Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)

    1) There are a number of reasons why women aren't taking STEM subjects - one is that women just seem to naturally prefer these.

    2) 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.

    3) 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.

    4) 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. Maybe you aren't as 'oppressed' as you think.
    numbered paragraphs.

    1) funny coincidence that all the subjects that women prefer are lower paid then, isn't it?

    2) fair enough. I was more annoyed with his point-blank refusal to accept the anecdote though.

    3) "According to Hicks, the problem starts long before university. "The ignorance about Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] subjects is deep rooted," he says. "It's not just parents, it's careers advisers in schools who are often detached from the modern reality of these professions and have a distorted idea of what they're like. Even in primary schools, there are hardly any teachers from science-related backgrounds, and few female role models.""

    "Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, thinks it's partly because society abandoned the feminist movement too early. "We assumed that because women were moving into economic life all of our social and cultural stereotypes would just disappear," she says. "The truth is that we have only just started to challenge the notion that women are good at the caring professions while men are good at logic, science and industry. This divide is fuelling the gender pay gap.""

    ""More women are entering medicine, for example, but they are still massively underrepresented in the top ranks, and there are few female surgeons. Moreover, many of the fields women are entering aren't as highly paid as they used to be – medicine has become bureaucratised and men can make more money in technology, banking and finance.""

    "Bernard Strutt, external affairs manager for the school, hopes that "the creative elements of the competition will prove especially appealing to women". But isn't this kind of attitude part of the problem, implying that women can't handle the more technical side of Stem subjects?""

    http://www.theguardian.com/education...-stem-subjects

    4) I'm actually male. I wasn't trying to provoke a divide, it's just to show that actually, I can't have a full true understanding of discrimination against women. It's not that women are told they are oppressed, it's that they've come to that conclusion themselves. Men telling women that they aren't oppressed under the guise of providing an alternative argument is not only silly, since actually, we can't truly know, because we're not them, but also dangerous, since men are actually the ones in power, who control the media, our country, our finances, and our daily lives.

    What I feel it also promotes is male entitlement, where men think they are clever enough to comment on anything because of their gender.

    I'd be very interested to know what you think of this: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/white-peopl...ersity-1498077
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    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.
    See, you're a great illustration.

    To (mis)quote Randall Monroe "I don't have a strong opinion, but it's like gun rights. The people who come up to you with a strong opinion... you usually want to avoid them."

    Those who seem defensive about these things pretty much lose all their credibility.

    edit with correct quote

    okay, apparently I misquoted him quite badly... he was initially talking about gun rights, but the quote should be:

    "And it's not so much that one position is, you know, right, or being stamped down or anything like that. It's just, anyone who's too interested in the issue frightens me."

    This is pretty much my viewpoint on feminism, religion and a few other things, to be honest, so I'd better get the damn quote right!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    See, you're a great illustration.

    To (mis)quote Randall Monroe "I don't have a strong opinion, but it's like gun rights. The people who come up to you with a strong opinion... you usually want to avoid them."

    Those who seem defensive about these things pretty much lose all their credibility.
    Be hot or be cold; never be lukewarm. - Jesus

    Nobody likes a wishy-washy spineless man whose opinion sways with popular trends.

    edit: that's a stupid quote if you seriously try to apply it to life. It's the voice of apathy right there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    numbered paragraphs.

    1) funny coincidence that all the subjects that women prefer are lower paid then, isn't it?
    It's funny that women typically aim for easier jobs.

    I have a method for making those women's jobs better paid. I think you'll like it. Let's take teaching as an example:

    Step 1. ban teaching without a university degree in "teaching"

    Step 2. create a teaching degree which will take four to six years to attain

    Step 3. ????

    Step 4. muh free market will fix your inequality!

