Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Attachment 400835

    Attachment 400835400837

    So, mens' opinions on the matter of "equality for people" is invalid, or less valid, than women. We're most certainly not oppressed, only disregarded and expected to keep quiet while we work and gather resources for women. We have no voice, we have no rights movement, we have no emotional value other than female emotion, right? We aren't oppressed, right?


    Welp. No wonder young men are committing seppuku and checking out of society more and more. They are utterly vilified by feminism and, ironically, by male feminists. What a travesty.


    The OP never gave a conclusion as to whether or not she was a feminist or approved of any of the strands of the twisted ideology, but I'll leave my thoughts here: I am not a Marxist Feminist. I am not a Radical Feminist, nor am I a Liberal Feminist. I am not a sex positive or negative feminist either. I think it's all cancer and must be ridiculed until people stop taking the wailing banshees seriously. Some retarded events have taken place in the last ten years involving self-purported feminists that take the ideology from being "an ideology that can potentially be taken seriously by women who hate their husbands and cooking" to "an ideology that only womens studies and sexual minorities can come to terms with".

    The problem is, the new era of crazies are giving the old feminism a kind of leg to stand on, because it's simply not as extreme. The "crazy" extends to the Pay Gap nonsense and claiming that men are privileged and we built society for the benefit of men only.


    My only question to the OP would have to be: how can you take feminists seriously when they encourage division among the population for no reason other than to whine about their poor life choices?
    The funny thing is is that I actually agree with the majority of the first infographic. It just leaves one glaring omission; why are women not taking up STEM subjects?

    Another thing; pay isn't where it ends; despite various people I know (including my own mother) being far more qualified than her/their male counterparts, she/they were always placed in smaller roles in projects, while the less qualified men were put in charge, because they are male.

    It's not about life choices, it's about women being actively discouraged from taking those subjects.You don't genuinely think that the vast majority of women don't take STEM subjects because they're making a silly mistake, do you? Do you?

    ffs everyone on this comment. It's simply because we men don't know what kind of oppression women go through, because, well, we're not women, so how could we truly understand? no one is that empathic. That's what I meant. It's funny that when I say men can't comment on something because they know less about it, I get this backlash but apparently women aren't earning as much because they simply don't know what subjects to take and that's fine.

    I don't understand what you mean by to "an ideology that only womens studies and sexual minorities can come to terms with".

    no one says that :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    The funny thing is is that I actually agree with the majority of the first infographic. It just leaves one glaring omission; why are women not taking up STEM subjects?

    Another thing; pay isn't where it ends; despite various people I know (including my own mother) being far more qualified than her/their male counterparts, she/they were always placed in smaller roles in projects, while the less qualified men were put in charge, because they are male.

    It's not about life choices, it's about women being actively discouraged from taking those subjects.You don't genuinely think that the vast majority of women don't take STEM subjects because they're making a silly mistake, do you? Do you?

    ffs everyone on this comment. It's simply because we men don't know what kind of oppression women go through, because, well, we're not women, so how could we truly understand? no one is that empathic. That's what I meant. It's funny that when I say men can't comment on something because they know less about it, I get this backlash but apparently women aren't earning as much because they simply don't know what subjects to take and that's fine.

    I don't understand what you mean by to "an ideology that only womens studies and sexual minorities can come to terms with".

    no one says that :/
    "No one is that empathic". And yet you are trying to 'educate' me of your mother's plight with the glass ceiling. How can you do this without being a woman?

    Women may or may not be discouraged by others: it's an incredibly broad statement because it never applies 100% of the time. The bosses are less likely to promote a woman of child rearing age to a high position in case she falls pregnant and takes leave, causing chaos in the company potentially. Secondly, they might already have children and wish not to be so heavily burdened at work. If your mother really did want that promotion there wasn't much she could have done, because family women are a liability to the company. It's a man's world, as Brown put it.
    Finally, why aren't they taking stem subjects? Because they are being pushed in to taking degrees by moneygrubbing politicians who claim you can't get ahead without a degree, no matter what that degree is. They have no interest in the difficult scientific fields dealing with inhuman and isolated work and appear to en mass choose to take humanities or social science degrees and work with people (child care) which simply don't pay as well as a banker or engineer.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    "No one is that empathic". And yet you are trying to 'educate' me of your mother's plight with the glass ceiling. How can you do this without being a woman?

