Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Feminists: Opinions on...? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    We have a specifically appointed Minister for Women for a reason.
    Saying we should have a 'Men's Minister' is akin to saying we should have a 'Straight Pride Month' or a 'White History Month'. Yes, you should be proud of your identity, whatever gender, race, sexuality or whatever you are, but the fact is that there are existing socially constructed systems of power imbalances that give certain groups power and status over others. We don't have a minister for men because today's society is still very much a patriarchy. Yes, we've made drastic progress, and women have gained so much more equality, but that doesn't negate the fact that women are still not as valued as men. A woman still can't walk down a street without getting cat-called, some women are still not payed the same amount as men for the same job, a woman is still blamed for her own rape because of the clothes she wears. Women are the social minority in today's society, and having someone represent them in government is the best way to make sure they are being represented and cared for. I want a society in which men and women are equal just as much as anyone, but until that happens I don't see why we shouldn't have someone representing us.
    wat.
    but men do fcome across societal issues, and the wage gap has been pretty much covered too. Like how often do you come across the internet and find an article where a man's assaulted by a woman, yet all you see are comments like 'I can't believe he turned her down' or 'what a lucky man'. you don't see people saying 'this happens therefore we don't need a woman's minister'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Would it be easier to just drop feminism (considering it has become such a "dirty" word) and use humanism, as that is the goal of feminists. To have equal rights for all?
    It would be easier but that doesn't make it right.

    I wouldn't be able to explain why as well as this article does so here - http://johnthesecular.wordpress.com/...galitarianism/
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I can't even associate myself with feminism anymore. Some people are just too damn pedantic about the whole thing. Extremism just causes more intolerance; why do you think these misognyists constantly ***** and moan about men getting nothing and women getting everything? Because some idiots are basically campaigning for that. That's not the reality at present in my opinion; both genders have their problems. So **** the labels, now I'm just Ellesse.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    I can't even associate myself with feminism anymore. Some people are just too damn pedantic about the whole thing. Extremism just causes more intolerance; why do you think these misognyists constantly ***** and moan about men getting nothing and women getting everything? Because some idiots are basically campaigning for that. That's not the reality at present in my opinion; both genders have their problems. So **** the labels, now I'm just Ellesse.
    Which is why if we replaced a feminism minister with a gender equality minister so much of these problems would go away.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Which is why if we replaced a feminism minister with a gender equality minister so much of these problems would go away.
    I don't mean to sound stupid, honestly, but what exactly is a minister?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The reason why we have a Minister for Women is because whether you acknowledge it or not, there is a power imbalance which favours men.

    Look at it this way, men are at the top of the 'equality ladder' compared to all the other genders (including non-binary) so the aim is to elevate the other genders to the same hight on the ladder as men. The reason why men aren't given things like a Minister for Men is because you already have the majority of things working in your favour. You cannot be elevated any more, there is no where to elevate you to. You are at the top of the ladder, or at least the highest gender on the ladder.

    This isn't to say men do not have inequalities against them or that there are not issues that need to be sorted out but when it comes down to it, men are still at the top of the hypothetical 'equality ladder' and the aim is to get all the other genders on equal terms.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, TSR. You never disappoint. "Why isn't there a men's minister?!"

    I'm laughing too hard to put together a proper reply.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    I don't mean to sound stupid, honestly, but what exactly is a minister?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_%28government%29
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh... Thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsbook)
    The reason why we have a Minister for Women is because whether you acknowledge it or not, there is a power imbalance which favours men.

    Look at it this way, men are at the top of the 'equality ladder' compared to all the other genders (including non-binary) so the aim is to elevate the other genders to the same hight on the ladder as men. The reason why men aren't given things like a Minister for Men is because you already have the majority of things working in your favour. You cannot be elevated any more, there is no where to elevate you to. You are at the top of the ladder, or at least the highest gender on the ladder.

    This isn't to say men do not have inequalities against them or that there are not issues that need to be sorted out but when it comes down to it, men are still at the top of the hypothetical 'equality ladder' and the aim is to get all the other genders on equal terms.
    if women are capable of climbing that ladder if they are actually equal in ability, why would they actually need this minister though? what is holding them back today? I get what you're saying though I'm just probably looking at the issue differently
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jam')
    Right... Which is the definition I've used in the original post to demonstrate my dilemma with accepting what mainstream feminism has become.

