Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graceib)
    I think we need to focus on discrimination in the workplace
    What discrimination are you referring to?

    (Original post by graceib)
    Perhaps if toplessness was normalised, breasts wouldn't be thought of as sexual objects and women would be allowed to feed babies in public
    Women are allowed to feed babies in public.

    (Original post by graceib)
    The fact that it is fine to have lad mags on display in shops but if in the same place a woman chose to be topless she would be judged harshly is unacceptable in my opinion.
    Why would a woman choose to be topless in a shop?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    What discrimination are you referring to?
    Are you honestly denying the fact there is discrimination? I didn't think that was being argued. It is discrimination when women are passed over for jobs they are more qualified for in place of a man for or are given a different job title from a man who does the same job. Harassment is a big problem and women are often judged on their appearance in the workplace in a way that men aren't.

    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Women are allowed to feed babies in public.
    As I said it is society that isn't allowing them to, while the law says they can people who do are often harassed and judged meaning that for many there isn't much of a choice.

    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Why would a woman choose to be topless in a shop?
    The point is they should be able to choose. I think if that is all you got from that point about women's right to their body and to express it as they want then you must be being deliberately dense. Is it worse for someone to want to be topless just because it is natural and they like it than for sexualised photos displayed for anyone to see?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well i cant be bothered to read but #respect for you to hating that rubbish
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    X
    I'm sorry but I honestly do not understand your argument here! You say you hate feminism because you are not sure if you are a feminist or not. Feminism is like any other social movement everyone is going to interpret it differently, and I don't understand why that means you should hate it? You said you hate feminism as to the average person it is still perceived as radical feminism (which I would argue as untrue firstly!) but then you say you know that thats not true. Basically you hate a cause because it is misinterpreted, shouldn't you actually base it on what the cause stands for as by saying you hate feminism you are saying that you hate the movement for equality!

    Onto the industry bit... You say it is their choice and they are being paid for it, but it is about the precedent. If people grow up seeing consensual objectification, which is what it is you cannot deny, as something which is normal and right it sets a standard in society where this objectification is alright in daily life. You talk about men being at risk of lower self esteems too and I would agree that that is absolutely right, but using this as an argument against feminism is ridiculous as at the end of the day the core principle of feminism is gender equality. Therefore the objectification of either sex, which you cannot deny these magazines do, is wrong. Yes people are being paid for it and its their choice but it affects so many more people negatively.

    Yes ideally gender quotas wouldn't exist and the skills based hiring that you describe would be enforced, but in reality this is shown to not work! In virtually every sector there are less women at the top than men. There was an article this month about how only 23% of people are in the boardroom are women. You say this is a socially constructed concept and that is exactly the point! Feminism is about challenging this social construct where men and women's roles are pre-determined! Your own example of saying 'I don't see gender' is exactly what the goal is, for equality, but in real life this isn't happening. The statistics shows that women are discriminated upon in the work place more than men and even if this is due to less women applying (although 77% being men cannot be caused by women simply 'not applying') isn't that still an issue, the idea that women and men are being conditioned into thinking not to apply for certain jobs?

    My post is getting pretty long sorry so I will stop here. As someone who believes in the feminist idea of equality, sorry but I disagree with the majority of your points! The point is that no matter how many examples discrimination happens against men and women feminism is against this. Frankly any one who isn't against it frankly is saying that they believe in gender inequality for men and women!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graceib)
    Are you honestly denying the fact there is discrimination? I didn't think that was being argued.
    By discrimination, are you referring to the wage-gap myth? Because that has been debunked many times.

    (Original post by graceib)
    It is discrimination when women are passed over for jobs they are more qualified for in place of a man for or are given a different job title from a man who does the same job
    If you can prove that a woman has been passed over for a job because she was a woman, then yes, that is discrimination. If that happened to a man, then that would also be discrimination.

    (Original post by graceib)
    women are often judged on their appearance in the workplace in a way that men aren't.
    It is usually women who judge other women on the clothes that they wear.