    Women may or may not be discouraged by others: it's an incredibly broad statement because it never applies 100% of the time. The bosses are less likely to promote a woman of child rearing age to a high position in case she falls pregnant and takes leave, causing chaos in the company potentially. Secondly, they might already have children and wish not to be so heavily burdened at work. If your mother really did want that promotion there wasn't much she could have done, because family women are a liability to the company. It's a man's world, as Brown put it.
    Finally, why aren't they taking stem subjects? Because they are being pushed in to taking degrees by moneygrubbing politicians who claim you can't get ahead without a degree, no matter what that degree is. They have no interest in the difficult scientific fields dealing with inhuman and isolated work and appear to en mass choose to take humanities or social science degrees and work with people (child care) which simply don't pay as well as a banker or engineer.
    yo I'm not saying that we can't make a comment, I'm just saying it carries less weight, or if it's easier to think about it this way; a woman's opinion on and impression of sexism carries more weight. hence the example. It's not like I can't speak about sexism, that would be stupid.

    To be honest, the fact you even attempted to make that argument... :') smh

    ... except that now you're trying to educate me on my own mother's situation... so when I call out men for not being able to have such an accurate comment on sexism it's not okay, but when you tell me about my own mother, it is...? This is exactly the sort of attitude that I was trying to get against; men thinking that they can comment on everything because they're more intelligent because they're men :')

    Causing chaos in a company with thousands of employees worldwide? People can cover, and what's the alternative, not letting someone have better pay because they might have a child? God forbid a woman making her own decisions.

    I have to say, you cause me conflict. I can't work out if what you're saying is truth or parody. It is a man's world.

    For that sake, I'm going to ignore what else you said there; I'm not sure if it's worth arguing, either you know it already or are seemingly misguided.

    anyway. Claiming that women for some reason choose humanities subjects with lower paid prospects doesn't make sense. If women weren't socialised to believe that men are meant to be doctors and engineers, and women nurses and cooks (look at kids toys ffs) then perhaps we'd have more equal pay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    yo I'm not saying that we can't make a comment, I'm just saying it carries less weight, or if it's easier to think about it this way; a woman's opinion on and impression of sexism carries more weight. hence the example. It's not like I can't speak about sexism, that would be stupid.To be honest, the fact you even attempted to make that argument... :' smh... except that now you're trying to educate me on my own mother's situation... so when I call out men for not being able to have such an accurate comment on sexism it's not okay, but when you tell me about my own mother, it is...? This is exactly the sort of attitude that I was trying to get against; men thinking that they can comment on everything because they're more intelligent because they're men :'Causing chaos in a company with thousands of employees worldwide? People can cover, and what's the alternative, not letting someone have better pay because they might have a child? God forbid a woman making her own decisions.I have to say, you cause me conflict. I can't work out if what you're saying is truth or parody. It is a man's world.For that sake, I'm going to ignore what else you said there; I'm not sure if it's worth arguing, either you know it already or are seemingly misguided.anyway. Claiming that women for some reason choose humanities subjects with lower paid prospects doesn't make sense. If women weren't socialised to believe that men are meant to be doctors and engineers, and women nurses and cooks (look at kids toys ffs) then perhaps we'd have more equal pay.



    how qualified you are is irrelevant when it comes to promotion, since qualifications are purely there to get you employed. For all you know your mum's absolutely crap at her job.

    There are more female Doctors, so that argument breaks down. And more biologists too. The pattern is more to do with women going into more people orientated roles, rather than focusing on abstracting "things" like machinery. When you take into account the fact that women are, biologically, more socially orientated than men are it kind of makes sense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    how qualified you are is irrelevant when it comes to promotion, since qualifications are purely there to get you employed.
    You don't know the situation, so you can't assume.