    I wonder if you can see the glaring consequences of this (protip: it's something we've seen happen to the medical industry).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Be hot or be cold; never be lukewarm. - Jesus

    Nobody likes a wishy-washy spineless man whose opinion sways with popular trends.

    edit: that's a stupid quote if you seriously try to apply it to life. It's the voice of apathy right there.
    Just to be clear, I do actually find people online with super strong opinions frightening. I mean, in the case of feminism you typically have the following two characters in the debate:
    1) The internet feminist, who is trying to convince people (on a forum? really?) why men are evil etc.
    2) The anti-feminist, who is actively pointing out a bunch of stuff which typically includes: the 'glass ceiling' evidence is weak, how many apply for the jobs? Maybe the men were more qualified (again, on a statistical basis, men can't really be more qualified). Maybe the men were more pushy. Second, that the pay gap is much smaller than claimed when you take into account jobs, (ignoring the fact that this doesn't close the gap, and that taking into account job distribution is pretty much counter to the point that men have higher paying jobs!). There's some other stuff, but you can just read the past 15 pages for that

    Both of these characters are usually highly pushy, refuse to accept that they're wrong on any point, and moreover they have scarily lined up world views. By this I mean that they e.g. identify as "Libertarian" and have literally every view that goes with, or "Socialist" or on other threads you get "Muslim" and "Atheist". And they all have weirdly grouped beliefs, refuse to accept the beliefs outside of that group, will oppose any evidence given by the opposite party without proper review and will blame the other party for various things. In this thread, that would be patriarchy blaming from Char 1 on males, and 'victim' blaming (ie should have studied STEM) from Char 2 on females.

    How on Earth is that not scary?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Just to be clear, I do actually find people online with super strong opinions frightening. I mean, in the case of feminism you typically have the following two characters in the debate:
    1) The internet feminist, who is trying to convince people (on a forum? really?) why men are evil etc.
    2) The anti-feminist, who is actively pointing out a bunch of stuff which typically includes: the 'glass ceiling' evidence is weak, how many apply for the jobs? Maybe the men were more qualified (again, on a statistical basis, men can't really be more qualified). Maybe the men were more pushy. Second, that the pay gap is much smaller than claimed when you take into account jobs, (ignoring the fact that this doesn't close the gap, and that taking into account job distribution is pretty much counter to the point that men have higher paying jobs!). There's some other stuff, but you can just read the past 15 pages for that

    Both of these characters are usually highly pushy, refuse to accept that they're wrong on any point, and moreover they have scarily lined up world views. By this I mean that they e.g. identify as "Libertarian" and have literally every view that goes with, or "Socialist" or on other threads you get "Muslim" and "Atheist". And they all have weirdly grouped beliefs, refuse to accept the beliefs outside of that group, will oppose any evidence given by the opposite party without proper review and will blame the other party for various things. In this thread, that would be patriarchy blaming from Char 1 on males, and 'victim' blaming (ie should have studied STEM) from Char 2 on females.

    How on Earth is that not scary?
    it's only because I have an exam tomorrow and I'm procrastinating. Not to say I don't believe what I've written, but it explains my persistent argumentative nature.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    Just to be clear, I do actually find people online with super strong opinions frightening. I mean, in the case of feminism you typically have the following two characters in the debate:
    1) The internet feminist, who is trying to convince people (on a forum? really?) why men are evil etc.
    2) The anti-feminist, who is actively pointing out a bunch of stuff which typically includes: the 'glass ceiling' evidence is weak, how many apply for the jobs? Maybe the men were more qualified (again, on a statistical basis, men can't really be more qualified). Maybe the men were more pushy. Second, that the pay gap is much smaller than claimed when you take into account jobs, (ignoring the fact that this doesn't close the gap, and that taking into account job distribution is pretty much counter to the point that men have higher paying jobs!). There's some other stuff, but you can just read the past 15 pages for that

    Both of these characters are usually highly pushy, refuse to accept that they're wrong on any point, and moreover they have scarily lined up world views. By this I mean that they e.g. identify as "Libertarian" and have literally every view that goes with, or "Socialist" or on other threads you get "Muslim" and "Atheist". And they all have weirdly grouped beliefs, refuse to accept the beliefs outside of that group, will oppose any evidence given by the opposite party without proper review and will blame the other party for various things. In this thread, that would be patriarchy blaming from Char 1 on males, and 'victim' blaming (ie should have studied STEM) from Char 2 on females.

    How on Earth is that not scary?
    You have an idea of an anti-feminist in your head. It is not reflected in reality, thankfully. All anti-feminists have in common with each other is their scepticism on the benefit of feminism and the lies its proponents promulgate. I can see you actually believe the wage gap exists, which is why you are on the fence on this, I must assume. No, just as not all atheists are communists, not all 'anti-feminists' are libertarians. A lot of them are, but they ranges from libertarians to National Socialists to Paleoconservatives. The single thing that binds these occasionally contrary people is that they demand proper empirical evidence rooted in reality.