    (Original post by graceib)
    As I said it is society that isn't allowing them to
    That is nonsense, 'society' allows women to breastfeed in public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    By discrimination, are you referring to the wage-gap myth? Because that has been debunked many times.
    I gave other examples but I don't know that it has been debunked. The BBC don't seem to think so as well as other sources I can see. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30112814


    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    If you can prove that a woman has been passed over for a job because she was a woman, then yes, that is discrimination. If that happened to a man, then that would also be discrimination.
    Studies have proven that is in fact the case
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...en-promotions/
    https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-stil...ons-than-women


    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    It is usually women who judge other women on the clothes that they wear.
    Look at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel...ur-appearance/
    Some of these are gender neutral but some apply to just women. None apply to just men, interesting, huh?

    Note this:

    "Women who wear makeup make more: Not only do people judge beauty based on how much makeup a woman is wearing, make-up adorned women also rank higher in competence and trustworthiness, according to a study funded by Procter & Gamble,Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston University, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. A study in the American Economic Review said women who wear make-up can earn more than 30 percent more in pay than non makeup wearing workers."

    Perceived attractiveness shouldn't have such an affect on a woman's earnings, but it does.


    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    That is nonsense, 'society' allows women to breastfeed in public.
    The NHS seem to disagree with you http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/09Septem...ir-babies.aspx
    Studies have shown that women are judged for breastfeeding in public and just look up cases of verbal abuse because of it and you will find plenty of cases/
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graceib)
    I gave other examples but I don't know that it has been debunked. The BBC don't seem to think so as well as other sources I can see. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30112814




    Studies have proven that is in fact the case
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...en-promotions/
    https://hbr.org/2010/09/why-men-stil...ons-than-women




    Look at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel...ur-appearance/
    Some of these are gender neutral but some apply to just women. None apply to just men, interesting, huh?

    Note this:

    "Women who wear makeup make more: Not only do people judge beauty based on how much makeup a woman is wearing, make-up adorned women also rank higher in competence and trustworthiness, according to a study funded by Procter & Gamble,Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston University, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. A study in the American Economic Review said women who wear make-up can earn more than 30 percent more in pay than non makeup wearing workers."

    Perceived attractiveness shouldn't have such an affect on a woman's earnings, but it does.




    The NHS seem to disagree with you http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/09Septem...ir-babies.aspx
    Studies have shown that women are judged for breastfeeding in public and just look up cases of verbal abuse because of it and you will find plenty of cases/
    there's actually plenty of restaurants and cafes who get so hung up on it.

    Regarding being judged by appearance; think about what sort of images we are fed by the male owned and male run media; sun's page three, the entirety of the daily star, and how women are constantly described using their appearance first (that's you, daily mail and showbiz sections everywhere.)

    these are only newspapers. it happens everywhere. and since almost everything is run by men (is it because they're naturally better at having more powerful jobs or because people preconceive that a woman couldn't run a newspaper? you decide) women are judged by what these newspapers say, and they're said and commissioned by men.

    there's more women on minimum wage than men; why?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by graceib)
    I gave other examples but I don't know that it has been debunked. The BBC don't seem to think so as well as other sources I can see. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30112814
    I hope you realise that they are referring to wages across all professions, and all these statistics take into account different companies, varying employee experience etc. Showing an average statistic means nothing in regards to discrimination.

    This doesn't show discrimination. All this highlights is that more men are pushing to get promoted, in comparison to women.

    (Original post by graceib)
    Look at this http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel...ur-appearance/
    Some of these are gender neutral but some apply to just women. None apply to just men, interesting, huh?
    How is that interesting? Also, how does it show discrimination against women?

    1. Handsome people are paid handsomely: A Yale University study from Daniel Hamermesh finds employers pay a beauty premium to attractive employees. The beautiful workers earn an average of roughly five percent more, while unattractive employees can miss out on up to almost nine percent, according to the study.
    Just about all of those points also apply to men. Your point that "none apply to just men", is just stupid.