    This is architecture. My mother was Part 3 RIBA with an MSc/MArch in sustainable architecture.

    The men were part 2, non MA/MSc/MArch.

    It wasn't about promotion either, they were individual projects where individual were selected to head those projects.

    Again, another male thinking he knows everything, when actually he doesn't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    You don't know the situation, so you can't assume.

    This is architecture. My mother was Part 3 RIBA with an MSc/MArch in sustainable architecture.

    The men were part 2, non MA/MSc/MArch.

    It wasn't about promotion either, they were individual projects where individual were selected to head those projects.

    Again, another male thinking he knows everything, when actually he doesn't.
    ...You've named the respective qualifications, i'm not sure how that proves that she's better than the men.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    ...You've named the respective qualifications, i'm not sure how that proves that she's better than the men.
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    how qualified you are is irrelevant when it comes to promotion, since qualifications are purely there to get you employed. For all you know your mum's absolutely crap at her job.

    There are more female Doctors, so that argument breaks down. And more biologists too. The pattern is more to do with women going into more people orientated roles, rather than focusing on abstracting "things" like machinery. When you take into account the fact that women are, biologically, more socially orientated than men are it kind of makes sense.
    omg

    okay, well, maybe when someone has taken the time out to spend accumulatively 10 years in her chosen subject, is now an artist, so knows how to draw, is far more experienced and far more adept at running projects than her male counterparts, then I think you can assume she's a better architect. Stop being a prick.

    So why are those jobs that men are more attracted to paid higher then?

    lol who the **** do you think you are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    omg

    okay, well, maybe when someone has taken the time out to spend accumulatively 10 years in her chosen subject, is now an artist, so knows how to draw, is far more experienced and far more adept at running projects than her male counterparts, then I think you can assume she's a better architect. Stop being a prick.

    So why are those jobs that men are more attracted to paid higher then?

    lol who the **** do you think you are.
    I can't assume anything about a labourer i know absolutely nothing about; so skepticism is the position i take. I'm not gonna start making assumptions about groups of individuals I know nothing about. If it was like I suggested and your mum wasn't good, and I'm not for a second suggesting this is true, your mum could still have convinced you that it's all down to her gender.

    Because the market dictates those jobs have more monetary value. No, there's no conspiracy. Also, Doctors get paid pretty highly; higher than engineers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)

    ... except that now you're trying to educate me on my own mother's situation... so when I call out men for not being able to have such an accurate comment on sexism it's not okay, but when you tell me about my own mother, it is...? This is exactly the sort of attitude that I was trying to get against; men thinking that they can comment on everything because they're more intelligent because they're men :'

    Causing chaos in a company with thousands of employees worldwide? People can cover, and what's the alternative, not letting someone have better pay because they might have a child? God forbid a woman making her own decisions.


    anyway. Claiming that women for some reason choose humanities subjects with lower paid prospects doesn't make sense. If women weren't socialised to believe that men are meant to be doctors and engineers, and women nurses and cooks (look at kids toys ffs) then perhaps we'd have more equal pay.
    Right. I've highlighted the glaring parts to your argument and logic that I think is perhaps a little misguided. I can tell you're into sociology, aren't you? Do you believe men and women are equal but the division of labour was created to keep the woman under the man's thumb? This is not the case. Especially when concerning traditional family parenting roles, just today it was reported in the Telegraph: a study showing that symmetrical families have failed and are simply a media myth. The men who wish to be more hands-on with their children become depressed when they can't, due to time restraints with work. The man is working for the sustenance of his family, not just himself. Is this selfish? Is this oppressive to his partner? You tell me. The irony is, the more free the sexes have become, the more we shift in our preferred professions and lifestyles. What you wish to do is force a more communistic regime of equality in the workplace, which is hardly desirable for the women who are comfortable in their own skin.

    In business, the game is about reliably turning a profit and having slick production and management. A member of the management top-tier is liable to keep things on track. They must be level-headed, strong-willed and most importantly- have no distractions or interruptions from their job. It is discrimination, indeed, but when statistics and reality tell you that women of a certain age are likely to leave to have children, they must take that in to account. Funnily enough, the government enforced maternity leave pay also means employers must consider that. It's amusing how women find it "outrageous" that employers don't want to pay for these employees for doing nothing for six months.