    Look - I don't care what the formalised mantras of your belief are. If the followers of that belief practise something different I think it's more representative to use that empirical foundation to make conclusions rather that a speculative dictionary-led theoretical approach.

    If, say, a religion said in its divinely inspired book "stealing is prohibited" yet 30% of its followers were thieves I'd take the view that such practises are more acceptable.
    I know, I wasn't referring to you, mostly the general opinion on the thread so far. And I don't believe that a large portion of feminists act that way. In most of the cases in which i've joined in on a discussion on feminism, women want equality, and when someone comes and presents views like 'women should be the supreme leaders of the world' or something equally stupid, other feminists go against them. I think it's the simple fact that the feminists who are the most preposterous shout the loudest, and that's all anybody hears.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)
    if women are capable of climbing that ladder if they are actually equal in ability, why would they actually need this minister though? what is holding them back today? I get what you're saying though I'm just probably looking at the issue differently
    Culture.

    There is not a single legislative improvement in Britain which can improve equality any more, what's needed is a cultural shift.

    For example; a young girl is conditioned to think that she should aspire to be a nurse, a mother, an air hostess, a teacher etc etc. Even though there are opportunities there for her to be a fire fighter, a doctor, a pilot, those career paths will likely never cross her mind because of what society expects of women.

    It's not considered "feminine" to aspire to be an engineer, for example, and therefore has negative connotations attached to it because women are taught is that their worth in society is measured by being feminine.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    wat.
    but men do fcome across societal issues, and the wage gap has been pretty much covered too. Like how often do you come across the internet and find an article where a man's assaulted by a woman, yet all you see are comments like 'I can't believe he turned her down' or 'what a lucky man'. you don't see people saying 'this happens therefore we don't need a woman's minister'
    What do you mean when you say 'men do come across societal issues? like there's issues against men in society as well? I'll agree with you, but those against men are a fraction of what women have to deal with.

    http://www.theguardian.com/money/201...ures-disparity
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20223264

    Gender pay gap is still a very prevalent issue, as seen in the above articles from the past couple of years, and those are just from the uk, in other countries it's much worse.

    If that's what people are saying then that's disgusting. I have to admit I haven't seen many articles about male sexual assault, but it is still a horrible thing and sexual assault to any gender shouldn't be happening. However, I think in terms of sexual assault it's perhaps more a problem with society's views against consent etc. and a few people generally just being horrible. Like, for months people have been dancing and singing along to a song with lyircs almost identical to statements rapists made to their victims, so i think in that sense it's more to do with society, however as it does in general happen to a greater proportion of women (i'm not belittling male sexual assault, it just is a fact that the majority of sexual assault happens to women) then maybe it is good to have a minister who is making sure that the needs of these women are being heard and respected, and having someone looking out for us in government can perhaps lead to changes to make society more equal for both genders.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)
    if women are capable of climbing that ladder if they are actually equal in ability, why would they actually need this minister though? what is holding them back today? I get what you're saying though I'm just probably looking at the issue differently
    Well, we have made considerable improvements and have climbed it but there are still a few things that need adjusting which are holding us back. (e.g wage gap, objectification, the fact women are more likely to be raped or abused ect..) The Minister for Women, I think is in place to make sure that we are given the consideration that we need and to make sure that past issues which women had to face do not reoccur. Its a process which won't just happen within a few years but we will eventually get there and just because we aren't completely equal as of yet doesn't mean we won't be in the future.

    Admittedly women in western civilisation aren't oppressed like women in other countries and societies might be and compared to a lot of places we have made great progress. The reason why western places like the UK have a MoW is because it wasn't long ago in which women were second class citizens and so we need things in place to make sure we don't take steps back.

    In the mean time we should defiantly start to shed some light and acknowledgement that there are women in other parts of the world who need help and address things like men's health and the issue with child custody and how it favours women. Feminism does address these things, or at least the community of feminists that I interact with do.

    And finally, just because men don't have it as bad as other genders doesn't mean that we should ignore and not address problems they face, I'm all for promoting men's health, equality when it comes to child custody and making sure that men have a safe and non-judgemental environment in which to speak about rape or abuse they have suffered.

    This ended up being quite long so I'm sorry about that :L also thank you for not being a complete moron with your reply, lots of people on this site are usually very hard to talk to in a nice manner when it comes to feminism.