    (Original post by graceib)
    Note this:

    "Women who wear makeup make more: Not only do people judge beauty based on how much makeup a woman is wearing, make-up adorned women also rank higher in competence and trustworthiness, according to a study funded by Procter & Gamble,Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston University, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. A study in the American Economic Review said women who wear make-up can earn more than 30 percent more in pay than non makeup wearing workers."

    Perceived attractiveness shouldn't have such an affect on a woman's earnings, but it does.
    A lot of the time, one's appearance will have an affect whether a man or a woman gets a job/or on their earnings.

    (Original post by graceib)
    The NHS seem to disagree with you http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/09Septem...ir-babies.aspx
    Studies have shown that women are judged for breastfeeding in public and just look up cases of verbal abuse because of it and you will find plenty of cases/
    The NHS does not disagree with me, you said that society does not allow women to breastfeed in public. Women are perfectly capable of breastfeeding in public. Of course there will be some people who get offended, but that will always be the case with most things. In addition, that study is not representative, especially since it only involved 63 women.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    I hope you realise that they are referring to wages across all professions, and all these statistics take into account different companies, varying employee experience etc. Showing an average statistic means nothing in regards to discrimination.



    This doesn't show discrimination. All this highlights is that more men are pushing to get promoted, in comparison to women.



    How is that interesting? Also, how does it show discrimination against women?



    Just about all of those points also apply to men. Your point that "none apply to just men", is just stupid.




    A lot of the time, one's appearance will have an affect whether a man or a woman gets a job/or on their earnings.



    The NHS does not disagree with me, you said that society does not allow women to breastfeed in public. Women are perfectly capable of breastfeeding in public. Of course there will be some people who get offended, but that will always be the case with most things. In addition, that study is not representative, especially since it only involved 63 women.
    just ****ing reply to my comment.

    appearance matters so much more for women than men. Things like adverts (are you beach body ready?) that shiit doesn't ever apply to men.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    just ****ing reply to my comment.

    appearance matters so much more for women than men. Things like adverts (are you beach body ready?) that shiit doesn't ever apply to men.
    What comment?

    That advertisement you are referring to, is one for a protein/weight-loss product. Why would they show someone who is overweight in order to promote weight-loss?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    What comment?

    That advertisement you are referring to, is one for a protein/weight-loss product. Why would they show someone who is overweight in order to promote weight-loss?



    The reason this advert is so bad is because it infers to women that if they do not a figure like the woman pictured they are not "beach body ready" and should not be going to the beach. This is basically a way of shaming women to be a certain size which is disgusting.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    What comment?

    That advertisement you are referring to, is one for a protein/weight-loss product. Why would they show someone who is overweight in order to promote weight-loss?

    Why would they promote this type of body as the only type of body which is desirable and acceptable? Why can't women have a beach body that isn't incredibly skinny and fragile with sizeable breasts and tiny legs/waist?

    Why does it have to refer directly to female bodies, when actually, their bodies are their own and not up for debate regarding appearance?

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...tising-tactics

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    there's actually plenty of restaurants and cafes who get so hung up on it.

    Regarding being judged by appearance; think about what sort of images we are fed by the male owned and male run media; sun's page three, the entirety of the daily star, and how women are constantly described using their appearance first (that's you, daily mail and showbiz sections everywhere.)

    these are only newspapers. it happens everywhere. and since almost everything is run by men (is it because they're naturally better at having more powerful jobs or because people preconceive that a woman couldn't run a newspaper? you decide) women are judged by what these newspapers say, and they're said and commissioned by men.

    there's more women on minimum wage than men; why?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Why would they promote this type of body as the only type of body which is desirable and acceptable? Why can't women have a beach body that isn't incredibly skinny and fragile with sizeable breasts and tiny legs/waist?

    Why does it have to refer directly to female bodies, when actually, their bodies are their own and not up for debate regarding appearance?
    Firstly, there are many magazines who run stories regarding men's bodies, namely "Men's Health". So before you state this as an 'issue' that only women have, I recommend that you do some research.

    In regards to my point, you don't see men parading around, vandalising advertisments, or complaing to magazines, because the companies are showing pictures of muscular men.

