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

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I am not a feminist. I don't want the government to give power to one group and take it from another in the name of equality. When the groups aren't equal and shouldn't have the same power.
    I agree with your argument. I never said we should have a 50:50 split in parliament. I think those who are more able should be in place, if it happens to be all men, then so be it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)

    kind of logic is that?

    It's perfectly reasonable to try to change the personal views of men if they're detrimental to others.
    No it's not. Everyone has a right to whatever views the have, regardless to how despicable you think they are, as long as they don't act on them. Repressing someone's right to a free mind is dictatorial.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    I agree with your argument. I never said we should have a 50:50 split in parliament. I think those who are more able should be in place, if it happens to be all men, then so be it.
    I don't have an issue with female MP's. Rather female Bishops, Lords and Judges. I would rather we had a King instead of a Queen also. Men and women must be equal under the law. Not in terms of power. Forcing men to constrain themselves and improves themselves through that constraint.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubisoft)
    No it's not. Everyone has a right to whatever views the have, regardless to how despicable you think they are, as long as they don't act on them. Repressing someone's right to a free mind is dictatorial.
    They're not being persecuted for their views. Heck, I live by Voltaire's quote.

    People are simply countering them with their own views. This is not repression, this is debate. One person's freedom of speech pitted against another's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    I support the campaign for equal rights for both sexes. Men and women should be respected equally, and both given the opportunities they deserve. Women should be paid equally as well as men under the same vocation. Women should not be objectified. Women deserve the rights to voice their opinions.

    The list goes on:
    Co-educative schools, same content of classes for girls and boys, same qualification for men and women is important.

    For women, career is just as important as for men; equal professional opportunities for men and women are important.

    Neither partner should dominate; solutions do not always follow the principle of finding a concerted decision; status quo is maintained if disagreement occurs.

    However, men and women are different in many ways aside from the obvious, and women and men have gender roles that they should appreciate. Radical feminism completely trashes the thought of gender roles.

    For example you can't expect a man to be as able as woman when it comes to caring for a newborn? I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's stupid to campaign for childcare of newborns to be of equal responsibility for both parents. Women are biologically and psychologically more able in these circumstances. But if the partners decide among themselves to share the responsibilities, then so be it, but it isn't something that should be expected from the outset or campaigned about. Similarly with housework. Most men want their partner to take care of the majority of housework, does it mean these men are against equal rights? Of course not! If the man is happy to help equally, then so be it, if the women wants the man to help equally, this should be understood from the outset.

    Likewise with Men. Most women want the male to be the main support for the family in terms of finance. I think this is perfectly normal for women to think this. But this doesn't mean the men should disagree with females wanting to be independent, and frown upon them wanting to work for themselves, because that is wrong.

    What I'm trying to say is, there are gender roles that must be appreciated, that shouldn't interfere with what equality is. Radical feminists do not appreciate gender roles whatsoever. As a Male, I would not expect my partner to want me to offer full nursing care for a newborn, I wouldn't know where to start, but if she wants me to help, I'll try. And, I wouldn't expect my partner to take care of finances either, but if she wants to contribute, that's fine by me !

    TL;DR - Equality is important. Males are not better beings than females but there is no place for radical feminism
    I find it annoying, that in a lot of comments here, people have disagreed with you using the term 'Male supremacy' as if it does not exist. There's this culture of ignorance in society, where those who are privileged don't acknowledge their privilege.

    I am a man also, and identify myself as an egalitarian, although I did believe that my values as an egalitarian were incorporated into the fundamental values of feminism, and consider myself to also be a feminist.

    In 2015, it irks me that there are still people in public forums that have an issue with people believing in equal rights, people as young as 16 that have a problem with feminism and egalitarianism. The amount of times I've seen someone abused on studentroom because they are a feminist, or because they believe homosexual people have the right to marry is ridiculous. 'Rant over'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    They're not being persecuted for their views. Heck, I live by Voltaire's quote.

    People are simply countering them with their own views. This is not repression, this is debate. One person's freedom of speech pitted against another's.
    No one said anything about debate? If someone changes their views after a debate then that's great. We all know feminists don't debate but rather bully and intimidate their opponents into submission.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All this women BS is being pushed as an attack on the family and to get them to imitate men
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Women should be paid equally as well as men under the same vocation.

