Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    The 2 co-founders of the WEeP

    No doubt it is the patriarchy that is the reason why over 90% of workplace deaths are men. They do all the dangerous jobs, the dirty ones. Soldiers? Men. Mining? Men. Manual labour? Men. Binmen? Clue is in the name.

    Any job that is in a nice office women want to have their equal representation, 50-50. Well how about women get an equal number working in the dangerous jobs as well shall we? Oh wait feminists, where are you going? Why so quiet? I thought you wanted equality?
    Oh, right, you don't.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i<3milkshake)
    There are some inequality issues which I would like to see removed;

    A man can work damm hard and get a god job. He can marry a woman. She can then, after a few years, decide to divorce him.

    He will lose his house, his children (they often stay with mum)m his very life. Even without kids she will steal years and years of his life's work. Why? This isn't the 1950's. If a women wants a divorce she doesn't need to rely on a her man to look after her. Get off your golddigger arse and work hard like the guy had to.
    (And as for women getting such easy access to kids, that REALLY annoys me. You can't replace them. And to top it all off your get paid a bloody allowance to look after my kids. How about I look after them and I don't pay you an allowance; that should suit your gold digger arse fine.

    When it comes to marriage and family law men get royally screwed.

    Another thing; a woman can take a few years off her career and have a baby but come back and want equal pay to men. I have a similar idea-I want to be paid the same as people who have more experience than me. Sure they may have spent more years working, but I like the idea that you can spend a year off wearing pyjamas and shopping for clothes and still come back and want parity with your now more experienced and in the loop peers.

    I want an end to the idea it is OK for women to hit men. Go in public and hit a man as a woman? Fine. The guy gets beaten up? Laugh at him. So much as break a hair on a woman's head and society goes in to meltdown. Let us talk about the media portrayal, a feminist favourite; when a woman on TV is upset she can slap a guy and its perfectly fine. If a guy did that...oh the backlash would be out of this world. So another area where feminism needs to do one. I bet your link talks about "violence against women" and "the media".

    EDIT; Oh look it does on page 4. very early on.

    Also; apparently is wrong for male tennis players to get paid more than women. Footballers-all I see on the BBC are them saying they want more money. You know what? I agree. When male models get paid the same as female models THEN we can start moaning about male actors getting paid more than female ones.

    I could go on forever, I really could. My view; I want true equality. I hate any movement that calls itself feminist. It is divisive. If I saw a "white-inist" movement I would laugh. I resent "Black History Day". So does Morgan Freeman.

    When we start looking at policies from a society as a whole perspective, not just a black/white/male/female view perhaps then we will have equality.

    EDIT 2; No your party does not want to make things better for men. In these edits I went through your link and safe to say none of the above in my post is actually solved.
    i love you milkshake
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Actually those on the right are far more likely to be judgemental 'white knights' who have no success and are bitter towards women as a result.
    If those on the right are interested in true equality you'd want to do something about it. Instead you seem to be one of the 'men's rights' people who everyone knows are collections of bitter men who can't get a girl.
    I like how you and the feminazi have conveniently dodged my points about violence towards men and the other inequalities I have mentioned. It is almost as if you claim you want equality, but actually don't.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Sorry- did you just say "I can't be bothered to go learn about what I'm arguing about, so it's your responsibility to teach me (in the full knowledge that I am most likely predisposed to disagree with your premises) before I engage with you?" How do you expect to learn ANYTHING, mate? This is a student forum!
    Yes, I'm saying all of that. The reality is that, for anything to be done in politics, there has to be an agreement and understanding over what should be done. This can be gained through either of the two: (a) a consensus amongst other political leaders/individuals, and/or (b) a majority mandate from the electorate.

    So it is necessary to explain your position to others, instead of passively waiting for the majority to adopt your view. Not engaging with people who are likely to disagree with you is just about as good as being passive (and therefore not furthering your political cause); furthermore, shutting yourself from valuable critique will hinder the refinement of your political causes and policies. So it is precisely in your political cause's interest that you need to educate others on said cause, rather than themselves learning about it by themselves.

