Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A Very High Percentage Of Feminism Seems to be Highly Contradictory? watch

  • View Poll Results: Do You Want Total Equality? i.e. Men boxing women, men and women using same toilets?
    Yes
    7
    41.18%
    No
    10
    58.82%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Men do not often have six hour erections when they are asleep.
    Besides the prevalence of women forcing themselves on men and having sex when they don't want to is far far less than the other way round.

    Especially when drunk, alcohol makes it much much harder for a guy to get it up. A woman on the other hand doesn't have to 'get it up' in order to be sexually assaulted or raped.
    A woman was recorded as restraining a guy and injecting Viagra and then raping him so..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    I stand corrected, that is American Law. But even so, that's hardly equality
    Feminists are divided on the subject.
    However bear in mind that sexual assault by penetration carries with it a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, which is the same as rape. It's not particularly unequal.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    There are different approaches to feminism that contrast each other and have different priorities (radical cultural, radical liberal, postmodern, marxist, black etc).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Taking feminists seriously in the first place - that's where you f***ed up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beautifulbigmacs)
    There are different approaches to feminism that contrast each other and have different priorities (radical cultural, radical liberal, postmodern, marxist, black etc).
    Just goes to show how unorganised and pathetic it is, doesn't it.

    Only the radical parts speak.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    Just goes to show how unorganised and pathetic it is, doesn't it.

    Only the radical parts speak.
    It wasn't me lol!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    Just goes to show how unorganised and pathetic it is, doesn't it.

    Only the radical parts speak.
    How does it show that?
    Is a broad church movement with lots of different views and ways of achieving them. In the same way that the tories or Labour Party are.

    And actually liberal feminism has been the most predominant and vocal form throughout history so how you've come to that conclusion I'm not sure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    How does it show that?
    Is a broad church movement with lots of different views and ways of achieving them. In the same way that the tories or Labour Party are.

    And actually liberal feminism has been the most predominant and vocal form throughout history so how you've come to that conclusion I'm not sure.
    LOL.

    All we hear from "Liberal" Feminists nowadays are First World Problems, like how the airconditioning is "sexist" or "manspreading" being a form of "everyday oppression".

    If you want some seriously good Feminism, you have to back to the days of the Suffragettes up to the 70s, when equality was needed. Or you can pop over to the Middle East and speak with Feminist activists over there.

    I'm not a Feminist and never will be, I'm an Egalitarian... and you have no idea how many insults and deadeyes I've had from expressing it.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBoT9mmtTO8 --- Watch from 2:21

    Then there's this tosh
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw

    Here's a funny parody on Feminism and general SJWs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM


    And then this, which is a commentary on the 10-minute viral video thing filmed in New York...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HI4DC18wCg


    I commend you watch all of these.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Blue Axolotl)
    LOL.

    All we hear from "Liberal" Feminists nowadays are First World Problems, like how the airconditioning is "sexist" or "manspreading" being a form of "everyday oppression".

    If you want some seriously good Feminism, you have to back to the days of the Suffragettes up to the 70s, when equality was needed. Or you can pop over to the Middle East and speak with Feminist activists over there.

    I'm not a Feminist and never will be, I'm an Egalitarian... and you have no idea how many insults and deadeyes I've had from expressing it.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBoT9mmtTO8 --- Watch from 2:21

    Then there's this tosh
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqHYzYn3WZw

    Here's a funny parody on Feminism and general SJWs
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM-HJT8_esM


    And then this, which is a commentary on the 10-minute viral video thing filmed in New York...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HI4DC18wCg


    I commend you watch all of these.
    Feel better now?
    If you want to have a proper debate then have it. Don't resort to sensationalism and strange youtube clips.

    I don't actually believe any feminist has seriously complained that air conditioning is sexist although by all means prove me wrong. And full equality was achieved in the 70s?

    Really? Well how come until 1994 it was not a crime for a man to forcibly have sex with his wife when she is not consenting? It took until 1994 for marital rape to become a crime.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes, murder, workplace deaths and random assaults predominantly affect men. However, they are not gendered crimes unlike rape. The vast, vast majority of rape cases or sexual assault cases are women being raped or sexually assaulted by men. The vast, vast majority of murder cases are men being murdered by men.

