Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Girls and Guys (and any others also) Has real feminism died? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes they do. I visit the feminists forum site quite often as I'm bored quite often . The expressions such as that men should have removed nipples, because they don't need them or that women are discriminated because they can't use urinals are rather funny.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)

    Surely if you study gender then you're open to both sides of the argument. I didn't dismiss the entire sphere, only the view you seem to take.

    I don't think that gender inequality really exists in the Western world, and what little does is rapidly dying out naturally. I've seen your list of cases in which the woman is discriminated against, but I could provide you with cases where the man is in a similar position. I seem to remember on a thread I was reading you had no comeback when someone mentioned the comparatively tiny funding and chance of survival when comparing prostate and testicular cancer to breast cancer. Both genders have it tough in certain cases, but this does not mean they are unequal.

    Why do you think we should deconstruct gender? Gender which is of course based on the innate characteristics of each sex, going way back to the male as the hunter/gatherer and the female as the caregiver. Different, but equal.
    Sexes don't have 'innate characteristics'. The whole idea that there is anything innate about sexuality is disproven by the existence of homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, drag queens, transvestites, asexuals, masculine women, feminine men, hermaphrodites, career women, house-husbands. There is absolutely nothing innate about gender. Gender is a complete construction. Read some queer theory, it will completely blow your argument out of the window.

    Also, since you say you don't dismiss gender studies, I can reassure you that any respectable gender studies scholar or writer would laugh in your face if you told them there's no point in decontructing gender.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    The evidence is overwhelming that women are the primary victims of domestic abuse, rape, and sexual assault. Any sources you can find to say otherwise will probably be pretty poor.

    And of course it's an argument for inquality. Women are poorer than men, less powerful than men, and more vulnerable than men. That's practically inequality by definition.

    And you could probably find a list of things that are more likely to happen to men, but I doubt they'd trump poverty and rape, tbh.
    Suicide, death and serious illness off the top of my head. Men are four times more likely to commit suicide than women. Other stuff like stress and increased workload leads to things like smoking, drug use, mental problems etc.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Sexes don't have 'innate characteristics'. The whole idea that there is anything innate about sexuality is disproven by the existence of homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, drag queens, transvestites, asexuals, masculine women, feminine men, hermaphrodites, career women, house-husbands. There is absolutely nothing innate about gender. Gender is a complete construction. Read some queer theory, it will completely blow your argument out of the window.

    Also, since you say you don't dismiss gender studies, I can reassure you that any respectable gender studies scholar or writer would laugh in your face if you told them there's no point in decontructing gender.
    I was previously under the impression that you were intelligent, but this post has severely distorted that opinion, no offence. For someone who researches gender as devoutly as you clearly do, I can't really see why you'd think this.

    I'm no biologist, but even I know that there are innate differences between men and women. I am sure you are aware that men and women have different genitalia, which is one such differing characteristic. I'm not going to list every difference, but it all comes down to the fact that men produce more testosterone, and women estrogen. If there are no innate sexual differences, why is it that in more or less every culture, men have assumed the 'dominant' role, as the hunter/gatherers, and women assumed the caregiving role?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Feminist propaganda

    Yes, and WHY don't women want to be engineers? Why aren't they motivated and ambitious in the same way as men? In what way has society let them know that as women, less is expected of them, they shouldn't be as ambitious, and that they're supposed to work in certain jobs? It's obviously not innate, is it?

    A: Because they aren't men. Why can't a goldfish fly like an eagle ? In what way has the fish society let them know that they shouldn't be able to fly, and they're supposed to live in the ocean. It's obviously ? not innate, is it?

    So yes, it is innate. How many women do you see in the army ? Most aren't interest in HURR DURR penis contests.


    Yeah, women BEAR the children- why does that mean they bear the cost of RAISING children?
    And sure, you don't need a career to be happy. Except as we've seen, women having less option of a career has left them poorer than men, and more vulnerable.


    A : As we've seen ? I've seen nothing but falsehoods. Women simply choose career paths that have lower pays (try to become rich with a Sociology degree...) They are not vulnerable, and if you ask a Business School admission board, they'll tell you that they can't get more women to apply despite their best efforts.
    And by the way, you bear the cost of raising children because men leave you as soon as they hear the word "pregnant". And that's a direct consequence of your abrupt "sexual liberation" of women that left men without any logical guidance. **** and run is the best they can do nowadays, unfortunately.