    And it is also very clear that mocking and attempting to guilt-trip other people is counterproductive to furthering a political cause.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Actually you're wrong - so far wrong.
    Take the case of Elliot Rodger as a prime example - involved in all sorts of men's rights and anti-women activity and ended up shooting several - all because he couldn't get a girl.

    Most bitter attitudes towards women are from men who have no success with them and are bitter because of it.
    That works both ways. You only have to look at your average modern feminist: overweight and just plain ugly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Freyjaeve)
    It's called the Women's Equality Party because women are the social group that need the most help in order to become equal. If you're genuinely arguing that men are less privileged you may want to re-think. They aren't just taking votes from Labour as they have an entirely different agenda, I personally left Labour for WEP due to Corbyn being elected leader.
    So women deserve more help than disabled people?

    Also why leave labour due to Corbyn, I suffered through 3 years of the hapless Miliband.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willdono)
    That works both ways. You only have to look at your average modern feminist: overweight and just plain ugly.
    Aye Beyoncé, Taylor swift and Emma Watson are just overweight and ugly.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    A bunch of middle class white women more interested in ending the fictional "patriarchy" than helping actually disadvantaged people failing to realise that many of their goals which aren't ridiculous could easily be achieved within the current parties. Additionally failing to figure out that this will actually weaken their cause by taking votes away from progressive parties and giving them to a party which has 0% chance of getting representation under the current system.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Yes, I'm saying all of that. The reality is that, for anything to be done in politics, there has to be an agreement and understanding over what should be done. This can be gained through either of the two: (a) a consensus amongst other political leaders/individuals, and/or (b) a majority mandate from the electorate.

    So it is necessary to explain your position to others, instead of passively waiting for the majority to adopt your view. Not engaging with people who are likely to disagree with you is just about as good as being passive (and therefore not furthering your political cause); furthermore, shutting yourself from valuable critique will hinder the refinement of your political causes and policies. So it is precisely in your political cause's interest that you need to educate others on said cause, rather than themselves learning about it by themselves.

    And it is also very clear that mocking and attempting to guilt-trip other people is counterproductive to furthering a political cause.
    Two things straight off: one, mockery is absolutely useful for furthering a political cause; and two, ignorance will not win you any arguments. I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing about something' sense, not with the 'you're a moron' connotations that often accompany its use on TSR. I don't think you are a moron, so we're clear: I just think you're wrong.

    That aside, if you are really unwilling to go and read up about what you're talking about, I will explain: there are two types of feminists, "equity" feminists and "gender" feminists. Most people, men or women, agree with the basic principles of equity feminism- women should have equal rights, equal pay, equal representation in media, etc etc- more or less the contents of the WE's manifesto, in other words. Gender feminists are the extremists- every movement has them- who tend to be trans-exclusionary and all the rest of it. When you say "all feminists hate men", you're thinking of those guys. Please ignore them. We all do.

    Anyway, the basic idea of the modern feminist movement is in two basic tenets: no culture can shake off hundreds of thousands of years of entrenched inequality in forty years, or even a hundred, and unsurprisingly we haven't; and someone can hold sexist view without ever explicitly saying or thinking the words 'women are inherently not equal to men'. This is because people don't learn about the world just from things said to them out loud. You learn about women and feminism from James Bond slapping a scantily-clad actress on the bottom and sending her away while the men talk, and everyone on screen acting like this is ok. You learn about women and feminism from your friend calling a girl a '****' because she lost her virginity at 15. You learn about women from only seeing pretty, slim, white women in movies and learning- as indeed, many teenage girls do, agonisingly- that this is the norm. This is what is meant by 'institutional' or 'cultural' prejudice and this is what the WE party is trying to put a stop to, among other things.