    Rape and sexual assault more unique in they are very much crimes done by men on women. Yes talk about murder and suicide but these are not gendered crimes. That's not to say they are not as important, but feminism deals with the inequalities between men and women, not violence among men.
    True, but I take issue with the notion that this is an inequality between men and women in the sense that is some structural/societal flaw. How I see it is that there are two primary cases to look at. Firstly note that individual callous, psychopathic and opportunistic men will largely be sexually attracted to women, and if they want to rape a woman they will probably be able to because they are likely to be able to overpower her. This is just a consequence of biology and the existence of morally bankrupt, despicable individuals, and there is little that can be done to change it other than women taking precautions against it. (I don't mean "not dressing provocatively" or anything like that - for one people should obviously be able to dress how they like and for another I'm pretty sure that would be ineffective anyway. But trying to avoid having to walk in deserted areas alone for instance)

    Admittedly, the other case is more nuanced; from what I've heard the majority of rapes by men of women are committed by a man who the woman knows. I still imagine most of these rapes are planned and most of these men have no moral compass and would not be swayed by "consent classes" and the like, and again their actions are generally reflections on them, not on the oppression of women. There will surely be some grey areas, but I think in the main all men who are not psychopaths understand that rape is wrong, and understand consent. The feminist ideology seems to be that we live in a culture where the male gender as a whole exerts power over the female gender as a whole through rape; I think it is more a case of individuals exerting power over individuals, because they can. Just like in prisons a stronger man may rape a weaker man to exert power over him. It is not due to misogyny or patriarchy, it is due to people being *******s who want to feel powerful and obtain sexual gratification.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Maybe certain feminists go too far, but throughout history women have been oppressed by men. In almost every civilized country women were given the vote much later than men. In many women weren't allowed to take out a mortgage. Up until 1994, it was perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife. That was only 21 years ago.
    "Much later" is a bit of a stretch on a historical timescale. Consider the UK, for instance. Even in 1867 when the Second Reform Act was passed the vote was only given to householders whose property was worth a certain amount. Though women were not represented, neither were most men for almost the same amount of time. 1884 is generally considered to be the time when men got universal suffrage in the UK, but in fact only 60% could vote. This is extremely close to 1918 when thinking historically; even if universal male suffrage had been given at this time it wouldn't signify oppression of women. Many of the men who fought in World War 1 could not vote. Although women have historically held less power than men in general, nobody is going to argue against that, wealth/social class are far, far more important. A wealthy woman, despite her lack of vote, would have held more power than a poor man even in the periods when society literally was patriarchal (i.e. property passing down male line, male head of the household). To be honest that law remaining so long was probably due to a lack of people bothering to aim for its abolishment, similar to how treason was still punishable by death at a surprisingly late date; I doubt it reflects the societal climate 21 years ago.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes it's possible but far more likely. A man needs to be hard, the chances of a man subconsciously being hard and a woman having sex with him without his content is far, far less than the other way round. And yes men can get an erection when drunk, but it reduces the chances quite significantly. Whereas for women, when they get drunk it doesn't reduce the chances.
    Fair enough. I feel like it may well be possible for a woman to stimulate a man to arousal while he is asleep, but I don't know for sure.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    You've said it yourself, in almost every country men have the huge majority of the top jobs. 11 out of the 12 Justices on the Supreme Court are men. We've only ever had one female Prime Minister. There are far less women in Parliament than men. There are far less women CEOs and owners than men. Then you consider the pay gap between men and women.
    Yet there is no evidence that men are any more intelligent. Societal oppression of women exists, not as much as it used to but it still exists.
    Various studies have shown employers more likely to hire a man just because he's a man.
    Yes I said that, and I also said they have the huge majority of the bottom jobs. The point is that feminists only campaign to get women into the top jobs. This would not be equality, equality would be getting women into the top jobs and the bottom jobs. Essentially my point is that the power balance "averages out". Women may almost always hold a lower societal position than the most powerful men, but they also almost always hold a higher societal position than the least powerful men. And the fact is that men go for these top-end jobs more. Historically men have always been, on average, the more ambitious gender, the gender most driven towards material success and technological innovation. The fact that this is so often the case in my view negates the notion that it is a consequence of societal pressure, or of a non-level playing-field. I am not saying that woman can not be ambitious and achieve a lot, but merely reflecting on what is usually the case. Women have made remarkable contributions for the benefit of humanity, and we should recognize that every individual, regardless of their gender, has great capabilities, but it is naive to ignore the likelihood of certain people having certain tendencies.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Even on a societal level, why is a man who sleeps with lots of women regarded as a stud yet a woman who sleeps with lots of men regarded as a ****?
    It's not always our fault but we have been societal conditioned almost to trust men more in top jobs because that's what we're used to.
    I think that this is a consequence of biology. The gut feelings of people serve no purpose now that we have birth control, but they still exist. Women slut-shame as much as men, and the practice makes some sense if you consider a world where sex = reproduction. Obviously that is not the case in the Western world but evolution hasn't caught up, just like women still consider height a deal-breaking trait in men even though wealth and intelligence are theoretically much more significant in our current societal structure. Consider things at the genetic level. The pinnacle of success for a man in passing on his genes is having sex with as many women as possible, since once having done so he has no further technical responsibilities. He may eventually want to settle down with one partner to create a better, stronger environment for his children, but in general it is optimal for him to make sure his genes are "spread" around and more likely to carry on through further generations. However, it is ideal for a woman to try to secure a man to settle down with, since she has to bear the brunt of responsibility, carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child and, unless she can secure a man, raising the child. It is in her best interests to find a man with strong genes to have children with and to help raise their children. The stud/slut double standard probably arises as a "tool" for encouraging men and women to act in their best interests with regards to passing on genes, even though it is now irrelevant in a society with birth control (not to mention the fact that overpopulation is an issue).