    Er, this was never about women being inferior or superior, it was about women and men being equal. If women are far more vulnerable to rape and domestic abuse than men, that is inequality. If 1 in 4 women are victims of rape or assault or domestic abuse, that is unequivocally a gender issue, especially when the equivilent stats for men are minimal.
    I'm gobsmacked that you would equate a woman being a gold-digger with a man RAPING SOMEBODY. Or that you would imply that dressing provocatively has anything to do with rape.


    A : Seriously, are you retarded ? I can't even begin to explain how much stupidity you have condensed in this paragraph.

    Okay, I'll still try to educate you.

    Definition : An ass.hole is someone who exploits his/her own innate aptitudes without regards to morals/ethics in order to satisfy his/her own selfish needs.

    Ms. X is quite beautiful, and has been graced with excessively good looks. With her smarts, she is able to manipulate men in order to live off their generous donations, given under the false belief that she gave one crap about them.

    Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.

    What do X and Y have in common ? They are both ass.holes.

    What can be done to counter this ?
    Nothing.

    What did we learn from this ? People are stupid.
    As Machiavelli put it himself : "Men are born with the wish to have everything and the inability to obtain everything".

    Tl;dr : please educate yourself.

    @ midpikyrozziy :

    Feminazis will always be feminazis. I've lectured a few times in gender studies, and there is always bound to be someone like this spewing incessant verbal diarrhea.
    Sexes don't exist ? Yeah, LoL.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    I was previously under the impression that you were intelligent, but this post has severely distorted that opinion, no offence. For someone who researches gender as devoutly as you clearly do, I can't really see why you'd think this.

    I'm no biologist, but even I know that there are innate differences between men and women. I am sure you are aware that men and women have different genitalia, which is one such differing characteristic. I'm not going to list every difference, but it all comes down to the fact that men produce more testosterone, and women estrogen. If there are no innate sexual differences, why is it that in more or less every culture, men have assumed the 'dominant' role, as the hunter/gatherers, and women assumed the caregiving role?
    It's certainly not as simple as your statement in bold. That's just simply not the case. In fact, gender roles vary hugely in cultures across the world, as is frequently demonstrated in arguments that deconstruct gender.

    Also, you should probably clarify for yourself the difference between sex and gender. Because arguing that sex is a contruct and arguing that gender is a construct are very different things.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Krov)
    Yes, and WHY don't women want to be engineers? Why aren't they motivated and ambitious in the same way as men? In what way has society let them know that as women, less is expected of them, they shouldn't be as ambitious, and that they're supposed to work in certain jobs? It's obviously not innate, is it?

    A: Because they aren't men. Why can't a goldfish fly like an eagle ? In what way has the fish society let them know that they shouldn't be able to fly, and they're supposed to live in the ocean. It's obviously ? not innate, is it?

    So yes, it is innate. How many women do you see in the army ? Most aren't interest in HURR DURR penis contests.


    Yeah, women BEAR the children- why does that mean they bear the cost of RAISING children?
    And sure, you don't need a career to be happy. Except as we've seen, women having less option of a career has left them poorer than men, and more vulnerable.


    A : As we've seen ? I've seen nothing but falsehoods. Women simply choose career paths that have lower pays (try to become rich with a Sociology degree...) They are not vulnerable, and if you ask a Business School admission board, they'll tell you that they can't get more women to apply despite their best efforts.
    And by the way, you bear the cost of raising children because men leave you as soon as they hear the word "pregnant". And that's a direct consequence of your abrupt "sexual liberation" of women that left men without any logical guidance. **** and run is the best they can do nowadays, unfortunately.

    Er, this was never about women being inferior or superior, it was about women and men being equal. If women are far more vulnerable to rape and domestic abuse than men, that is inequality. If 1 in 4 women are victims of rape or assault or domestic abuse, that is unequivocally a gender issue, especially when the equivilent stats for men are minimal.
    I'm gobsmacked that you would equate a woman being a gold-digger with a man RAPING SOMEBODY. Or that you would imply that dressing provocatively has anything to do with rape.