    EDIT: I also agree with The Wild Youth that it is a culture shift we need rather than legislations, I don't think there are more things we could put into place to help women (in the UK).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Wild Youth)
    Culture.

    There is not a single legislative improvement in Britain which can improve equality any more, what's needed is a cultural shift.

    For example; a young girl is conditioned to think that she should aspire to be a nurse, a mother, an air hostess, a teacher etc etc. Even though there are opportunities there for her to be a fire fighter, a doctor, a pilot, those career paths will likely never cross her mind because of what society expects of women.

    It's not considered "feminine" to aspire to be an engineer, for example, and therefore has negative connotations attached to it because women are taught is that their worth in society is measured by being feminine.
    so why is there a minister for woman if the reason why women aren't doing as well as men is merely choices based on culture (which mind you is changing a lot)? surely woman can still choose to do what they want if they are intelligent and rational human beings who want to make the best of themselves? why do they need a minister "directing" them? I've always seen that as patronising to women personally
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicsbook)
    Well, we have made considerable improvements and have climbed it but there are still a few things that need adjusting which are holding us back. (e.g wage gap, objectification, the fact women are more likely to be raped or abused ect..) The Minister for Women, I think is in place to make sure that we are given the consideration that we need and to make sure that past issues which women had to face do not reoccur. Its a process which won't just happen within a few years but we will eventually get there and just because we aren't completely equal as of yet doesn't mean we won't be in the future.

    Admittedly women in western civilisation aren't oppressed like women in other countries and societies might be and compared to a lot of places we have made great progress. The reason why western places like the UK have a MoW is because it wasn't long ago in which women were second class citizens and so we need things in place to make sure we don't take steps back.

    In the mean time we should defiantly start to shed some light and acknowledgement that there are women in other parts of the world who need help and address things like men's health and the issue with child custody and how it favours women. Feminism does address these things, or at least the community of feminists that I interact with do.

    And finally, just because men don't have it as bad as other genders doesn't mean that we should ignore and not address problems they face, I'm all for promoting men's health, equality when it comes to child custody and making sure that men have a safe and non-judgemental environment in which to speak about rape or abuse they have suffered.

    This ended up being quite long so I'm sorry about that :L also thank you for not being a complete moron with your reply, lots of people on this site are usually very hard to talk to in a nice manner when it comes to feminism.

    EDIT: I also agree with The Wild Youth that it is a culture shift we need rather than legislations, I don't think there are more things we could put into place to help women (in the UK).
    what would you say if I told you that the wage gap isn't actually based on blind social discrimination from employers but based on the particular and prevalent choices of women themselves that effect their careers more so than their male counterparts? and what if I told you that objectification was really a cynical/pessimistic feminist concept that tries to encourage women to think that they're being oppressed for simply appearing attractive? (maybe that's my own "optimistic" and "unenlightened" view of things, maybe I don't understand it as a man :lol: if I don't then I apologise, maybe it's because I don't negatively view women like some may out there) and what past issues do you mean though? and what if future/present issues actually favour women over men today on a governmental level? why would we take steps back today when we're constantly taking steps forward with our great civilisational/social and educational progressions (e.g. a rescission of misogynist religions, a continuous growth of women in education sometimes even more so than men, etc)? I think that's again a slightly pessimistic interpretation of how things are/might be going today. and it's good that some feminists out there aren't merely looking at women's problems at least so that's good :lol: because it's pretty clear that at least the overwhelming majority at least in practice *seem* to only be talking about their own gender's problems. I appreciate the feminists that seem to actually be genuinely favouring "equality" in its ordinary meaning aha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)
    so why is there a minister for woman if the reason why women aren't doing as well as men is merely choices based on culture (which mind you is changing a lot)? surely woman can still choose to do what they want if they are intelligent and rational human beings who want to make the best of themselves? why do they need a minister "directing" them? I've always seen that as patronising to women personally
    I wouldn't disregard it as "merely" choices based on culture. It is a culture which generation upon generations of people have upheld and maintained. It is a culture which affects nearly every aspect of our lives and is driven into us from the moment we are born (blue is for boys, pink is for girls etc).

    Women aren't doing as well as men because society does not expect them to be in positions of high power, it is not feminine. Even when they are in such positions, women are taught to "power dress" and in Margaret Thatchers case, for example, lower their voice to sound more masculine.

