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

Feminists: Opinions on...? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)


    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)
    You could say that, although I really don't think that's the case. Women are literally in the same jobs as men, with the same job description, and are being payed less.

    Oh no, personally I don't think that at all, of course women are valued by most men for much more than just their bodies, but I think there's too much objectification of women? Women's bodies are used everywhere, to promote products etc etc. I think women should be able to do what they want with their bodies, but I hate the idea of them being simply for the purpose of men, and to promote things to men. Nah I do think more men respect women but it's just still a problem in society today Although statistically girls do perform better in school (mostly), men are still meant to be macho and funny and strong, and women are still expected to be submissive and cute and sexual. I really don't like the image society seems to have today of the men being stupid but dominant, and so the manipulative woman makes him do what she wants, it's horrible

    And i love that gif by the way :')
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    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.
    nope... there is a pay gap, but it isn't based on discrimination. there are so many factors to be taken into account, such as hours worked, how the job pays people, etc etc.

    and yes i know the song you're talking about which has lines which rapists have used to their victims is blurred lines, but that's hardly a decent argument, i could go into any book, song, anime , tv show and do the same thing there. and imo, blurred lines isn't about rape, it's a guy being cocky... it's all down the interpretation.

    but again, using your train of logic (if that's a phrase) as men are statistically more likely to be attacked than women are then that makes them deserving of a minister for men?
    actually why am i arguing i couldn't even care if there was a minister for men or not
    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.
    This.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmergencyBagels)
    tony blair set up the minister for women thing and she combats all forms of inequality, focusing on gender. women suffer more from sexism, thus i guess they called her minister for women. personally i think minister for equality would be a better name considering thats what she really does and that is actually the aim of feminism - equality.
    You'd have to be very naive to think feminism gives a toss about actual equality. Instead of looking at what feminism describes itself as, look at the attitudes and actions (or inaction) of its members - you should begin to realise that the commitment to equality in feminist writings is about as sincere as the commitment to democratic freedoms in the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Aren't women underrepresented in parliament? Women make up about 50% of the population in the UK, yet only around 20% of the House of Lords and 20% of House of Commons therefore it makes sense to have a Minister of Women who ensures that women (who are half of the UK population) are actually represented in government. I don't think a Minister of Men is really necessary since men are already over-represented in parliament. Its just like how some universities will have an international student representative, a disabled student representative and maybe an ethnic minority representative but won't have a home student representative, 'abled' representative or ethnic majority representative.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    Aren't women underrepresented in parliament? Women make up about 50% of the population in the UK, yet only around 20% of the House of Lords and 20% of House of Commons therefore it makes sense to have a Minister of Women who ensures that women (who are half of the UK population) are actually represented in government. I don't think a Minister of Men is really necessary since men are already over-represented in parliament. Its just like how some universities will have an international student representative, a disabled student representative and maybe an ethnic minority representative but won't have a home student representative, 'abled' representative or ethnic majority representative.
    EXACTLY
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    You could say that, although I really don't think that's the case. Women are literally in the same jobs as men, with the same job description, and are being payed less.
    Balls. Cite some evidence or stop making unfounded claims.

    Oh no, personally I don't think that at all, of course women are valued by most men for much more than just their bodies, but I think there's too much objectification of women? Women's bodies are used everywhere, to promote products etc etc. I think women should be able to do what they want with their bodies, but I hate the idea of them being simply for the purpose of men, and to promote things to men.
    All you really seem to be saying here is that you don't like it when women promote products, though you seem to be labouring under the delusion that only women are used to promote products, which is complete tosh, and that men are the sole target audience, which is also complete tosh. You are deliberately presenting a comically exaggerated picture of women vs the world which doesn't match up to reality. If a woman wants to promote a product, she should have the freedom to do so as an individual and this constant, self-obsessed equating of individual women with the entire female gender insults the individual women and women generally.