    Assuming:

    Two Job Candidates: M (Male) and F (Female)
    The Vector of Employer Requirements [Degree, Experience,..] Is Equally Satisfied by Both Candidates
    Employer Has a Ten Year Horizon
    The Successful Candidate Will Stay for At-Least 10 Years with the Firm
    On The Job Productivity is Equal For M and F
    M and F Are Identical in ALL Respects apart from Gender. So Probability of Sickness etc is also the same. Hence we can cancel these effects out.

    Over the Ten-Year Period:

    (H Is a Measure of Productivity and is Equal for M and F)
    (H1 Is Productivity in Year 1)
    (H1M is Productivity in Year 1 for M)

    Then,

    H1M + H2M + H3M + H4M + H5M + H6M + H7M + H8M + H9M + H10M = Y

    H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F + H10F = Y

    H Increases over time as the worker gains skiils and expertise from working (on the job).

    But. If F falls pregnant say during the 5th year, then:

    H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + 0 + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F = V

    (Assuming that F takes then entire fifth year off (doesn't affect analysis if this is shorter) and her skills set depreciates by 0%, then in the sixth year her productivity is H5F (not H6F))

    Over the ten years then:

    If F doesn't fall pregnant then Y = Y and the pay should be equal.
    If F does fall pregnant then Y > V and so M should earn more.

    Conclusion. If you want M and F to earn the same wage for an identical job etc then you need to enforce some sort of contract whereby F agrees that she will not fall pregnant during a certain period.

    Also, adding in uncertainty where the employer is unsure about F falling pregnant in a certain period has its own losses therefore from the outset F should be offered a lower pay (unless you enforce a contract)

    I know it sounds harsh but if you want equal pay then this is the only fair solution.

    (May be some unintentional mistakes above)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I don't have an issue with female MP's. Rather female Bishops, Lords and Judges. I would rather we had a King instead of a Queen also. Men and women must be equal under the law. Not in terms of power. Forcing men to constrain themselves and improves themselves through that constraint.
    What sense does it make to have men near exclusively in positions of power, that women can also be in? The law doesn't mean a thing, if it isn't practiced. And if we live in a society where we believe men and women are equal, then those people in positions of power should reflect that. I see no difference in having a King then having a Queen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iAre Teh Lejend)
    But males are no better than females though ?
    I know
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Problem with gender roles is that if they are too oppressive people who don't fall into gender roles may feel unaccepted and insecure. Luckily the roles are slowly getting more flexible. As girl who never wants a family I'm glad its nowadays accepted to be career woman with no husband or kids.

    And what about expectations? For example where I live mother needs to take 3 months off from work after baby is born. What if her husband wants to take 3 months off and be with baby, and mother wants to go to work? Its too bad.

    I also think that woman should not expect to live on man's money, I think its just fair both participants earn money and not only one. Of course if man soesifically wants to pay for his wife, its his money. However in my opinion woman should not expect it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ubisoft)
    No one said anything about debate? If someone changes their views after a debate then that's great. We all know feminists don't debate but rather bully and intimidate their opponents into submission.
    No one said anything about repression either. I explained that it's reasonable to try to change the views of others - I assumed that you'd know I meant through debate, not punishment.

    I find it strange that you believe feminists are the ones who use intimidation tactics. In my experience, and in that of others, whenever this particular topic is raised, and we argue in feminism's favour, we're shouted down. Some malicious individuals can and have threatened stuff that's far more sinister. And we're not even talking about what happens when you advocate women's rights elsewhere. (Not that all anti-feminists are vicious, but many seem to carry a chip on their shoulder.)

    You only have to take a look at the anti-feminism threads on TSR to see the side wherein most of the vitriol lies.

    Have you honestly ever felt threatened by a feminist? If so, why? I'm asking this completely earnestly. If this were the case - that you have experienced bullying and intimidation at the hands of a feminist - the overwhelming majority of feminists are rational and civilised in debate. You are tarnishing a group of people with the same brush. You'll find that most feminists don't even want to associate with the very vocal minority.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Them feminists that are like 'WHY aRE HurrICANEs GiVen FEmaLe NaMes?'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  12189849_1006173436072863_8823891266909648426_n.jpg
Views: 39
Size:  7.3 KB
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PPF)
    Women should be paid equally as well as men under the same vocation.

    Assuming:

    Two Job Candidates: M (Male) and F (Female)
    The Vector of Employer Requirements [Degree, Experience,..] Is Equally Satisfied by Both Candidates
    Employer Has a Ten Year Horizon
    The Successful Candidate Will Stay for At-Least 10 Years with the Firm
    On The Job Productivity is Equal For M and F
    M and F Are Identical in ALL Respects apart from Gender. So Probability of Sickness etc is also the same. Hence we can cancel these effects out.