    Lastly, if you can direct me to where in my post where I attempted to "educate" you on your mother's "situation". I laid out a scenario, offering a hypothetical desire for promotion and the consequence of disappointment. The full James Brown quote is "This is a man's world, but it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a child", which you should find more agreeable. My point still stands, sans hypocrisy, that you are attempting to speak out for women about sexism/misogyny, whilst claiming men have very little authority on the matter. For this, I should ignore everything you say (but I don't agree with your point).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I can't assume anything about a labourer i know absolutely nothing about; so skepticism is the position i take. I'm not gonna start making assumptions about groups of individuals I know nothing about. If it was like I suggested and your mum wasn't good, and I'm not for a second suggesting this is true, your mum could still have convinced you that it's all down to her gender.

    Because the market dictates those jobs have more monetary value. No, there's no conspiracy. Also, Doctors get paid pretty highly; higher than engineers.
    Not that I want to get involved in this argument, but you must admit that your opinion carries less weight when not only are you not the discriminated party, or related to, or even know said person, but you are also clueless about their profession.

    That must make sense, right? You seemed pretty upset a while back when you were told your opinion didn't carry much weight, but honestly I don't see how it possibly could.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Right. I've highlighted the glaring parts to your argument and logic that I think is perhaps a little misguided. I can tell you're into sociology, aren't you? Do you believe men and women are equal but the division of labour was created to keep the woman under the man's thumb? This is not the case. Especially when concerning traditional family parenting roles, just today it was reported in the Telegraph: a study showing that symmetrical families have failed and are simply a media myth. The men who wish to be more hands-on with their children become depressed when they can't, due to time restraints with work. The man is working for the sustenance of his family, not just himself. Is this selfish? Is this oppressive to his partner? You tell me. The irony is, the more free the sexes have become, the more we shift in our preferred professions and lifestyles. What you wish to do is force a more communistic regime of equality in the workplace, which is hardly desirable for the women who are comfortable in their own skin.

    In business, the game is about reliably turning a profit and having slick production and management. A member of the management top-tier is liable to keep things on track. They must be level-headed, strong-willed and most importantly- have no distractions or interruptions from their job. It is discrimination, indeed, but when statistics and reality tell you that women of a certain age are likely to leave to have children, they must take that in to account. Funnily enough, the government enforced maternity leave pay also means employers must consider that. It's amusing how women find it "outrageous" that employers don't want to pay for these employees for doing nothing for six months.

    Lastly, if you can direct me to where in my post where I attempted to "educate" you on your mother's "situation". I laid out a scenario, offering a hypothetical desire for promotion and the consequence of disappointment. The full James Brown quote is "This is a man's world, but it wouldn't be nothing without a woman or a child", which you should find more agreeable. My point still stands, sans hypocrisy, that you are attempting to speak out for women about sexism/misogyny, whilst claiming men have very little authority on the matter. For this, I should ignore everything you say (but I don't agree with your point).
    I'm no sociologist; I've never studied it. My A Levels were History of Art, Maths, and Chinese. I'm not here for academic reasons, only moral ones.

    In essence, yes. Men have historically held precedence and seen themselves to be higher than women. Men have always held the higher positions in society and still do.

    if it's in the torygraph you have to take it with a pinch of salt. Also, in Norway, parental leave is split between parents and is paid. It's the classic example of a symmetrical family and ****ing hell it works.

    Okay, great, the male is working for the sustenance of his family whilst the female has an unpaid or low paid job and looks after the children. what if the female wanted to work and to feel like she could do something for the family too? What if she wanted to take the role of the man? Why can't she pursue a high-paid, respected job? what's wrong with that?

    Again, women making their own decisions. The horror!

    oh gosh. communism. ugh. socialism, actually.

    yo if women were comfortable in their pre-defined social positions, then feminism wouldn't exist. Again, why don't you let women speak and see if they're so comfortable with just looking after the kids and house forever and ever?

    besides, the man looking after the family argument misses the fact that some women may not have kids, or may not be heterosexual. what do they do then?