    I agree with the second point and I do think we should look at everybody individually. But everyone stereotypes and it is hard to prevent this.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    A woman who forcibly has sex with a man against his will, will receive a similar sentence in similar circumstances to a man who rapes a women. Have a look at the sentencing guidelines.
    Okay; I just doubt such a case would be taken as seriously for the most part.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Feel better now?
    If you want to have a proper debate then have it. Don't resort to sensationalism and strange youtube clips.

    I don't actually believe any feminist has seriously complained that air conditioning is sexist although by all means prove me wrong. And full equality was achieved in the 70s?

    Really? Well how come until 1994 it was not a crime for a man to forcibly have sex with his wife when she is not consenting? It took until 1994 for marital rape to become a crime.
    Way to patronise someone who has spent his time collecting videos to disprove Third Wave Feminism; quintessential SJW warrior who brushes every argument under the carpet simply because they're too afraid to face up to them.


    Do some actual research if you "don't actually believe", don't sit there with your anecdotal drivel and hand people advice and suggestions of a movement you know jack all about.

    I refuse to argue my case if you can't be assed to respond to mine.

    Good day, fruitloop.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    True, but I take issue with the notion that this is an inequality between men and women in the sense that is some structural/societal flaw. How I see it is that there are two primary cases to look at. Firstly note that individual callous, psychopathic and opportunistic men will largely be sexually attracted to women, and if they want to rape a woman they will probably be able to because they are likely to be able to overpower her. This is just a consequence of biology and the existence of morally bankrupt, despicable individuals, and there is little that can be done to change it other than women taking precautions against it. (I don't mean "not dressing provocatively" or anything like that - for one people should obviously be able to dress how they like and for another I'm pretty sure that would be ineffective anyway. But trying to avoid having to walk in deserted areas alone for instance)
    The huge majority of rapes are committed by men who were either a partner or ex-partner of the female. The huge majority are done by someone who the female knew beforehand.
    That's not to say 'stranger rapes' don't exist, with a psychotic or opportunistic man in a dark alley but the conception that most rapes are done by a stranger is false, most are done by known men. The problem is many people have this notion of rape always being a stranger in a dark alley, it most often isn't which means when it happens in relationships or with ex partners many people don't count it as rape.


    Admittedly, the other case is more nuanced; from what I've heard the majority of rapes by men of women are committed by a man who the woman knows. I still imagine most of these rapes are planned and most of these men have no moral compass and would not be swayed by "consent classes" and the like, and again their actions are generally reflections on them, not on the oppression of women. There will surely be some grey areas, but I think in the main all men who are not psychopaths understand that rape is wrong, and understand consent. The feminist ideology seems to be that we live in a culture where the male gender as a whole exerts power over the female gender as a whole through rape; I think it is more a case of individuals exerting power over individuals, because they can. Just like in prisons a stronger man may rape a weaker man to exert power over him. It is not due to misogyny or patriarchy, it is due to people being *******s who want to feel powerful and obtain sexual gratification.
    Sorry fella I wrote all that above without having read this part. Part of the problem is men thinking that they 'own' women. That if they are seeing a woman then she owes sex to them and has no right to refuse. That was the thinking behind allowing Marital rape to exist as an exemption to rape until 1994.

    I don't think mainstream feminists think the whole male gender does it as a culture but rather it represents how many men think they have a right to have sex with a woman even when she isn't consenting because she is seen as beneath him.


