Turn on thread page Beta

The culture of sexual objectification by women against men MUST end. watch

    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Reverse sexism doesn't exist.
    Agreed. Sexism is sexism; there's no forward or reverse to it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Agreed. Sexism is sexism; there's no forward or reverse to it.
    Sexism against men isn't a thing.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Sexism against men isn't a thing.
    It depends what you mean by 'thing' I suppose. If you mean 'untrue thing' by it, you'd be right.

    Here's how it works: you provide evidence and/or examples for your views or GTFO.

    Here's my example: the Labour Party's use of all-female shortlists in some constituencies (usually safe Labour constituencies, if I recall) in order to increase the number of women in Parliament. This is often called affirmative action or 'positive' discrimination and is, without a hint of a doubt, sexism against men.

    Bottom line: Sexism against men is a thing if by 'thing' one means 'something that happens.'

    Incidentally I'll point out that I'm very much in favour of the Labour Party or any other individual or organisation selecting/hiring anybody they like for whatever reasons; but call it what it is - sexism. Don't try to beat around the bush making excuses for disgraceful behaviour.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    So discriminating against a man, based on his sex, is completely fine?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You can be prejudice or stereotype against men but sexism refers to oppression based on sex/gender that is systematic and institutionalised.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It depends what you mean by 'thing' I suppose. If you mean 'untrue thing' by it, you'd be right.

    Here's how it works: you provide evidence and/or examples for your views or GTFO.

    Here's my example: the Labour Party's use of all-female shortlists in some constituencies (usually safe Labour constituencies, if I recall) in order to increase the number of women in Parliament. This is often called affirmative action or 'positive' discrimination and is, without a hint of a doubt, sexism against men.

    Bottom line: Sexism against men is a thing if by 'thing' one means 'something that happens.'

    Incidentally I'll point out that I'm very much in favour of the Labour Party or any other individual or organisation selecting/hiring anybody they like for whatever reasons; but call it what it is - sexism. Don't try to beat around the bush making excuses for disgraceful behaviour.
    Is it institutionalised or systematic?

    Are you really saying that efforts to ensure a higher proportion of women are in parliament is sexist., ROFL
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Is it institutionalised or systematic?

    Are you really saying that efforts to ensure a higher proportion of women are in parliament is sexist., ROFL
    Of course I'm saying that. More specifically, I'm saying that the method of doing that is sexist. Let's get a definition, shall we...

    Sexism: 'prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.'

    Not sexism ---> Encouraging girls and women to follow their dreams and become what they want instead of following gender stereotypes.

    Sexism ---> Discriminating against male applicants for a particular position on the basis of their sex and not on the basis of their ability to do the job in question e.g. my Labour Party example.

    And like I've said before, I don't mind the action itself, just the shameless attempts to characterise it as something other than what it is.

    Edit: What does it matter if it's institutional or systematic? Your statement was 'sexism against men isn't a thing'; I proved that it is. Don't move the goalposts.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Of course I'm saying that. More specifically, I'm saying that the method of doing that is sexist. Let's get a definition, shall we...

    Sexism: 'prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex.'

    Not sexism ---> Encouraging girls and women to follow their dreams and become what they want instead of following gender stereotypes.

    Sexism ---> Discriminating against male applicants for a particular position on the basis of their sex and not on the basis of their ability to do the job in question e.g. my Labour Party example.

    And like I've said before, I don't mind the action itself, just the shameless attempts to characterise it as something other than what it is.

    Edit: What does it matter if it's institutional or systematic? Your statement was 'sexism against men isn't a thing'; I proved that it is. Don't move the goalposts.

    Lol you haven;t proved anything.

    Mess at you thinking a definition makes something fact or representative of reality
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Lol you haven;t proved anything.

    Mess at you thinking a definition makes something fact or representative of reality
    Yes, I have. Ironically, what you say about definitions is even more applicable to what you said immediately before it: your saying I haven't proved anything doesn't make it so.

