. They join this movement in pursuit of the awards that come with joining this movement, money, publicity, power and control. The few that do know about the ugly side of feminism, do not think its ugly.In fact many feminists promote this ugly side. Most feminists throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s campaigned alongside women like Simone De Beauvoir (the mother of feminism) to legalise paedophilia and incest. They actually believe that these things are natural and who's to tell them otherwise? they are above the law. If you open your mouth to criticise them you are instantly labeled a minsogynst and if you are important that means getting fired from your job, becoming unhireable and maybe even winding up in jail. Believe you me my friend if feminism carries on unchallenged ten, twenty, thirty years from now paedophilia and incest will become legal and when that time comes if you so much as open your mouth to criticise an adult for having sex with your child you would be called a bigot and a sexist and racist and you would be forced to accept these things whether you like them or not.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 21

CookieButter

The argument put forward by Nathan_rowlandd the author of this thread is that women are in some parts of the world brutalised as compared to men. My argument was that they are not.

Original post by RLinds

Okay, I am not a big fan of the term feminism and I agree that a gender-neutral term would have been more appropriate.

but women are brutalised everywhere. Rape occurs everywhere, are you telling me that isn't brutal?

Firstly, brutal crimes are not limited to women. Everyone suffers from them. In fact men are in most all countries around the globe many times more likely to be victims of brutal crimes than women.

Secondly, rape has one of the lowest incidence rates of any crime anywhere and one of the highest conviction rates of any crime anywhere.

Thirdly, even in rape women are privileged as compared to men. Thanks to feminism, women in most countries around the globe cannot be charged with rape thanks to sexist definitions for rape that exclude them from prosecution for this crime. In the few countries that do charge women with rape women aren't included in rape statistics, thanks again to feminist activism...one example being the US. A country which until 2012 I believe excluded women from rape statistics and carries on to this day excluding them from those statistics despite supposedly having changed its policy back in 2012...and you wonder why?

I did a little search on stories of just one subgroup of female rapists - Namely, female teachers who rape their pupils. In my search I set out to find stories from within a period of one week. It took me ten minutes to find ten stories.

1. http://www.wral.com/teacher-charged-...dent/16867952/

2. http://globalnews.ca/news/3656938/on...ving-students/

3. http://www.farrahgray.com/teacher-se...-due-loophole/ - Interesting one of a female teacher drugging and raping an underage male student. She was set free because of a 'loophole'.

4. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0a66b8bafd817

5. http://www.journalnow.com/news/crime...b52fa1daa.html

6. http://www.farrahgray.com/special-ed...four-students/

7. http://www.whio.com/news/crime--law/...GlVrzydUrxCEJ/

8. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7858681.html In this one when the boy reported his abuse at the hands of his teacher to the school, the school threatened him with 'paddling' for 'spreading rumours'.

9. http://www.timesherald.com/article/J...NEWS/170809950

10. https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/36...-toilet/#page1

These are not all the stories. I'm sure there's many many more. I just thought ten stories within one week would suffice in making my point. That point being that there is a reason why women are kept from rape statistics and from prosecution from rape laws....in that it doesn't;t fit the highly institutionalised feminist narrative of rape. I can go into greater detail about this topic if you like but I'm going to leave it here for now.

Original post by RLinds

and in underdeveloped countries treatment is worse. For example, in rural Nepal women are forced to sleep outside in sheds when they are on their periods because they are seen as unclean and are not allowed to touch men or children during this time. Boys are taught from a young age to regard girls as inferior, which begins the viscous cycle that leads to rape.

I am willing to bet you everything I have that this is false feminist propaganda. I am willing to bet you everything I have that this is a distortion of reality, a lie, misinformation.

Original post by RLinds

There was a BBC documentary about women in Russia a couple of weeks ago. and even on there women are allowed to be beaten legally. the law protects domestic abusers. And one man even says that women should be slaves to their husbands.

With all due respect to yourself, this is all nonsense that is made up by feminists. Did you know that feminists claim that women are allowed to be raped in the middle-east? To any ignorant person who has never been to places like iran and seen rapists hanging 100m in the air from cranes this would actually sound plausible. Feminists pray on ignorance to propagate their lies and they sadly control the media here in this part of the world where ignorance is rife. Whenever you hear the words women in the media...take the story, whatever it is with a pinch of salt.