    To be honest that law remaining so long was probably due to a lack of people bothering to aim for its abolishment, similar to how treason was still punishable by death at a surprisingly late date; I doubt it reflects the societal climate 21 years ago.
    Marital rape was still rife 21 years ago and the justices continued to defend it. There was a big movement to abolish it prior to it actually being abolished.




    Yes I said that, and I also said they have the huge majority of the bottom jobs.
    Have you got any data to back this up? Not saying you're wrong but i'd like to see some stats.

    The point is that feminists only campaign to get women into the top jobs. This would not be equality, equality would be getting women into the top jobs and the bottom jobs. Essentially my point is that the power balance "averages out". Women may almost always hold a lower societal position than the most powerful men, but they also almost always hold a higher societal position than the least powerful men.
    Bit of a bizarre point. Should feminists be campaigning for women to be poorer? You've missed the point. Feminism is about making sure women are not treated worse by the law and society. You have to apply to get a top job, you don't have to apply to be at the bottom.
    It's not a valid comparison. But again i'd like some data that more men are poor than women.

    And the fact is that men go for these top-end jobs more. Historically men have always been, on average, the more ambitious gender, the gender most driven towards material success and technological innovation. The fact that this is so often the case in my view negates the notion that it is a consequence of societal pressure, or of a non-level playing-field. I am not saying that woman can not be ambitious and achieve a lot, but merely reflecting on what is usually the case. Women have made remarkable contributions for the benefit of humanity, and we should recognize that every individual, regardless of their gender, has great capabilities, but it is naive to ignore the likelihood of certain people having certain tendencies.
    More men don't anymore. An equal amount of men and women study law, the huge majority of justices and top end jobs are men.
    Men are not 'more ambitious' by nature. It's just they've been given every advantage throughout history. Men are no more intelligent and no more qualified for the top jobs than women.


    I think that this is a consequence of biology. The gut feelings of people serve no purpose now that we have birth control, but they still exist. Women slut-shame as much as men, and the practice makes some sense if you consider a world where sex = reproduction. Obviously that is not the case in the Western world but evolution hasn't caught up, just like women still consider height a deal-breaking trait in men even though wealth and intelligence are theoretically much more significant in our current societal structure. Consider things at the genetic level. The pinnacle of success for a man in passing on his genes is having sex with as many women as possible, since once having done so he has no further technical responsibilities. He may eventually want to settle down with one partner to create a better, stronger environment for his children, but in general it is optimal for him to make sure his genes are "spread" around and more likely to carry on through further generations. However, it is ideal for a woman to try to secure a man to settle down with, since she has to bear the brunt of responsibility, carrying the child, giving birth to the child, feeding the child and, unless she can secure a man, raising the child. It is in her best interests to find a man with strong genes to have children with and to help raise their children. The stud/slut double standard probably arises as a "tool" for encouraging men and women to act in their best interests with regards to passing on genes, even though it is now irrelevant in a society with birth control (not to mention the fact that overpopulation is an issue).
    I don't think it's a product of biology but a product of society. Men often view women as belonging to them (hence the marital rape exemption) and thus label women who sleep around as sluts. Yes women do this to, but again as a society we are led to believe a promiscuous man is a stud and a promiscuous women is a ****.

    Another example would be how an authoritative man is seen as a leader and decisive, an authoritative woman is seen as 'bossy'.




    Okay; I just doubt such a case would be taken as seriously for the most part.
    There is no real evidence to suggest they are taken less seriously.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    A woman was recorded as restraining a guy and injecting Viagra and then raping him so..
    That's not legally rape. That's sexual assault.
    And cases like that are exceptionally rare. Not saying they don't happen but they are not common, unlike rape on females.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    More men don't anymore. An equal amount of men and women study law, the huge majority of justices and top end jobs are men.
    Men are not 'more ambitious' by nature. It's just they've been given every advantage throughout history. Men are no more intelligent and no more qualified for the top jobs than women.
    There are a multitude of factors that determine who gets a job, which could explain why there are disproportionate gender ratios. Such as, work experience, level of education, bargaining skills, etc... A modicum of insight into labour market economics would confirm this.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't think it's a product of biology but a product of society. Men often view women as belonging to them (hence the marital rape exemption) and thus label women who sleep around as sluts. Yes women do this to, but again as a society we are led to believe a promiscuous man is a stud and a promiscuous women is a ****.
    Citation please.