    Right. Can you engage with me now?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Freyjaeve)
    I personally left Labour for WEP due to Corbyn being elected leader.
    Then you are literally retarded
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    Then you are literally retarded
    *man more pro-equality than any previous leader elected to lead party*

    *supposed egalitarian/feminist leaves party*
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    is this that Women's Lib thing ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If it's equality for everyone, why are they called 'Women's Equality party'?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Two things straight off: one, mockery is absolutely useful for furthering a political cause; and two, ignorance will not win you any arguments. I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing about something' sense, not with the 'you're a moron' connotations that often accompany its use on TSR. I don't think you are a moron, so we're clear: I just think you're wrong.

    That aside, if you are really unwilling to go and read up about what you're talking about, I will explain: there are two types of feminists, "equity" feminists and "gender" feminists. Most people, men or women, agree with the basic principles of equity feminism- women should have equal rights, equal pay, equal representation in media, etc etc- more or less the contents of the WE's manifesto, in other words. Gender feminists are the extremists- every movement has them- who tend to be trans-exclusionary and all the rest of it. When you say "all feminists hate men", you're thinking of those guys. Please ignore them. We all do.

    Anyway, the basic idea of the modern feminist movement is in two basic tenets: no culture can shake off hundreds of thousands of years of entrenched inequality in forty years, or even a hundred, and unsurprisingly we haven't; and someone can hold sexist view without ever explicitly saying or thinking the words 'women are inherently not equal to men'. This is because people don't learn about the world just from things said to them out loud. You learn about women and feminism from James Bond slapping a scantily-clad actress on the bottom and sending her away while the men talk, and everyone on screen acting like this is ok. You learn about women and feminism from your friend calling a girl a '****' because she lost her virginity at 15. You learn about women from only seeing pretty, slim, white women in movies and learning- as indeed, many teenage girls do, agonisingly- that this is the norm. This is what is meant by 'institutional' or 'cultural' prejudice and this is what the WE party is trying to put a stop to, among other things.

    Right. Can you engage with me now?
    Hopefully you said that you are not an extremist.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Hopefully you said that you are not an extremist.
    You see, guys? This is why reading things people have written is useful!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Under our unfair voting system they will be unlikely to gain many seats at the 2020 General Election, but at a local/regional level they might have some success.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Two things straight off: one, mockery is absolutely useful for furthering a political cause; and two, ignorance will not win you any arguments. I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing about something' sense, not with the 'you're a moron' connotations that often accompany its use on TSR. I don't think you are a moron, so we're clear: I just think you're wrong.

    That aside, if you are really unwilling to go and read up about what you're talking about, I will explain: there are two types of feminists, "equity" feminists and "gender" feminists. Most people, men or women, agree with the basic principles of equity feminism- women should have equal rights, equal pay, equal representation in media, etc etc- more or less the contents of the WE's manifesto, in other words. Gender feminists are the extremists- every movement has them- who tend to be trans-exclusionary and all the rest of it. When you say "all feminists hate men", you're thinking of those guys. Please ignore them. We all do.

    Anyway, the basic idea of the modern feminist movement is in two basic tenets: no culture can shake off hundreds of thousands of years of entrenched inequality in forty years, or even a hundred, and unsurprisingly we haven't; and someone can hold sexist view without ever explicitly saying or thinking the words 'women are inherently not equal to men'. This is because people don't learn about the world just from things said to them out loud. You learn about women and feminism from James Bond slapping a scantily-clad actress on the bottom and sending her away while the men talk, and everyone on screen acting like this is ok. You learn about women and feminism from your friend calling a girl a '****' because she lost her virginity at 15. You learn about women from only seeing pretty, slim, white women in movies and learning- as indeed, many teenage girls do, agonisingly- that this is the norm. This is what is meant by 'institutional' or 'cultural' prejudice and this is what the WE party is trying to put a stop to, among other things.

    Right. Can you engage with me now?
    I'm surprised you haven't mentioned the grooming gangs in Rotherham, FGM, forced marriages, burqas, etc. You instead prefer to complain about "James Bond slapping a scantily-clad actress on the bottom".