    You've yet to counter a single thing I've said other than give non-serious replies with lots of lols, ROFLs and other such comments which give the impression that I'm dealing with a brainwashed simpleton here.

    Provide an argument or GTFO. I'm not replying again unless you have something of substance to say. Good day.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    You can be prejudice or stereotype against men but sexism refers to oppression based on sex/gender that is systematic and institutionalised.
    Well that would depend on where your definition of sexism. You also completely ignored my question yet quoted it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    You can be prejudice or stereotype against men but sexism refers to oppression based on sex/gender that is systematic and institutionalised.
    No, sexism is prejudice based on person's sex or gender. You can't just come up with definitions that fit your agenda.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    You can be prejudice or stereotype against men but sexism refers to oppression based on sex/gender that is systematic and institutionalised.
    Have you got a source to back up your definition or are you redefining words to suit your stand point?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I can't be the only one sick to death of this back-and-forth "waaa waa waa I have it worse than you do waa waa waaa" enmity.

    Satire is not going to convince the misandrists that men have their own battles to fight, just as repetitive rhetoric won't convince misogynists that women have obstacles to overcome as well.

    This only applies to Western feminism, however.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeamanDemon)
    No, sexism is prejudice based on person's sex or gender. You can't just come up with definitions that fit your agenda.
    I think you definitely can when the definition was created by a white man decades ago. I don't have an agenda either.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    Well that would depend on where your definition of sexism. You also completely ignored my question yet quoted it


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Regarding your question. No it isn't right.

    But affirmative action is right.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    I think you definitely can when the definition was created by a white man decades ago. I don't have an agenda either.
    The definition of pretty much every word in the English language was created by a white man.

    Seeing as that enables us to change the definition of words: lucky lice lobe lots (in standard English that means 'you're an idiot')

    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Regarding your question. No it isn't right.

    But affirmative action is right.
    No it isn't, it's not my fault there are fewer women in politics so why should I potentially have my chances of getting into politics reduced by 'positive discrimination'?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    :lolwut:

    FYI guys are much worse than girls when it comes to "objectifying" the opposite sex.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    No it isn't, it's not my fault there are fewer women in politics so why should I potentially have my chances of getting into politics reduced by 'positive discrimination'?
    Are you really going to argue against a 50:50 parliament. .
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ridwan12)
    Are you really going to argue against a 50:50 parliament. .
    Yes if it came about because of things like all female shortlists but not if it was the result of an election without such restrictions. It's funny how jobs like MP's are where feminists want to see more women but most couldn't care less that they're underrepresented in the military, mining and other dangerous jobs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wade-)
    Yes if it came about because of things like all female shortlists but not if it was the result of an election without such restrictions. It's funny how jobs like MP's are where feminists want to see more women but most couldn't care less that they're underrepresented in the military, mining and other dangerous jobs


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because those jobs don't have power and can't be used as a force for change.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indeterminate)
    :lolwut:

    FYI guys are much worse than girls when it comes to "objectifying" the opposite sex.
    "FYI black people are much worse than white people when it comes to "objectifying" the opposite sex."

    Hmmm, suddenly it sounds very racist, don't you think?

    May I also add the BIGGEST public example of sexual objectification in the modern age is perpetrated exclusively by women against men, in the form of the LuLu app (and app downloaded by 3 MILLION women to rate men on a scale of 1-10 based on their sexual performance in bed).

    Let's for a second assume that your statement is true (while also setting aside your blatant prejudice). What's the implication? That because it happens to women more that it's somehow more excusable for women to perpetrate sexual objectification? Or that women are first-class victims of sexual objectification and men are second-class victims (because it happens to women more often)?

    If it's all about numerics, then owing to the fact men are 66% of all homicide victims, does that mean men are first-class victims of homicide (and by extension women are second-class victims)?
 
 
 
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?
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.