    Over the Ten-Year Period:

    (H Is a Measure of Productivity and is Equal for M and F)
    (H1 Is Productivity in Year 1)
    (H1M is Productivity in Year 1 for M)

    Then,

    H1M + H2M + H3M + H4M + H5M + H6M + H7M + H8M + H9M + H10M = Y

    H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F + H10F = Y

    H Increases over time as the worker gains skiils and expertise from working (on the job).

    But. If F falls pregnant say during the 5th year, then:

    H1F + H2F + H3F + H4F + 0 + H5F + H6F + H7F + H8F + H9F = V

    (Assuming that F takes then entire fifth year off (doesn't affect analysis if this is shorter) and her skills set depreciates by 0%, then in the sixth year her productivity is H5F (not H6F))

    Over the ten years then:

    If F doesn't fall pregnant then Y = Y and the pay should be equal.
    If F does fall pregnant then Y > V and so M should earn more.

    Conclusion. If you want M and F to earn the same wage for an identical job etc then you need to enforce some sort of contract whereby F agrees that she will not fall pregnant during a certain period.

    Also, adding in uncertainty where the employer is unsure about F falling pregnant in a certain period has its own losses therefore from the outset F should be offered a lower pay (unless you enforce a contract)

    I know it sounds harsh but if you want equal pay then this is the only fair solution.

    (May be some unintentional mistakes above)
    I think this is pretty accurat and fair.

    Only issue I have with this is that if I am the F employer will most likely choose M because he cannot know if I will get pregnant of not. Why would he take the risk?

    So this way I need to suffer from this among those who get family, even if I will never marry or have kids.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Simple formula for the world:

    Men can become anything they want (excluding evil ruler of the world).

    Women can become anything they want (ditto).

    Problems solved.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emilia1320)
    I think this is pretty accurat and fair.

    Only issue I have with this is that if I am the F employer will most likely choose M because he cannot know if I will get pregnant of not. Why would he take the risk?

    So this way I need to suffer from this among those who get family, even if I will never marry or have kids.
    Correct.

    Even my proposed solution of contracts or agreements has issues such as enforcement and monitoring costs.

    This is an example of the trade-off between profit and ethics. Suppose a woman who has signed an agreement was to get pregnant by "mistake", would it be right to force an abortion? For arguments sake even if she agrees to it, there are still costs involved compared to M.

    Because we are generally risk-averse the employer would require a risk-premium i.e. paying a lower wage to F relative to M if they were to employ F over M.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PPF)
    Correct.

    Even my proposed solution of contracts or agreements has issues such as enforcement and monitoring costs.

    This is an example of the trade-off between profit and ethics. Suppose a woman who has signed an agreement was to get pregnant by "mistake", would it be right to force an abortion? For arguments sake even if she agrees to it, there are still costs involved compared to M.

    Because we are generally risk-averse the employer would require a risk-premium i.e. paying a lower wage to F relative to M if they were to employ F over M.
    Agreed. I think that people who choose to have kids and step out of work to raise them, deserve lower pay compared to graduate of same year who has been working all time when other was taking care of family.

    Unfortunately women are ones more likely to step out of work, so the women who don't want family and are just as qualified candidates as men with same education and expereicne pay the price. I don't blame the employers thou, its just nature of business that risks are cut to minimum.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Equal rights for both sexes is, in the purest sense, feminism.
    Equality of rights between both sexes is so commonly accepted nowadays that you don't need to use this label it anymore. It's the same as slavery, nobody would advocate it, so you don't need to label those who are against it as "abolitionists".

    Continuing to use this feminist label implies that the fight is not over. Since equality of rights between the sexes has been achieved, feminism should now belong to the past (at least in the UK). This is why I don't say that I'm a feminist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david_94)
    I find it annoying, that in a lot of comments here, people have disagreed with you using the term 'Male supremacy' as if it does not exist. There's this culture of ignorance in society, where those who are privileged don't acknowledge their privilege.


    Keep on white knighting, carebear. Maybe you'll get some.

    edit: just to explain why I posted this: the people who consider themselves warriors for social justice act like terrorists and agitators. They may believe their cause is noble (which it isn't) but their means are entirely despicable. How in 2015 can people still believe men and women are different or that Brits should be a majority in their own country? Because propaganda is weakening. People are growing up and are recognising the harsh realities versus what we have been told.

    You ain't fooling anyone with your moral high-horse *****ery. You are not intimidating anybody any longer.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

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.