Original post by RLinds

Men face their own brutalities and disadvantages too, there is no denying that and they deserve as much support as women. But you cannot legitimately say that women are not brutalised in the world.

They suffer but they suffer just like everyone else. Feminism claims that we live in a world were women suffer more than everyone else and that men are privileged and therefore women are deserving of more help and men of less help. This is disagreeable with reality where women across the globe in all areas of life are privileged as compared to men. There is no such thing as the patriarchy and women do not suffer more than everyone else. If anything they suffer less disadvantage than all other groups. That was my argument.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 22

That Bearded Man

There are still several areas in which women are more disadvantaged than men, there are some areas where men have more disadvantages than women. You can fight for both causes. I identify as a feminist because I ally with several of their causes, such as maternity protections, prescriotions, right to abortion and sports.

On both sides the empty boats make the loudest noise, uber feminists who want men to get pay cuts and still retain the old benefits of chivalry, men paying for dates etc. are wrong. The men who beat their chest and smugly dismiss them as all man-hating, fat, lesbians are wrong.

It's not a big deal at all but for some reason people really like to exaggerate their offence to/against feminism.

Reply 23

username2820734

Original post by 999tigger

Are you male?
Isnt it for women to decide if they have equal opportunity? Perhaps those women who feel and experience being treated unfairly due to them being female would disagree with you? Are you saying no such discrimination happens in the UK?

999tigger? More like 999Triggered

Reply 24

Axiomasher

Original post by CookieButter

Is there anything wrong with that?...

Only insofar as you appeared to be suggesting that self-identifying 'traditional' women were free to be empresses and military leaders as easily as they are to be 'homemakers' and suchlike. You're also in danger of confusing actual biological function and your talk of 'roles' as the latter are constructed by social and cultural (and ultimately political) forces. Only women can breastfeed but men can otherwise feed, bathe and play with their children, there's an important distinction between such things which anti-feminists like to blur so as to give the impression that it is nature which directs us to male and female 'roles' when it doesn't.

Reply 25

999tigger

Original post by jsk800

999tigger? More like 999Triggered

What a truly pathetic response by you.

I wrote a few lines making relevant points, which you are unable to answer. Says more about you.

Reply 26

username2820734

Original post by 999tigger

What a truly pathetic response by you.

I wrote a few lines making relevant points, which you are unable to answer. Says more about you.

That is my answer ahahaha. You're so so wrong. There is no wage gap, women do not have different laws compared to men and they have the same rights as men. It's against the law to pay discriminate for women. Opportunities that women have are completely based on their educational choice. Have you ever considered how many women study something that has a typically high median wage? You just won't be happy until everyone is 'equal' but the fact is as capitalism believes, the harder you work, the more reward you receive. Inequality has come about because of the differences in professions and the MRP of different workers. Simply, women generally choose to go into lower earning professions. The issue now is that the whole 'We will employ more women' or 'Give women more opportunity over men' turns this into positive discrimination, but I couldn't imagine you complaining about that, because all the people who support this are busy being useful to society, unlike the idiotic, unproductive, flag waving university students, who take gender studies, and the leftists who want a total Marxist society. If you don't like the way capitalism works, enjoy North Korea, since I'm sure you'll have a better life over there....

Reply 27

CookieButter

Original post by Axiomasher

Only insofar as you appeared to be suggesting that self-identifying 'traditional' women were free to be empresses and military leaders as easily as they are to be 'homemakers' and suchlike.

Definitely not. Do you think they should be, considering their limitations in this regard? Before you answer this question take away all the technology and all the advances that we have had since the 18th century. Now, considering the limitations of women without technology, do you think they would be able to rise to power and control in the military at a time where military prowess was almost entirely dependent on one's physical ability? Women bruise from a pinch!!!

Feminism and communism both teach that it was sexism that kept women down until they came to be, when reality was that technology empowered women and without its existence women would revert to their original roles in society, limited in large part by their physical inferiority in a world that relies on physical strength for access to roles in the military and government. A woman can lift half her weight. A man twice his own weight. A woman lacks the testosterone needed to build muscle required to effect physical ability, and adapt to changes in physical demand. it effects behavioural traits such as one's motivation during an attack or whilst in the pursuit of a beast when hunting. It effects bone density which determines our physical resilience...etc etc.