    A : Seriously, are you retarded ? I can't even begin to explain how much stupidity you have condensed in this paragraph.

    Okay, I'll still try to educate you.

    Definition : An ass.hole is someone who exploits his/her own innate aptitudes without regards to morals/ethics in order to satisfy his/her own selfish needs.

    Ms. X is quite beautiful, and has been graced with excessively good looks. With her smarts, she is able to manipulate men in order to live off their generous donations, given under the false belief that she gave one crap about them.

    Mr. Y is a big guy, and has been graced with a thick body type. With his innate ability to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with him, he does not see the need to get things - including sex - the hard way. Since there is no opposing him due to his commanding stature, he can just go about and rape women without fear of retribution.

    What do X and Y have in common ? They are both ass.holes.

    What can be done to counter this ?
    Nothing.

    What did we learn from this ? People are stupid.
    As Machiavelli put it himself : "Men are born with the wish to have everything and the inability to obtain everything".

    Tl;dr : please educate yourself.

    Ladies and gentlemen, observe the above, for it is a demonstration why feminism is still necessary, and why it still exists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Ladies and gentlemen, observe the above, for it is a demonstration why feminism is still necessary, and why it still exists.
    Gentlemen and ladies, observe the above, for it is a demonstration why feminism is not necessary anymore, and why it doesn't exist in developed countries.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't cos we pretty much have exactly the same legal rights and any issues that arise are being ironed out?

    except of course the problem that women do need time off when they are pregnant, which slightly devalues them to a potential career, but even that is only very very slight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's certainly not as simple as your statement in bold. That's just simply not the case. In fact, gender roles vary hugely in cultures across the world, as is frequently demonstrated in arguments that deconstruct gender.

    Also, you should probably clarify for yourself the difference between sex and gender. Because arguing that sex is a contruct and arguing that gender is a construct are very different things.
    I am perfectly aware of the difference between sex and gender. Sex refers to the innate biological differences between a man and a woman - which you seem to think do not exist. Gender can be classified mostly by behaviour that arises through socialisation, but it's important to remember that the differences that arise through gender are generally as a result of the differences between each sex.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And that is why Gender Studies degrees shouldn't exist. A pseudo-scientifical approach that feed feminazis with ad hominem arguments only hurts the credibility of Social Sciences as a whole, which is already deeply hurt by the psycho-socio-babble illuminated undergraduates throw out there on a whim.

    Durkheim, please come back
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    I am perfectly aware of the difference between sex and gender. Sex refers to the innate biological differences between a man and a woman - which you seem to think do not exist. Gender can be classified mostly by behaviour that arises through socialisation, but it's important to remember that the differences that arise through gender are generally as a result of the differences between each sex.
    Of course men and women are biologically different. Hence why I've argued that GENDER IS CONSTRUCTED, not that sex is constructed. (although having said that I do think sex is constructed, but that's a much more complicated argument).

    The fact that gender roles have changed SO MUCH since womens liberation, that gender roles differ so much over the world, and that 'queerness' is so prevalent and widespread, completely undermines the claim that gender is anything but a construct.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Er, of course it doesn't undermine male suffering. You might as well say 'no, we can't say that Jews were persecuted during the holocaust, cos non-Jews had it pretty rough too'. It's just as terrible when a man suffers as when a woman suffers, but we can't ignore the fact that there are widespread mechanisms in place that cause women to suffer more frequently.
    No, but it is just like saying 'oh, homosexuals and gypsies were persecuted during the holocaust, but not as bad as the jews...' And, suprise suprise, people tend to forget about these groups.

    I don't see myself as a victim. I rarely myself experience sexism or misogyny, probably because I can be quite intimidating. So no, I don't let my vagina hold me back. But as someone who values human rights and womens rights, unsurprisingly I care about more than just what happens to me.
    I read being defensive for no reason as playing the victim. Ergo...