    Women can choose to do what they want but that doesn't mean the rest of society is going to accept them for that or, rather then focus on their achievements, focus on their looks and what they're wearing.

    A minister, I guess, is to make sure that this is not forgotten in a world where so many don't recognise this inequality because it's now such the norm that it doesn't seem out of place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Wild Youth)
    I wouldn't disregard it as "merely" choices based on culture. It is a culture which generation upon generations of people have upheld and maintained. It is a culture which affects nearly every aspect of our lives and is driven into us from the moment we are born (blue is for boys, pink is for girls etc).

    Women aren't doing as well as men because society does not expect them to be in positions of high power, it is not feminine. Even when they are in such positions, women are taught to "power dress" and in Margaret Thatchers case, for example, lower their voice to sound more masculine.

    Women can choose to do what they want but that doesn't mean the rest of society is going to accept them for that or, rather then focus on their achievements, focus on their looks and what they're wearing.

    A minister, I guess, is to make sure that this is not forgotten in a world where so many don't recognise this inequality because it's now such the norm that it doesn't seem out of place.
    but aren't women in control of themselves (both as individuals and as a gender) at the end of the day? if they have the power to go to school and university and potentially out-perform men in their situation (if they want money), is culture (an invisible/ethereal and conceptual entity) really a considerable force that is going to stop them from succeeding if they actually get their qualifications? in my view, women, understandably, are more "expected" to be parents than men - I'll accept that, but if women don't want to be parents to children, who is going to physically force them to? the more women oppose that idea, the less they're going to be culturally bound by it, surely?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)
    what would you say if I told you that the wage gap isn't actually based on blind social discrimination from employers but based on the particular and prevalent choices of women themselves that effect their careers more so than their male counterparts? and what if I told you that objectification was really a cynical/pessimistic feminist concept that tries to encourage women to think that they're being oppressed for simply appearing attractive? (maybe that's my own "optimistic" and "unenlightened" view of things, maybe I don't understand it as a man :lol: if I don't then I apologise, maybe it's because I don't negatively view women like some may out there) and what past issues do you mean though? and what if future/present issues actually favour women over men today on a governmental level? why would we take steps back today when we're constantly taking steps forward with our great civilisational/social and educational progressions (e.g. a rescission of misogynist religions, a continuous growth of women in education sometimes even more so than men, etc)? I think that's again a slightly pessimistic interpretation of how things are/might be going today. and it's good that some feminists out there aren't merely looking at women's problems at least so that's good :lol: because it's pretty clear that at least the overwhelming majority at least in practice *seem* to only be talking about their own gender's problems. I appreciate the feminists that seem to actually be genuinely favouring "equality" in its ordinary meaning aha
    what choices would a women make, that a man wouldn't, that could justify them getting paeyd less for the exact same job?????? WHY WOULD WOMEN CREATE OBJECTIFICATION????? If the sexual assault of women can be justified because of what they were wearing, i don't think objectification is concept made up by women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    what choices would a women make, that a man wouldn't, that could justify them getting paeyd less for the exact same job?????? WHY WOULD WOMEN CREATE OBJECTIFICATION????? If the sexual assault of women can be justified because of what they were wearing, i don't think objectification is concept made up by women.


    first of all, even in the same career position, that doesn't mean every company pays its employees the exact same wage - if women work more easy hours, if women work more part time opposed to full time within that career, if they take time out for maternity leave, if they don't insist upon a promotion/pay rise to the same extent men do etc then these are fair factors to consider

    and women don't "create" objectification (although you could argue that with regards to "women's mags", okay maybe not :lol:) but if feminists honestly think (in 2014) that women are only viewed as valuable for their bodies then that's simply not true any more - maybe that was *more* true in the past (the distant past) but women today are considered nothing more than people who happen to have particular sets of genitals (or am I, by thinking this, a "rare breed" of man who looks at women with respect, in your opinion?) - women are seen today (as they are) to be just as intelligent as men (although I should qualify this and say "as an average" because there are technically more geniuses *and* "retarded" men in terms of the statistics than there are for women whom are usually more "average" than men for better or for worse so that balances things) and just because women are seen to be "the good looking sex" while men are "the strong and tough" sex (with respect to their physical attributes), in a world today where physical or aesthetic attributes don't actually pay the bills (like intelligence/determination does) this is exactly why women and men are considered equal more and more as every generation passes - because our world runs on minds, not bodies (well, mostly at least)
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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