    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Another example would be how an authoritative man is seen as a leader and decisive, an authoritative woman is seen as 'bossy'.
    You might be right. However, it seems like you are ruling out any possibility that they actually are bossy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    .
    Bit busy right now but would just like to say that perhaps "bottom jobs" was a misnomer. I'm more thinking of dangerous jobs like construction and factory work; they might not pay all that badly but they tend to be looked down upon and the men in them may be seen as lower in the societal order. Here's a crude meme which kind of gets at what I am getting at.. (obviously for illustrative purposes rather than evidence lol) http://memestorage.com/_nw/83/77511077.jpg
    Couldn't find stats with a quick google on men vs women in professions like these, I can't feasibly imagine the data doesn't back me up here, but I did find this, 74% of homelessness service clients are male. http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homel...ff-groups.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Feel better now?
    If you want to have a proper debate then have it. Don't resort to sensationalism and strange youtube clips
    Evidence is evidence regardless where it is from, argue the videos rather than brushing them off.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't actually believe any feminist has seriously complained that air conditioning is sexist although by all means prove me wrong.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...rue-story.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10436035.html

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ioning-6190140

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02yrw0v
    Neat no true scotsman though...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobbyFlay)
    Evidence is evidence regardless where it is from, argue the videos rather than brushing them off.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...rue-story.html

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10436035.html

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ioning-6190140

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02yrw0v
    Neat no true scotsman though...
    What a misrperesentation.
    That's talking about why men get air con and women don't.
    It's not saying 'airconditioning' itself is a sexist concept as the poster implied.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Bit busy right now but would just like to say that perhaps "bottom jobs" was a misnomer. I'm more thinking of dangerous jobs like construction and factory work; they might not pay all that badly but they tend to be looked down upon and the men in them may be seen as lower in the societal order. Here's a crude meme which kind of gets at what I am getting at.. (obviously for illustrative purposes rather than evidence lol) http://memestorage.com/_nw/83/77511077.jpg
    Couldn't find stats with a quick google on men vs women in professions like these, I can't feasibly imagine the data doesn't back me up here, but I did find this, 74% of homelessness service clients are male. http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homel...ff-groups.html
    I see. I guess that's because generally men are biologically physically bigger and stronger than women and suit more physical jobs. There is however no biological evidence to suggest men are any more intelligent or academic than women.

    And if more homeless are male, I fail to see what that has to do with feminism. You don't apply to be homeless in the same way you apply for a top job.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)






    More men don't anymore. An equal amount of men and women study law, the huge majority of justices and top end jobs are men.
    Men are not 'more ambitious' by nature. It's just they've been given every advantage throughout history. Men are no more intelligent and no more qualified for the top jobs than women.

    I don't think you understand the job sector as a whole.


    A report which was on every major newspaper recently showed that under 25, women actually earn more than men.

    And yes there is a pay gap in the high earners.

    But let me give you real life examples of why it is not as it seems.

    Many women are successful and especially in finance, there is good progression. Promotions to higher positions often mean more responsibilities and more management which mean more hours needed - in many senior positions 9-5 is impossible.

    This coincides with the fact that as women start to get promoted, they also have children at those kind of ages and this is why many women cut down their hours to spend more time with their children or pick them up from a day care centre for example. Day care centre might close at 5pm, but if she is required to attend a meeting scheduled at 6pm, it becomes difficult.

    So this is why the high earner's figure can look skewed because obviously the top jobs require more hours, and some women prefer to cut their hours down - this is choice not discrimination.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I don't think you understand the job sector as a whole.


    A report which was on every major newspaper recently showed that under 25, women actually earn more than men.

    And yes there is a pay gap in the high earners.

    But let me give you real life examples of why it is not as it seems.

    Many women are successful and especially in finance, there is good progression. Promotions to higher positions often mean more responsibilities and more management which mean more hours needed - in many senior positions 9-5 is impossible.

    This coincides with the fact that as women start to get promoted, they also have children at those kind of ages and this is why many women cut down their hours to spend more time with their children or pick them up from a day care centre for example. Day care centre might close at 5pm, but if she is required to attend a meeting scheduled at 6pm, it becomes difficult.

    So this is why the high earner's figure can look skewed because obviously the top jobs require more hours, and some women prefer to cut their hours down - this is choice not discrimination.
    Then more efforts should be made to accompany the fact women have children. For example, letting women breastfeed in the chambers of Parliament. Offering more friendly hours, offering higher and better funded provision of childcare services etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.