    I like how you don't think forums are great methods of conversing with people. The feminists range from radical, Marxist (still radical) and liberal- all are stupid. What they need is the correct information at their disposal: the false statistics like 1 in 5 campus rape and 77 cents to the dorra nonsense, is adding fuel to the fire of a pointless debate.

    In fact, I agree with you here. It is a pointless debate, but is it really scary that there are two sides? There is actually only one side: angry feminists whining about rubbish because they are bored. The other side is simply the brick wall being yelled at. The wall represents thousands of years of stoic traditionalism which made Britain and its people what she is today. The reason we come out is because every time we DON'T oppose these wailing harpies from the hard left, the goalposts are lifted and moved further to their side. The majority don't want this, and most of them don't want this conversation.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    it's only because I have an exam tomorrow and I'm procrastinating. Not to say I don't believe what I've written, but it explains my persistent argumentative nature.
    Man up, son.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    You have an idea of an anti-feminist in your head. It is not reflected in reality, thankfully. All anti-feminists have in common with each other is their scepticism on the benefit of feminism and the lies its proponents promulgate..
    I think I get to decide what internet anti-feminists look like to me. And that is not too drastic a caricature. They are immovable, will dispute all evidence and will blame women for not taking STEM subjects, and never question why they are not taking STEM subjects. That's called motivated stopping, you reach a point in the argument where you come out looking good, and don't carry on wondering whether you've finished or not. Both sides are guilty of this, but I actually think the male rights people (especially those who actually call themselves this!) are worse on this issue.

    I can see you actually believe the wage gap exists, which is why you are on the fence on this, I must assume. No, just as not all atheists are communists, not all 'anti-feminists' are libertarians. A lot of them are, but they ranges from libertarians to National Socialists to Paleoconservatives. The single thing that binds these occasionally contrary people is that they demand proper empirical evidence rooted in reality.
    As far as I'm aware, there is a large body of evidence that some kind of wage gap does exist. The typical figure quoted is a US figure, which pretty much makes it irrelevant as to what it actually is (I think it's a 20% cut?). The anti-feminist side makes a good case that women do tend towards teaching, nursing etc but this brings out one of the unfortunate nuances of this debate: nobody knows what they're debating. A good chunk of feminists know this, and are blaming the wage gap on societal attitudes, leading to more women taking lower paid jobs. Others are simply blaming the fact that its usually men who set the wages. The former has a reasonable case that is never met by the anti-feminist crew. On top of that, the "wage-gap sceptics" usually still get a small wage-gap left over once they're done manipulating. But yeah, I'm not familiar with the data and that probably isn't statistically significant.
    I like how you don't think forums are great methods of conversing with people. The feminists range from radical, Marxist (still radical) and liberal- all are stupid. What they need is the correct information at their disposal: the false statistics like 1 in 5 campus rape and 77 cents to the dorra nonsense, is adding fuel to the fire of a pointless debate.

    In fact, I agree with you here. It is a pointless debate, but is it really scary that there are two sides? There is actually only one side: angry feminists whining about rubbish because they are bored. The other side is simply the brick wall being yelled at. The wall represents thousands of years of stoic traditionalism which made Britain and its people what she is today. The reason we come out is because every time we DON'T oppose these wailing harpies from the hard left, the goalposts are lifted and moved further to their side. The majority don't want this, and most of them don't want this conversation.
    Oh, I think the debate needs to be had. It's just that internet fora are historically not the best place to win a debate - they're alright for generating opinion, even for getting both sides to present their opinions, but in the end the Internet doesn't allow its citizens to change their minds.

    Oh, and incidentally, your last paragraph is a good case study of how the more polarised debaters speak: you claim that your side doesn't exist except as a punching bag (claiming to be a victim); that the other side are bored (Ad hominem) and angry (and in this case 'harpies', kudos); you associate the opposition with a particular political attitude, in this case 'the hard left', which is weird because feminism does not invoke leftist viewpoints (necessarily anyway, yes there does happen to be a Marxist feminism, but that's like saying atheist's are left wing).