    Secondly, as I have previously pointed it, this advertisement is for a protein/weight-loss product. Therefore, they will obviously be showing a woman who is physically fit, and not an overweight woman, because being overweight is unhealthy. What is wrong with women wanting to be slim and healthy?

    Just stop being so bloody sensitive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Regarding being judged by appearance; think about what sort of images we are fed by the male owned and male run media; sun's page three, the entirety of the daily star, and how women are constantly described using their appearance first (that's you, daily mail and showbiz sections everywhere.)

    these are only newspapers. it happens everywhere. and since almost everything is run by men (is it because they're naturally better at having more powerful jobs or because people preconceive that a woman couldn't run a newspaper? you decide) women are judged by what these newspapers say, and they're said and commissioned by men.
    Again, you are ignoring that men are also 'judged' in the media, yet men don't complain about it. Stop being so sensitive.

    Women choose to read these newspapers (The Sun, Daily Mail, etc.), if they felt offended by the content, they wouldn't read them. About 52% of Daily Mail readers are women (and about 40% for The Sun), which means that they obviously enjoy reading that sort of bilge.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    there's more women on minimum wage than men; why?
    I don't know why, and neither do you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Firstly, there are many magazines who run stories regarding men's bodies, namely "Men's Health". So before you state this as an 'issue' that only women have, I recommend that you do some research.

    In regards to my point, you don't see men parading around, vandalising advertisments, or complaing to magazines, because the companies are showing pictures of muscular men.

    Secondly, as I have previously pointed it, this advertisement is for a protein/weight-loss product. Therefore, they will obviously be showing a woman who is physically fit, and not an overweight woman, because being overweight is unhealthy. What is wrong with women wanting to be slim and healthy?

    Just stop being so bloody sensitive.
    I'm aware of Men's Health; since it's the only magazine that focusses around male bodies. I'm talking about mainstream media, here. The big newspapers. Your point is weak, and I recommend you think about that a little more.

    "In regards to my point, you don't see men parading around, vandalising advertisments, or complaing to magazines, because the companies are showing pictures of muscular men." Are you arguing for me? it's because men aren't objectified and fed idealised images of other men, not to the same orders of magnitude as women are.

    It's not about women wanting to be slim and healthy; it's about saying you only have a beach body "seen as a 'good' thing" if you look like this. Aside from using a body as a tool for making money shamelessly. It's telling women that they won't be seen as beautiful until they look like this and this image depicts clearly a very stylised and unrealistic body type.

    You have a complete misunderstanding of the whole situation though; the majority of the issue isn't about the model, it's about the caption. It's so direct and judgemental.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EatAndRevise)
    Again, you are ignoring that men are also 'judged' in the media, yet men don't complain about it. Stop being so sensitive.

    Women choose to read these newspapers (The Sun, Daily Mail, etc.), if they felt offended by the content, they wouldn't read them. About 52% of Daily Mail readers are women (and about 40% for The Sun), which means that they obviously enjoy reading that sort of bilge.



    I don't know why, and neither do you.
    um... 50% of the population are female. The daily mail barely scrapes that, and the sun is clearly read by men mainly. There's other pages than page three, and also, you forget the number of women who may be doing the shopping but are buying for their husband or partner.

    You've just dismissed that point as I don't know; you're clearly very thick.

    There are more women on minimum wage because women are not seen to be as useful in society as men and so are paid less for their work. They're also on minimum wage because they have been unable to access the higher paid jobs which are held in a monopoly by men.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    either both sexes are "objectified" or neither of them are. Both get shown ideal body images in advertisement. The only difference i can think of is that men's ideals are much harder to attain.

    Irrespective, I don't find the concept meaningful at all. The line between you objectifying someone and finding them attractive seems to depend on whether you're male or not. Which isn't at all fair.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ummm)
    That doesn't change it being the core principle of feminism.
    Saying it is does not make it so. The original feminist cause has been *******ised in order to promote a communist agenda. The aim is to set-up the illusion that different biological characteristics have universal privilege over others to justify promoting equality of outcome, not opportunity. The wage gap argument is proof of this - the feminists argue that men are paid far more than women even though it has been shown that the wage gap is almost entirely due to lifestyle choices (ie. choosing to forgo full-time work to raise children, avoiding dangerous jobs like mining, preferring social sciences over higher demand subjects like STEM, etc) rather than institutionalised discrimination.