    Your next paragraph is hilarious. If it's discrimination, it's wrong. It's also wrong to assume that women are going to have children when they might not, and it's wrong to assume that they cannot continue with their job once they have children. What you write assumes that once women have children they turn immediately into yummy mummies, content with having picnics in the park and baby meets when actually, they're not. You assume that it is the woman's role in looking after the children, and this is sexist; it also reinforces the ingrained prejudice against women in the workplace.

    Doing nothing for six months? Really? You genuinely think that?!

    "If your mother really did want that promotion there wasn't much she could have done, because family women are a liability to the company." You're trying to tell me that she couldn't possibly have got her promotion because she was a liability to the company. You don't even know her name.

    Lastly, this has been blown hugely out of context. My original point is that the opinion of a woman on this matter holds more weight than that of a man because women are the ones who have been most subject, if not entirely subject to feminism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Not that I want to get involved in this argument, but you must admit that your opinion carries less weight when not only are you not the discriminated party, or related to, or even know said person, but you are also clueless about their profession.

    That must make sense, right? You seemed pretty upset a while back when you were told your opinion didn't carry much weight, but honestly I don't see how it possibly could.
    I am admitting my lack of knowledge. That also requires me to not be influenced by hearsay comments on the matter.

    I am not upset about being told I know nothing about a subject. In fact you're confusing me with someone else, I never at first complained about this at all, but yeah, the idea that my penis stops me understanding some abstract concepts is pretty demeaning. Only someone who truly hates their own flesh (a male feminist) would hold that that's true..
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Not that I want to get involved in this argument, but you must admit that your opinion carries less weight when not only are you not the discriminated party, or related to, or even know said person, but you are also clueless about their profession.

    That must make sense, right? You seemed pretty upset a while back when you were told your opinion didn't carry much weight, but honestly I don't see how it possibly could.
    actually thank you. I was beginning to wonder if actually everyone here just had a massive ego.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I am admitting my lack of knowledge. That also requires me to not be influenced by hearsay comments on the matter.

    I am not upset about being told I know nothing about a subject. In fact you're confusing me with someone else, I never at first complained about this at all, but yeah, the idea that my penis stops me understanding some abstract concepts is pretty demeaning. Only someone who truly hates their own flesh (a male feminist) would hold that that's true..
    heresy comments... from my own mother? I would think I'd know about my own mother's profession and what her situation was...

    I know. Isn't it hard when someone tells you you can't understand something just because of your gender?

    Also, I don't hate my own flesh. I hate yours :wink:

    Being a male feminist isn't like treason. It's not a battle of the sexes. It's about understanding the various forms of discrimination against women.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    heresy comments... from my own mother? I would think I'd know about my own mother's profession and what her situation was...

    I know. Isn't it hard when someone tells you you can't understand something just because of your gender?

    Also, I don't hate my own flesh. I hate yours :wink:

    Being a male feminist isn't like treason. It's not a battle of the sexes. It's about understanding the various forms of discrimination against women.
    Hearsay comments are exactly what they are. You're using comments from someone outside the argument to constitute evidence inside of it. Since obviously they're unverifiable and we can't argue for or against them, they're useless.

    And that happens to men.

    Feminism endourses a battle of the sexes. I don't like that but if you force a battle on me I will win. Feminism feeds into a venomously anti male society. That's evil and when people endourse the erroneous arguments for it I have to step in.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Hearsay comments are exactly what they are. You're using comments from someone outside the argument to constitute evidence inside of it. Since obviously they're unverifiable and we can't argue for or against them, they're useless.

    And that happens to men.

    Feminism endourses a battle of the sexes. I don't like that but if you force a battle on me I will win. Feminism feeds into a venomously anti male society. That's evil and when people endourse the erroneous arguments for it I have to step in.
    I accept what you're saying, but I would have the humility to believe someone's personal account of someone close to them, even if it contradicts my argument.