    Just for some social commentary
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)

    1) funny coincidence that all the subjects that women prefer are lower paid then, isn't it?
    These lower paid jobs exist in less profitable industries. It's a simple economic fact that areas such as social care and primary school education are less profitable than petroleum engineering and electronics. And, as a matter of fact, workplace satisfaction for women is generally higher than it is for men, despite their lower average pay. They're quite happy doing what they do.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    3) "According to Hicks, the problem starts long before university. "The ignorance about Stem [science, technology, engineering and maths] subjects is deep rooted," he says. "It's not just parents, it's careers advisers in schools who are often detached from the modern reality of these professions and have a distorted idea of what they're like. Even in primary schools, there are hardly any teachers from science-related backgrounds, and few female role models.""

    "Ceri Goddard, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, thinks it's partly because society abandoned the feminist movement too early. "We assumed that because women were moving into economic life all of our social and cultural stereotypes would just disappear," she says. "The truth is that we have only just started to challenge the notion that women are good at the caring professions while men are good at logic, science and industry. This divide is fueling the gender pay gap.""

    ...
    Interestingly, countries such as India, China, and Indonesia -- where social gender divides and traditional gender roles are greater than they are here -- have a smaller pay gap than places such as Canada, the UK and the US. I will reiterate my point that, in perhaps the most 'feminist' nations on Earth (such as the Scandinavian nations) where women are given much more freedom and social encouragement, women still gravitate strongly towards 'soft' subjects and industries despite being steered away from gender roles in school.

    Women's studies academics -- who themselves chose non-STEM subjects -- are concerned because the female population, given the freedom, isn't operating the way they want. Instead of accepting the fact women just don't seem interested in these subjects and career paths as a whole, a patriarchal conspiracy theory must be to blame. What else?

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    4) I'm actually male. I wasn't trying to provoke a divide, it's just to show that actually, I can't have a full true understanding of discrimination against women. It's not that women are told they are oppressed, it's that they've come to that conclusion themselves. Men telling women that they aren't oppressed under the guise of providing an alternative argument is not only silly, since actually, we can't truly know, because we're not them, but also dangerous, since men are actually the ones in power, who control the media, our country, our finances, and our daily lives.
    Women are told by other women that they're oppressed.

    And actually we can know - we have access to the same information and can make assessments from this. Personal experiences aren't proof of mass oppression, anyway. Just thinking you're oppressed isn't really the same as actually being oppressed. Regardless, I am interested to see any data showing the general female population feels 'oppressed' in their careers.

    P.S. most men have almost no power whatsoever. For the gender that's 'in power,' most of us don't have it.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    What I feel it also promotes is male entitlement, where men think they are clever enough to comment on anything because of their gender.
    Ah, that must be it. It certainly has nothing to do with the fact we are simply responding to claims we disagree with on an intellectual level -- claims that actual affect social policy and business practices. When I debate creationists, it's not my intellectual, political and academic interests that fuel me; it's my cis white hetero male entitlement! Get a grip.

    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    I'd be very interested to know what you think of this: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/white-peopl...ersity-1498077
    A good example of the rampant hypocrisy infecting the social justice movement. Let's exclude white male students in an event promoting race and gender diversity and exclusivity. Can't have those patriarchal oppressors intimidating anyone.

    Lastly, interesting fact regarding the wage gap (from the US): it barely applies to the average woman, nor does it really apply to unmarried women (who earn 96% of the male median weekly wage, averaged for all work hours, all professions). Women working under 40 hours per week actually earn more than the median weekly wage of men working those hours, averaged across all professions. The average number of hours worked per week for women is 33, and only 14% of women work more than 40 hours per week. In contrast, men work an average 39 hours per week and 25% of us work more than 40 hours per week. Ergo a woman working average hours actually earns more than a man working average hours. Nevertheless, men earn more overall because we work more overall.

    Source: US Department of Labor Statistics (2014)

    The wage effect of STEM subject preference on the population, for most of us, really isn't very large, despite the fact it comes up so often.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think I'll just put this here....Name:  CFcYFYqUUAAuMSV.jpg
Views: 226
Size:  110.2 KB
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ummm)
    I think I'll just put this here....Name:  CFcYFYqUUAAuMSV.jpg
Views: 226
Size:  110.2 KB
    What utter piffle. Was it that guy who said those things? What a beta cuck male feminist he must be to believe slavery was ended by feminists.