    Then what are you whining about?
    I'm not whining about feminism or sexism. I'm pissed off because it really gets under my skin when women go on the offensive in the name of liberation when, in actual fact, what they are really perpetrating is thinly veiled misandry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Because you are paid based on results, not effort. Men in general do [sorry horrible generalization incoming] generally have more productive output. Incoming negs.
    That's just blatant BS. Can you back that up with any credible proof?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellim)
    No, but it is just like saying 'oh, homosexuals and gypsies were persecuted during the holocaust, but not as bad as the jews...' And, suprise suprise, people tend to forget about these groups.
    Well, yes, using the phrasing 'not as badly' is tactless. But what on earth is wrong with pointing out that certain groups are and have been persecuted to a greater extent than others? There's nothing wrong with it- in fact, it's necessary to point these things out.


    (Original post by Ellim)
    I read being defensive for no reason as playing the victim. Ergo...


    I'm not whining about feminism or sexism. I'm pissed off because it really gets under my skin when women go on the offensive in the name of liberation when, in actual fact, what they are really perpetrating is thinly veild misandry.
    So how was I being 'defensive for no reason', and how am I perpetrating 'thinly veiled misandry'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course men and women are biologically different. Hence why I've argued that GENDER IS CONSTRUCTED, not that sex is constructed. (although having said that I do think sex is constructed, but that's a much more complicated argument).

    The fact that gender roles have changed SO MUCH since womens liberation, that gender roles differ so much over the world, and that 'queerness' is so prevalent and widespread, completely undermines the claim that gender is anything but a construct.
    The pizza I just ate was a construct. Does that mean I'll loose weight ?
    The word "construct" is used when you have no bloody idea what you are talking about.

    I suppose you are in an University. Go to the medical department. Ask a neurology professor. Ask him about differences between men and women, brainwise. Prepare yourself for a shocker, honey.

    Conclusion : Science > Pseudo-science.
    Humanity, you're welcome.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Of course men and women are biologically different. Hence why I've argued that GENDER IS CONSTRUCTED, not that sex is constructed. (although having said that I do think sex is constructed, but that's a much more complicated argument).

    The fact that gender roles have changed SO MUCH since womens liberation, that gender roles differ so much over the world, and that 'queerness' is so prevalent and widespread, completely undermines the claim that gender is anything but a construct.
    No, you said there were no innate sexual differences between men and women, and you've repeated it here - 'I do think sex is constructed'. Out of interest, I'd love to hear how exactly sex is constructed, if you could post a link as a source, or just whatever evidence you think you have.

    You're right that gender roles have changed for the better through women's liberation, and no one here is saying that's a bad thing. What we are saying though, is that in current society, men and women are different but equal. Both have things going for them, and both are discriminated against in some way. You've failed to provide any evidence to any of us that this argument is untrue.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://health.howstuffworks.com/huma...ent-brains.htm

    Just throwing that out there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    No, you said there were no innate sexual differences between men and women, and you've repeated it here - 'I do think sex is constructed'. Out of interest, I'd love to hear how exactly sex is constructed, if you could post a link as a source, or just whatever evidence you think you have.
    Not trying to patronise you but I just don't think you'd get it. If you're actually interested then read the first chapter of 'Gender Studies' by Judith Butler (it's seminal).

    Physically, men and women are obviously different. It would be ridiculous of my to try and deny that men and women have different sexual organs. But that's pretty much where I think the 'innate characteristics' end.

    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    You're right that gender roles have changed for the better through women's liberation, and no one here is saying that's a bad thing. What we are saying though, is that in current society, men and women are different but equal. Both have things going for them, and both are discriminated against in some way. You've failed to provide any evidence to any of us that this argument is untrue.
    Well, firstly, that's not what we've been arguing at all, is it? If you want to go down the 'are men and women equal' road then have a look at some of my other posts in this thread. But we're not arguing about that- you're saying that gender roles aren't constructed. I'm saying they are, and the fact that they vary so much proves this. Let's stick to this issue.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ellim)
    That's just blatant BS. Can you back that up with any credible proof?
    Lower paid jobs = Generally more labour intensive = Favor men. Therefore men are likely to be paid more because they can do more. NORMALLY. [This is all a generalization].

    Middle Class = Least discrepancy here.

    Higher paid jobs = There is less and less discrepancy in this modern age, but in general men tend to convey a more 'powerful' presence in business and therefore can perhaps close a deal much easier., not to say there aren't powerful business-women, its just they are more unlikely to reach the top because on average they do not convey the same power.

    On top of that women are subjected to their times of the month and maternity, which can overall impede on productivity...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.