    It's probably so much easier, convenient, and politically correct to blame the white patriarchy for every minute problem a woman can face in her life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    Then you are literally retarded
    Or I personally dislike him, and certain policies of his. I'm allowed to have my own political opinions thanks.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by demx9)
    The 2 co-founders of the WEeP

    As ridiculous as that meme is it still makes me laugh :rofl:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Romula)
    Right. Can you engage with me now?
    I just learnt how to multiquote on this forum!

    (Original post by Romula)
    mockery is absolutely useful for furthering a political cause
    Using mockery may cement your followers' beliefs, but in may turn off the politically undecided, especially when not done right - it all depends on the context and the audience.

    For example,
    (Original post by Romula)
    You see, guys? This is why reading things people have written is useful!
    Is not bound to win any of the undecided over to your side, and it instead does the opposite.

    (Original post by Romula)
    ignorance will not win you any arguments. I mean ignorance in the 'not knowing about something' sense, not with the 'you're a moron' connotations that often accompany its use on TSR. I don't think you are a moron, so we're clear: I just think you're wrong.
    When your audience has no knowledge of a matter then arguing with them would just be talking past them; there is no meaningful discussion happening. Furthermore, the point of political debate is not to only win arguments, but to also win believers - remember, your audience is not only the person to whom you're arguing with, but also those who are watching the debate. So in order to influence their opinions you must bring your knowledge to them, wholly packaged and ready for consumption. Margaret Thatcher was famous for her incessant lectures to her supporters, opposition, and the fence-sitters on the free market and free choice, the evils of socialism, etc., and with that she managed to redefine British politics, pulling it towards the right, where it has stayed for the last thirtysomething years.

    (Original post by Romula)
    That aside, if you are really unwilling to go and read up about what you're talking about, I will explain: there are two types of feminists, "equity" feminists and "gender" feminists. Most people, men or women, agree with the basic principles of equity feminism- women should have equal rights, equal pay, equal representation in media, etc etc- more or less the contents of the WE's manifesto, in other words. Gender feminists are the extremists- every movement has them- who tend to be trans-exclusionary and all the rest of it. When you say "all feminists hate men", you're thinking of those guys. Please ignore them. We all do.
    Yes, I know of the distinctions, if you're talking about those as defined by Christina Hoff Somers. Please do not adopt a patronising tone when addressing your audience - it is very off-putting.

    (Original post by Romula)
    Anyway, the basic idea of the modern feminist movement is in two basic tenets: no culture can shake off hundreds of thousands of years of entrenched inequality in forty years, or even a hundred, and unsurprisingly we haven't; and someone can hold sexist view without ever explicitly saying or thinking the words 'women are inherently not equal to men'. This is because people don't learn about the world just from things said to them out loud. You learn about women and feminism from James Bond slapping a scantily-clad actress on the bottom and sending her away while the men talk, and everyone on screen acting like this is ok. You learn about women and feminism from your friend calling a girl a '****' because she lost her virginity at 15. You learn about women from only seeing pretty, slim, white women in movies and learning- as indeed, many teenage girls do, agonisingly- that this is the norm. This is what is meant by 'institutional' or 'cultural' prejudice and this is what the WE party is trying to put a stop to, among other things.
    I find your assumptions of where and how I learnt about gender equality to be highly amusing, especially since you have never met me in person, nor asked me about my thoughts before. That is to say, I disagree with your theory that everyone's view of the world is affected by the aforementioned examples of prejudice.

    That aside, I'd like to know a few things:

    1. How you can deconstruct these supposed institutional and cultural barriers and achieve equality for everyone?
    2. Is WEP aiming for equal opportunity or outcome, i.e. does its policies aim for equality or equity?
    3. What is WEP's view on authoritarianism and freedom of speech?

    I'm very sorry to say that I'm not very interested in reading the document OP linked, so I'd like some responses if preferable, and not one which tells me to go read it myself - I have a very, very short attention span (and I'm at work).
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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.