    Also, lol- that good old "i'm not going to define the term I am defending because it will make this post much more difficult. Educate yourself, you 5hitlord"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    I think I get to decide what internet anti-feminists look like to me. And that is not too drastic a caricature. They are immovable, will dispute all evidence and will blame women for not taking STEM subjects, and never question why they are not taking STEM subjects. That's called motivated stopping, you reach a point in the argument where you come out looking good, and don't carry on wondering whether you've finished or not. Both sides are guilty of this, but I actually think the male rights people (especially those who actually call themselves this!) are worse on this issue.


    Oh, and incidentally, your last paragraph is a good case study of how the more polarised debaters speak: you claim that your side doesn't exist except as a punching bag (claiming to be a victim); that the other side are bored (Ad hominem) and angry (and in this case 'harpies', kudos); you associate the opposition with a particular political attitude, in this case 'the hard left', which is weird because feminism does not invoke leftist viewpoints (necessarily anyway, yes there does happen to be a Marxist feminism, but that's like saying atheist's are left wing).

    Just for some social commentary
    >I get to decide what is real and what is not
    I hate debating with moral relativists... It's so circular because your position is cemented and only you can change your own opinion by changing your perception of something- facts be damned. I'd like you to tell me what feminists are if not left-wing. They propose women and man are "equal" in all aspects apart from anatomy. Both Marxist Feminism and Liberal Feminism run on this, and Radical Feminism runs on it with the caveat that women are superior to men. You're trying hard to be a smug git with all of these "gotcha" lines. I also did not claim the traditional folk were victims. There is a reason I used the wall metaphor and not some kind of bullied child in the playground. We're stoic, strong and we outnumber the crazy. They simply shout louder. Your claim is that we are a punching bag (thus not resisting), not my claim.

    The question of "why aren't women taking STEM jobs" has been asked many times and answered plenty by, not necessarily MRAs, but anti-feminists or journalists. A notable time was the Norwegian documentary the Gender Equality Paradox. In it, the presenter talks to biologists, sociologists and psychologists to determine why, when given more freedom over their careers, do men and women segregate in to certain sectors in the job market. Here's a clip:

    Name:  biology.jpg
Views: 167
Size:  495.3 KB
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I read it all!! (ignore the others) I agree with you COMPLETELY but I still identify as a feminist/egalitarian because in my mind that's what I believe in
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Bet I'm going to get a lot of viewers with that provocative title :teehee:
    Disclaimer No.1: Ladies, please hold your estrogen/prolactin hormones to a normal level until you finish reading my thread. Gents, please also hold your testosterone to a normal level until you finish reading my thread. Thank you :cute:
    Disclaimer No.2: This post is meant to challenge feminism- the ideology, and the movements (or mini-ideologies) within it. I am not against feminism as a whole in the same way as I am not in favour of it. I also encourage you to challenge my arguments, come up with your own in favour/against Feminism in order to make this post a debate and not a *****ing arena.
    Disclaimer No. 3: For those of you thinking that I have too much time on my hands to write this, I'm letting you know that debating over any ideology is part of my degree- so I'm actually being productive now xD

    I decided to write this just after coming from a seminar on "Feminism", and will start by saying that I don't hate "feminism" because of what it implies, I hate it because even after reading from so many books about this ideology, I am still not sure if I am a "feminist" or not (*)

    I also hate "feminism" because to the average person -regardless whether man or woman- not studying politics/IR/other social study or not reading about the ideology, feminism is still perceived as only being radical feminism.I met women that claimed that they wanted equality (which is what mostly liberal feminism is concerned with) but they didn't want feminism because they thought that all feminists are angry men-hating women, which is not by any means true.


    I also hate "feminism" because it just feels like all the ideologies this world currently has are compressed and divided from a single gendered perspective.

    1)You have liberal feminists: their proponents claim that the single and most important goal for women's liberation is sexual equality or gender justice

    2)You have socialist-marxist feminism: their proponents mostly attack the existing divisions of labour in society that made women primarily responsible for domestic duties. Just like Socialists-Marxists, they're also seeking the need for a revolution to overthrow capitalism, but also to overcome male dominance.