    Nah I do think more men respect women but it's just still a problem in society today Although statistically girls do perform better in school (mostly), men are still meant to be macho and funny and strong, and women are still expected to be submissive and cute and sexual. I really don't like the image society seems to have today of the men being stupid but dominant, and so the manipulative woman makes him do what she wants, it's horrible
    What are you talking about? Men having to be macho and women having to be submissive, men being stupid but dominant and wily women manipulating them behind the scenes. You sound like you're trapped in a farcical play. Society isn't like this outside of comic shows, films and adverts, which you shouldn't be taking to heart so seriously or be worried that they are going to affect people's attitudes. I don't see any evidence for that and again it actually insults people's intelligence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    Aren't women underrepresented in parliament? Women make up about 50% of the population in the UK, yet only around 20% of the House of Lords and 20% of House of Commons therefore it makes sense to have a Minister of Women who ensures that women (who are half of the UK population) are actually represented in government. I don't think a Minister of Men is really necessary since men are already over-represented in parliament. Its just like how some universities will have an international student representative, a disabled student representative and maybe an ethnic minority representative but won't have a home student representative, 'abled' representative or ethnic majority representative.
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    EXACTLY
    Mega face-palm!

    There are fewer women in parliament because far, FAR fewer women apply to stand as candidates for constituency elections in the first place, not because they are discriminated against, - quite the reverse: we now have all-female shortlists in the major parties which discriminate against men to stand in certain seats so that a woman is guaranteed to win the election. Aside from being unbelievably patronising towards women to suggest that they aren't capable of winning a competition against a man, these short-lists are exactly the sort of sexist discrimination against men that feminists claim to care about just as much but curiously stay silent on while continuing to beat the war drum for their own gender. All-female shortlists mask the underlying problem, if you even see it as such, that women themselves do not want to stand for political office on anywhere near the same scale as men. In fact, since the discriminatory all-female shortlists, there are now far more women in parliament than men relative to how many applied to stand in the first place.

    If you think that more women should be in parliament, instead of revealing the entirely female-oriented equality you as feminists actually care about by supporting discrimination against men based on their gender or having a Minister for women but not men, stand for election yourselves. Alternatively, respect that most other women don't want to stand either and stop whining about something that you aren't prepared to do anything about yourselves that doesn't simply shift the sexism over to men instead of removing it entirely.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Mega face-palm! There are fewer women in parliament because far, FAR fewer women apply to stand as candidates for constituency elections in the first place, not because they are discriminated against, - quite the reverse: we now have all-female shortlists in the major parties which discriminate against men to stand in certain seats so that a woman is guaranteed to win the election. Aside from being unbelievably patronising towards women to suggest that they aren't capable of winning a competition against a man, these short-lists are exactly the sort of sexist discrimination against men that feminists claim to care about just as much but curiously stay silent on while continuing to beat the war drum for their own gender. All-female shortlists mask the underlying problem, if you even see it as such, that women themselves do not want to stand for political office on anywhere near the same scale as men. In fact, since the discriminatory all-female shortlists, there are now far more women in parliament than men relative to how many applied to stand in the first place.If you think that more women should be in parliament, instead of revealing the entirely female-oriented equality you as feminists actually care about by supporting discrimination against men based on their gender or having a Minister for women but not men, stand for election yourselves. Alternatively, respect that most other women don't want to stand either and stop whining about something that you aren't prepared to do anything about yourselves that doesn't simply shift the sexism over to men instead of removing it entirely.
    I never said women are under-represented because they are discriminated against, I just said women are under-represented. I'm aware that fewer women run in elections which leads to fewer women in parliament (although I believe that people generally perceive women as inadequate leaders so even when women do run for elections, they are more likely to lose because of these assumptions - these assumptions are not only made by men but by other women too before you start getting lairy) and because there is fewer women in parliament, a Minister of Women is needed to make up for the low levels of representation in parliament. A Minister of Men will only be needed if men become under-represented in government but until then the post isn't needed.

    I'm sorry but the only person who is whining is you. There is no shift of sexism, is it suddenly racist to have an ethnic minority representative or an international student representative? Is it suddenly heterophobic to have LGBT representatives? Advancing the rights of one group of people does not suddenly make the other group of people less equal especially when that group of people already enjoys far more rights and benefits than the other group.

    I don't understand why some men are so threatened by female equality, if you want male equality, start your own movement and stop latching onto other people's movements. If you truly want the 'Minister of Men' post to be created, why don't you lobby for it? Why don't you write a letter to your MP, why do you feel the need to blame feminists for the fact that parliament doesn't have a Minister of Men? Why don't you follow your own advice - stop whining and do something that doesn't involve attacking feminists.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
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.