    Now I'm not denying that discrimination against women and non-whites does happen but there's no proof that it's institutional as opposed to situational. The only group of people that can genuinely argue institutionalised discrimination these days is the LGB community because there are still laws specifically restricting them and the ideologies that say they should be criminalised are still popular with the public. The only time a white male has an advantage over his contemporaries is when dealing with a racist/sexist employer but this can just as easily go both ways (think having someone like Rebecca Watson as your employer) and is also illegal. The feminists will argue that it can't go both ways because the non-white/female is not in a position of power but this is really just a denial of the fact that there ARE successful female/non-whites with managerial positions and that there will continue to be no matter what they say.

    In radical feminist circles, a white cis-gender male hobo would be more privileged than successful non-whites/women/trans-genders. It doesn't take an idiot to see that this is a ridiculous conclusion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    um... 50% of the population are female. The daily mail barely scrapes that, and the sun is clearly read by men mainly. There's other pages than page three, and also, you forget the number of women who may be doing the shopping but are buying for their husband or partner.
    The Daily Mail has many articles about female celebrities, which would not be there if people didn't enjoy reading them. I do suggest you take a look at their website:




    It's women who read this crap. Feminists nitpick complete non-issues when you could be focusing on serious issues that are happening around the world. Just grow up.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    You've just dismissed that point as I don't know; you're clearly very thick.
    I dismissed your point because it was just garbage, by the way, brilliant ad hominem attack. I would feel offended if you weren't so utterly brainwashed by feminists.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    There are more women on minimum wage because women are not seen to be as useful in society as men and so are paid less for their work. They're also on minimum wage because they have been unable to access the higher paid jobs which are held in a monopoly by men.
    You're clearly very thick, as you have just made this assumption "There are more women on minimum wage because women are not seen to be as useful in society as men and so are paid less for their work", which is entirely false. Women generally choose different career paths to men.

    Choosing a different career path does not show discrimination.

    Please try to find some evidence regarding women getting "paid less for their work", and no, average earnings across different jobs does not count as evidence of this.

    Women choose different career paths to men, which accounts for the difference in average pay:




    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...9#.VVdtOmCyWpw

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ...b_2073804.html

    https://mises.org/library/what’s-behind-gender-wage-gap

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...qual-pay-myth/

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...83752909957472
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    Are you arguing for me? it's because men aren't objectified and fed idealised images of other men, not to the same orders of magnitude as women are.
    "not to the same orders of magnitude as women are."

    You have just come to the conclusion that men are also fed idealised images of other men, thank you. This may not happen on the same scale as it does to women, but it still happens. And guess what? Men don't complain about it, whereas feminists do.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    I'm aware of Men's Health; since it's the only magazine that focusses around male bodies. I'm talking about mainstream media, here. The big newspapers. Your point is weak, and I recommend you think about that a little more.
    Incorrect.

    Men's Fitness
    FitnessRx for Men
    Built for the Bedroom
    Men's Journal

    My point was that this 'issue' you are having with women being sexualised in the media, is not exclusively a female 'problem'.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    It's not about women wanting to be slim and healthy; it's about saying you only have a beach body "seen as a 'good' thing" if you look like this. Aside from using a body as a tool for making money shamelessly. It's telling women that they won't be seen as beautiful until they look like this and this image depicts clearly a very stylised and unrealistic body type.
    I agree that it is implying that if you don't look like this woman, then you aren't "beach ready". But one has to be really weak to feel offended enough to vandalise a public advertisement, because it suggests that their body is not "beach ready".

    It is not an unrealistic body type, what a stupid thing to claim.
    Would a woman have to work hard to have the same figure as this woman? Yes. Does that make it unrealistic? No.

    Men's Health is part of the mainstream media, it is a magazine with a substantial number of readers (1+ million), which means that it has more readers than the Daily Telegraph.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2016

2,834

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.