    3)You have radical-feminism (my personal least-favourite one):
    These people (mostly women) are virtually nuts.
    a) A lady called Shulamith Firestone claims that male power and control over women's biology can only be abolished by relieving women of their reproductive role.She's basically suggesting that us women shouldn't be mommas and that we should make babies in a tube. No thanks, I'm personally looking forward to feel some kicks in my tummy in the next decade or so.
    b) A lady called Mary Daly, who's really into ladies (if you know what I mean :sexface:)claims that women should create a culture separate from men. She, just like other radical feminists criticises liberal feminism for never questioning whether masculine and/or feminine traits are worth keeping.

    There are many other types of "feminism" but I won't go into them as this is not the point of my thread.

    (*) coming back to the idea I underlined earlier. I am still having a hard time deciding if I am a "feminist" or not, because of these disparaties I just mentioned. Every type of feminist movement is only concerned with one apparent problem. I can't consider myself any of them, because some are endorsing a number of ideas to which I agree, but they may be overlooking some that I also consider to be a problem. Some might have some ideas to which I agree, but they also have some ideas to which I am highly against. So, until I'll make up my mind whether I am or not a "feminist" per se, I will keep anything related to the word/ideology "feminism" in quotation marks (because I am still questioning and challenging the ideology).

    I'll now ennumerate the problems I see with "feminism" so far, and I will engulf all waves and movements in this summation:

    So far all movements of "feminism" that I reviewed raise the issue of inequality between the sexes. However, "feminists" such as radicals for instance, raise discrimination from men as an issue but at the same time discriminate other women. They're accusing women working in modelling or in the porn industry for doing what they are doing, but in reality it's their choice, and they are getting paid for what they're doing. They are shoving "objectification" as an issue whenever they're looking at magazines such as FHM, PlayBoy, Sports Illustrated, etc., but men are also at risk to have lower self esteem whenever they're looking at magazines with buff gym guys (most of whom take steroids and take other unorthodox methods to achieve that look). Does that mean women are more sensible to these adverts, hence should be pitied more and that men can deal with it because they've got an extra load of meat in their crotch? Sorry, but that's bs.

    This issue over the "ideal look" projected by the media and other companies is an issue for both sexes, therefore I don't see this as a legit pretext to be used by some feminists. Anorexia/plastic surgery resulting from what some girls see in the media is an equally severe problem to the one some men are having when they're injecting steroids into their bodies, as a result of what they're also seeing in the media.

    I also hate the idea of work quotas. In some parts of the world there is a certain number of positions allocated for women only, that companies must have. I see this as a response to "gender discrimination" by gender discrimination. I am sorry to say this, ladies, but we are not physically constructed by mother nature to fulfil some tasks. However, that doesn't mean that women shouldn't have access to all types of jobs, god forbid, but I believe that both men and women should first be tested for their skills and then be employed. Probation periods are a good example. If an applicant of either gender proves not to be fit for the job, that's the result of their capabilities. Women can work in the army, women can work in construction, women can do jobs that also men can do, but not all. This goes vice-versa.
    Of course there is still gender discrimination going on in the working environment, and of course some women are being paid less than some men for the same job, but men are not the only ones to blame for this. Gender inequality is a socially constructed concept and I think that the best way to respond to this is to not see a human being in terms of gender, at least when it comes to the work environment. When an employer looks at a prospective employee, he/she should see only the employee and what he/she must to for the job and not a man employee or a woman employee. If I was an employer and I had my company I would put a big sign in front of my office saying "I don't see gender in my employees; if you prove yourself fit for the job, you'll get it, and your pay is based on what you are assigned to do" (I would also add a small disclaimer saying "if you don't get accepted and you're shoving patriarchy/racism/atheism/homophobia in my face for that, gtfo).

    The lecturer I had for Feminism (who was a man) showed us some statistics with how many women are employed in some jobs, but a colleague of mine (who was a girl) asked a very good question- does that statistic show how many women actually applied for the jobs?