    It barely happens to men. Except in situations where what they're talking about doesn't affect them, like this one. It happens to women in far more situations: "women can't drive/use computers/do managerial work"

    How does it endorse a battle? And also, you make it sound like you're a ****ing character from GoT or WoW or something like that who will battle me. **** off. Also, "I have to step in" like you're some hero fighting for men's rights. [email protected]
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I read the whole OP and I've arrived at the conclusion that the OP is stupid.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Hearsay comments are exactly what they are. You're using comments from someone outside the argument to constitute evidence inside of it. Since obviously they're unverifiable and we can't argue for or against them, they're useless.

    And that happens to men.

    Feminism endourses a battle of the sexes. I don't like that but if you force a battle on me I will win. Feminism feeds into a venomously anti male society. That's evil and when people endourse the erroneous arguments for it I have to step in.
    Admittedly I haven't read most of the thread (it's 15 pages long by now I think), but if we're still even vaguely on the OPs track, she talks about this. OP seems to think that feminism is by and large too ill-defined, or at least defined as too many different things.

    For instance, if there was good evidence that whenever males and females went for the same job, the male was 50% more likely to get it, I hope that everyone would agree that that is disturbing. Now, the problem might not be discrimination, but something is still going wrong there is there is statistical evidence. Does that make me a feminist? I know the evidence for a glass ceiling is disputed, but generally I find myself thinking that a lot of the people trying to question this stuff don't seem interested in finding out the truth, more just their own agendas...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    For instance, if there was good evidence that whenever males and females went for the same job, the male was 50% more likely to get it, I hope that everyone would agree that that is disturbing. Now, the problem might not be discrimination, but something is still going wrong there is there is statistical evidence. Does that make me a feminist? I know the evidence for a glass ceiling is disputed, but generally I find myself thinking that a lot of the people trying to question this stuff don't seem interested in finding out the truth, more just their own agendas...
    Why would that fact be disturbing? Whom does it disturb? The only reason it would disturb you is if you were an activist who believes in equality for all in all. All these ceilings are silly as they're not confined to just women, but also biology, family, wealth and reputation. That 50% figure would be more of an indication to me that women applying for these jobs aren't adequate for them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    The funny thing is is that I actually agree with the majority of the first infographic. It just leaves one glaring omission; why are women not taking up STEM subjects?

    Another thing; pay isn't where it ends; despite various people I know (including my own mother) being far more qualified than her/their male counterparts, she/they were always placed in smaller roles in projects, while the less qualified men were put in charge, because they are male.
    There are a number of reasons why women aren't taking STEM subjects - one is that women just don't seem to naturally prefer these.

    As for your mother, a single anecdote is not going to sway the argument. I could provide several more anecdotes wherein the very opposite occurred.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    It's not about life choices, it's about women being actively discouraged from taking those subjects.You don't genuinely think that the vast majority of women don't take STEM subjects because they're making a silly mistake, do you? Do you?
    You're going to need proof of this mass conspiracy in education. Women are free to take whichever subjects they choose, and at no point in their schooling are they told "girls shouldn't take these subjects." Even in places like Sweden and Norway where a 'gender nuetral' education is strongly enforced and women are actively encouraged to take STEM subjects, most opt away.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    ffs everyone on this comment. It's simply because we men don't know what kind of oppression women go through, because, well, we're not women, so how could we truly understand? no one is that empathic. That's what I meant. It's funny that when I say men can't comment on something because they know less about it, I get this backlash but apparently women aren't earning as much because they simply don't know what subjects to take and that's fine.

    I don't understand what you mean by to "an ideology that only womens studies and sexual minorities can come to terms with".
    The "you aren't us, so you can't know, therefore you can't disagree" argument is a bit of a cop-out. We are human beings too, capable of understanding the very same concepts as long as they are communicated well enough. Shutting oneself off from other perspectives is a problem that can go both ways. When somebody is continuously told they are oppressed, then that's what they are going to see. Sometimes it takes an outsider's perspective to help people see a clearer, more objective picture and be more critical. People aren't always as 'oppressed' as they may lead themselves to believe.
 
 
 
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

3,461

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
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.