Original post by Axiomasher

You're also in danger of confusing actual biological function and your talk of 'roles' as the latter are constructed by social and cultural (and ultimately political) forces.

This is a marxist, feminist concept and I am neither. I do not believe that roles are social constructs. Culture is limited in its effects on roles in society by our biology. No, it is determined by our biology. Have you ever heard of a society where men breastfeed their children or give birth to them? Have you ever heard of a culture where women grew to have greater bone density or muscle mass than men? Culture and the roles it hands out to groups in society revolves around our biology, our strengths and limitations.

Original post by Axiomasher

Only women can breastfeed but men can otherwise feed, bathe and play with their children

One is decided by biology the other by choice. My point still stands, our biology dictates our roles. Biology assigns the immediate care of the child to mother. Those hormones that tie mothers to their children during birth, men do not release them. Men do not have breasts. Men provide care for their children in male form through protection and provision of foods, which plays to their strengths in the same way that lactation and the immediate care of the child play to the strengths of women. No matter where you go across the globe throughout time it has been this way in every culture. Do you know of any culture of people who have women going out hunting and warring whilst men stay at home to care for the child? That would be stupid as it does not play to the strengths and limitations of these two genders. As I said before men lack breasts and are unable to become pregnant. During this time if women were assigned the task of protecting and providing for the village the village would be destroyed by any invading force or die of starvation as women become even less physically effective during and after pregnancy...A cold can kill a woman after she gives birth!!!!

Original post by Axiomasher

there's an important distinction between such things which anti-feminists like to blur so as to give the impression that it is nature which directs us to male and female 'roles' when it doesn't.

This isn't the belief of anti-feminists. This is the belief of most all ideologies on this planet throughout time with the exception of two of course, marxism and feminism and we all know how successful these two ideologies have been in power...The USSR is a good example of marxist success, north korea another, cambodia a third, most all latin america...etc etc you get my point.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 28

Axiomasher

Original post by CookieButter

....

Throwing a million paragraphs at me, or anyone else for that matter, isn't going to help you. If I can keep to a few sentences in response why can't you? I'll happily reassert that biological function should not be confused with social and cultural behaviour which is what anti-feminists like yourself try to do with your talk of male and female 'roles'. As for empresses, that's more a matter of the power of class than of sex or gender.

Reply 29

CookieButter

Original post by Axiomasher

I try to do your comment justice...if you don't feel like addressing that last comment or the bulk of it as I have done your comments thus far...again, that is your prerogative. I'm not going to impose my ways on you...please, treat me in kind.

Reply 30

Axiomasher

Original post by CookieButter

There's nothing duller than that internet forum phenomenon of (seemingly never ending) exchanges of posts in which each party offers a paragraph of critique for every sentence directed at them. It's always a little tempting to indulge in essay writing to make our points (I've done it myself often enough) but in the cold light of day I don't think it's much use and, even for those of us who enjoy a little bit of debate, life's too short. So, I'll simply suggest that regardless of our biology, men can change nappies just as women can, moreover men do change nappies just as women do. Even if biological forces do 'encourage' some behavioural orientations, we seemingly can moderate or even ignore that encouragement.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 31

username521617

If feminism was simply about equality, it wouldn't be so massively female-centric. Feminists only seem concerned with women's perspectives, women's issues, women's this, women's that... They also appear perfectly content with the double standards which benefit women. Never do they have anything to say about the significantly lower prison sentences, living longer, being less likely to be homeless, less likely to be the victim of a violent crime, etc. But women still get all the charity and public awareness campaigns. That's equality, right? #feminism

Women are strong and independent, but still need coddling and special treatment. Feminism, yo.

Reply 32

xannypunanny

Original post by Axiomasher

Why aren't you in the kitchen?

I'm trying to be but can't find a man who meets my standards to marry and I'm not good enough to penetrate the upper echelons of society where the men who can adequately provide are.

Reply 33

CookieButter

Original post by HighOnGoofballs

"The government here in the UK at the time was moving towards giving everyone the vote this before the appearance of the Suffragette movement to which this achievement is ascribed by feminists. Had they not existed women and men would have been given the vote anyway."

Do you have any sources to back up the last sentence?

I came across this video on YouTube. I Ithought you might find it interesting. It addresses the question that you asked here in detail and more.

[video="youtube;545CsamI408"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545CsamI408[/video]

(edited 6 years ago)