    Both men and women are discriminating women when it comes to gender inequality, because people from both sides have "absorbed" this concept in their day to day lives, either consciously or unconsciously. Men are supposedly treating/ regarding women as "a piece of meat", but some women often use the phrase "Am I (or is she) just a piece of meat to you?" to their partners/ other men. As a woman, you are basically using this argument against you and your own gender, whether you're acknowledging or not. Same goes for some blacks, whenever one says "Oh, you think that's (=usually a bad thing) because I am black?". Sorry, but to me you are directly implying that blacks are bad, simply by saying that. This example can be merged to many other situations, but my post is long so please forgive my apparent bias- tis unintentional.



    I was recently provoked by what appeared to be a radical feminist after she heard I was wearing a corset whenever I'm sitting at my desk/sleeping. She blamed me for "torturing myself" to achieve some ideal female standards that she was blabbering about. Of course that corset offers me an hourglass figure (with which I was in fact born- thanks momma) but my main use of the corset is to redress my position, because I have some pretty bad scoliosis. Of course, I would also sound like a hypocrite to say that that's the only reason why I'm wearing one. I decided to buy a corset for that health reason, but I'm also enjoying the fact that it keeps (and mildly accentuates) my hourglass figure. Our bodies are a living canvas, and we're biologically constructed to have a certain shape, colour, and height. Being happy with/taking advantage of mother nature gave us is not a bad thing- of course exceptions apply, but each of us have our own standards of what is decent/indecent. For instance, I saw myself disliking some girls that were wearing shorts shorter than my boxers, but at the same time I was wearing a V neck top that was mildly accentuating my cleavage. "Decency" is another heated debate topic - among both sexes- and my post is already getting pretty damn long so I will only use this concept to challenge another "feminist" argument sexism. Although I already challenged this argument in what I said earlier, I will address some other examples of things considered to be sexist:

    One time I was talking on the phone with my ex and at some point (after teasing him) he said "shut up and go to the kictchen where you belong". I laughed so hard because I was actually in the kitchen stirring in my porridge. Personally, as a woman, I don't feel offended by this. I feel that I "belong in the kitchen" because I like cooking, but so does dad- he's a chef (that's why when he teases me I also ask him to go to the kitchen and make mum and me dinner xD)

    If she slept with more guys she's a ****, if he slept with more girls he's a legend.
    (Then there's the Taylor Swift saga of songs in which she's *****ing about all her exes for being players.)

    In my view, the expression above doesn't make either side more appealing to me. I personally wouldn't sleep with "a legend/player" etc. However, the fact that I'm into guys looking for a stable/committed relationship doesn't make me any more of a saint than a girl who's into having casual sex. It's a matter of preference. The idea is that we both know (or should know) what to expect when we're approaching some guys, in the same way that guys know (or should know) what to expect when they're approaching some girls.

    I was once at the beach playing volleyball with some friends and I hugged a guy from my team for saving the ball when I missed it. When I hugged him he got a boner and my gal friend snapped at him saying "she's taken, you jerk". Including the fact that that guys can get boners in plenty other embarrasing/not embarrasing situations, feeling aroused or attracted when you're seeing a girl showing more of her body is not your fault. That's your body's signal of saying that it wants some special time ( :hubba:), whether you listen to it and "take action" or not, that's a different story.


    This also reminded me of the "free the nipple campaign", and how people (particularly women) are aiming to allow women to walk topless/ be shown topeless in some circumstances.

    I see nothing wrong with this, but they should not disregard the fact that both men and women find boobs more arousing than moobs (a.k.a. man boobs- sorry guys :sad:). It is normal. It is natural. Men love lady breasts, and so do women, or at least some women (including myself :sexface:). Lady breasts, big or small, round or oval, pink nippled or dark nippled are a sign of fertility, and it is instinctual for men to enjoy seeing them.
    I personally wouldn't show my breasts out in the public, because I consider them to be something I would only show to my lucky man (:hubba:) but if any other woman decides to show it, that's fine by me. However, and now I'm referring to the last argument that I will challenge: "she asked for it", women shouldn't be surprised if they arise attention from men by exposing some parts of their body, and this includes the rest of the female body, not just the boobies. Again, it is instinctual for men to enjoy breasts, seeing some bum bum or whatever else gets them excited. Vice versa for us ladies. If I see a guy's naked back, and he has a bit of definition to it, I find it hard to still have courtesy :sexface:. Whether we like it or not, during puberty our body gets moulded into a sex machine, it is programmed to do so, because our species relies on it. By young adulthood our body is expecting to give it some lovin from somebody else, and it is natural. How we show our interest to our potential sex partners is a different issue. And here comes the issue of rape, and I'll intertwine it with the "she asked for it" issue. Rape is a very unfortunate, disgusting, dreadful crime. So is stealing from and afterwards killing a person. So is paedophilia. And these are just a handful of examples. Why do these crimes happen? A criminal would usually aggress a person who would fits his/her criteria. A male rapist would most likely attack a female, should he be heterosexual. A female heterosexual rapist would attack a man. Homosexual rapists of either gender would attack people of their own gender. In a criminal's eye the victim is "an easy", helpless target, regardless whether the victim is a he or a she. So is a child in the eyes of a paedophiliac, and moreover- paedophiliacs don't only assault children because "they're easy", but also because they're mentally really into kids. A robber would most likely attack an older person, because they're less likely to fight back/run to them. A wolf would only attack a prey that's weak, either old, young or sick.
    Nobody is ever asking to be assaulted in any way. A male heterosexual rapist, if "in the mood", will attack a woman/girl, regardless whether she's wearing a bikini or she's covered from head to toe.

    It is true that women are more prone to being raped because there are more heterosexual rapists out there than any other type, but I believe that rape, just like any other crime, should be unacceptable for either gender. Men that are raped are often ashamed to speak out, primarily because they think that by doing so they're losing their manlihood.As far as the victims are concerned, being raped doesn't make you any more of a woman (= weak) than it makes you any less of a man(=weak).


    This is a very long post that addresses only a handful of problems regarding "feminism"- both what it implies and how it is perceived by people of either sexes nowadays. As I mentioned in my second disclaimer, I invite you all who read and feel like they want to share their thoughts to do it; feel free to write pro-contra arguments of what I said, challenge the ideology by giving further examples and also say what's good with feminism and what should be kept. Thank you :cute:

    Here's a link to make you smile after so much reading. Please feel free to watch the link before commenting, as it will melt your hearts and release good neurotransmitters in your brains. That way I'll be dealing with less rage from the ones who felt angered by what I said. Consider it a benefit for both you and I xD.
    Never fear, I read it and thought it had some very well thought out points in it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I am.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

    What I will NEVER be.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

    There is a difference. And that difference is ALL the difference.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Is there one specific head feminist leader / Feminism head office? Because if it's just an idea thrown around with good intentions that really blurs the line for me.

    What I mean is that one woman may say she's a feminist (heck, why not say man here too) but has different ideals to other women who say they are feminists. Everything I have encountered to do with feminism is how the people who are apart of it follow it, and not really any clear goals other than gender equality which sometimes step over the line to female superiority depending on who you talk to.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JoshDawg)
    Is there one specific head feminist leader / Feminism head office? Because if it's just an idea thrown around with good intentions that really blurs the line for me.

    What I mean is that one woman may say she's a feminist (heck, why not say man here too) but has different ideals to other women who say they are feminists. Everything I have encountered to do with feminism is how the people who are apart of it follow it, and not really any clear goals other than gender equality which sometimes step over the line to female superiority depending on who you talk to.
    Feminism is like any other ideology. There are differing understandings of what the core goals means (ie gender equality) and what the best way to achieving it is. There are differences in a opinions as to what parts of ideology or what issues are most important.

    This is very similar to other political issues and even religion. That is why you have 'Liberal' with many smaller political parties and 'Conservative' with many smaller political parties. It is also why you have 'Christian' with so many different denominations and different sects within denominations or 'Muslim' with the many different interpretations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    mother of god
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomisonion)
    What I am.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

    What I will NEVER be.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

    There is a difference. And that difference is ALL the difference.
    It annoys me people when people do the whole egalitarian/feminism thing. Egalitarianism is so general a term that to say "I'm an egalitarian" is nearly pointless

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobML)
    It annoys me people when people do the whole egalitarian/feminism thing. Egalitarianism is so general a term that to say "I'm an egalitarian" is nearly pointless

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I also don't understand why the two are considered exclusionary.
 
 
 
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

3,083

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.