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

A Look at Feminism - From a Different Perspective Watch

    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Spontogical)
    Erm... Dark House did NOT write the letter in his OP - did you not click the link?

    Even if he didnt write it, he chose to post it and claimed the view point was worth consideration. He did this in my humble opinion because he was too afraid to post his own points. I didnt click the link because I don't care what source it's from, it's been posted here to express a view point on behalf of the OP and I think that's pretty pathetic.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    16
    Welcome Squad
    I'm confused, what was the outcome of the letter meant to be?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    He does appear to agree with its sentiment, though. I don't think the person you quoted said that DH wrote the original letter.
    In regards to the OP - imo, only certain women would be able to ride the alpha-****-carousel and then hop off and be swept away by a man who will provide her with financial security for the rest of her life (whether through divorcing him or not). These women, of course, will be the most aesthetically pleasing of the gender.

    The less good-looking of women will have to take what they can get anyway, and so might be insulted by the letter in the OP, given that it doesn't apply to them. But, of course, this is just conjecture.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    I want to make sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet on this one.

    I'd like to say, at this point, that you are one of many feminists that I have debated with in the last couple of days. And the only debates you ever have, you rely heavily on quoting the social troubles of bygone days or third world nations to justify your position.

    The third world nations thing I can sort of understand, your sisters be out there getting sold as cattle etc. But on the point of bygone days...it would seem you wouldn't want to revel in your success and look ahead, but to continuously winge over how you were so hard done to once upon a time.
    She was talking about the past because the source in the OP said the patriarchy in the past was better, she was then arguing with another user why it was more helpful to men than women.

    They were literally having a debate about the past, not using it to relate to today.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    In regards to the OP - imo, only certain women would be able to ride the alpha-****-carousel and then hop off and be swept away by a man who will provide her with financial security for the rest of her life (whether through divorcing him or not). These women, of course, will be the most aesthetically pleasing of the gender.

    The less good-looking of women will have to take what they can get anyway, and so might be insulted by the letter in the OP, given that it doesn't apply to them. But, of course, this is just conjecture.
    I don't know why you quoted me, but that's such a load of rubbish I don't even know where to start. The idea that feminists are angry because they're wronged ugly women is nothing new :rolleyes:

    Also, by the sounds of it you seem to think that attractiveness is the only thing that allows women to do well in life. Which again, is a load of rubbish.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Even if he didnt write it, he chose to post it and claimed the view point was worth consideration. He did this in my humble opinion because he was too afraid to post his own points. I didnt click the link because I don't care what source it's from, it's been posted here to express a view point on behalf of the OP and I think that's pretty pathetic.
    This merely implies that you would've preferred to attack me instead of contending with the points made in the letter. It's been obvious, however, through your posts in this thread and on my profile that you've been somewhat bizarrely frustrated by the absence of an ad hominem opportunity. :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Have a read of this, I think it answers some of your issues pretty well: http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admi...lling-prophecy
    Of course, it has validity from me, the source is well thought out and written, however, the definition is still not ****ing correct do you not understand?

    All of the stuff she says on this blog, I've never seen in reality, (domestic violence, rape (prison rape on its own for some weird reason and other stuff), I've never seen on TSR (until now) and the nature of her post indicates that feminism is more effective than humanism, one thing though. Humanism strives for complete equality, which is logically impossible, find a new way, a new movement build it up from the building blocks and then re-define the nature of feminism, complete equality is impossible due to biology etc, however legislative and social/economic equality is entirely possible (or near-possible) so why should men who don't support feminism, be against equality?, as I refer back to my first post its a load of *******s.

    I also appreciate why feminism started back god knows how long ago, I do an exam on it and I've come to appreciate the rapid change and suffering women fought against to achieve greater social, political and economic rights. I respect Millicent Fawcett, Emmeline Pankhurst (to an extent), Frances Mary Buss, Christabel Pankhurst, Annie Kenney to name a few, but its not the same anymore, we've moved a lot since the 1830-1940's etc, modern feminism is not effective and people refuse to take it seriously due to its nature of gender favouring

    As some men against feminism were not jealous that you're getting more rights were generally happy that you'll be granted the same social and economic rights (which we're fairly close to now), however the few exceptions that never change and won't change until feminism re-brands itself to move away from rad-fems which is the stuff that clearly benefits women more than men, and you clearly know what that is. Feminism isn't an effective enough movement due to its definition and nature, and radicalists, to actually bring men and women closer to equality.

    Don't justify feminism as effective please, its about as effective as the Tsarina and Rasputin, so uhh not very
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I don't know why you quoted me, but that's such a load of rubbish I don't even know where to start. The idea that feminists are angry because they're wronged ugly women is nothing new :rolleyes:

    Also, by the sounds of it you seem to think that attractiveness is the only thing that allows women to do well in life. Which again, is a load of rubbish.
    I merely stated that good-looking women are far more likely to be able to attract enough men to even have the luxury to bed hop alot before settling down. Although, yes, you're correct. There are other ways to "do well in life". The author seemed to be referring, though, more to women who are successful reproductively.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Of course, it has validity from me, the source is well thought out and written, however, the definition is still not ****ing correct do you not understand?

    All of the stuff she says on this blog, I've never seen in reality, (domestic violence, rape (prison rape on its own for some weird reason and other stuff), I've never seen on TSR (until now) and the nature of her post indicates that feminism is more effective than humanism, one thing though. Humanism strives for complete equality, which is logically impossible, find a new way, a new movement build it up from the building blocks and then re-define the nature of feminism, complete equality is impossible due to biology etc, however legislative and social/economic equality is entirely possible (or near-possible) so why should men who don't support feminism, be against equality?, as I refer back to my first post its a load of *******s.

    As some men against feminism were not jealous that you're getting more rights were generally happy that you'll be granted the same social and economic rights (which we're fairly close to now), however the few exceptions that never change and won't change until feminism re-brands itself to move away from rad-fems which is the stuff that clearly benefits women more than men, and you clearly know what that is. Feminism isn't an effective enough movement due to its definition and nature, and radicalists, to actually bring men and women closer to equality.

    Don't justify feminism as effective please, its about as effective as the Tsarina and Rasputin, so uhh not very
    You're just so convinced of your own opinion that you won't change your mind. Kinda sad really. And the article I linked explained exactly why it's feminism, not humanism. How do you expect feminists to "rebrand" feminism? The people who need feminism explained to them are generally those who think its some sort of bad thing. Real feminists are nothing like the minority rad fems of tumblr.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    I merely stated that good-looking women are far more likely to be able to attract enough men to even have the luxury to bed hop alot before settling down. Although, yes, you're correct. There are other ways to "do well in life". The author seemed to be referring, though, more to women who are successful reproductively.
    Because clearly the author is of the opinion that women should be baby and sandwich making kitchen machines, with no goals of their own.

    Anybody can have the "luxury to bed hop" if they know how to do it. Attractiveness can help but if it were the only factor then most people wouldn't get laid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of tripe.

    "Independence. Scary, lonely, bitter, potentially impoverished Independence"

    I mean, seriously? It's extremely telling how she considers independence to be such a terrible thing. Clearly this woman has some major hang ups. Quite possibly she's unhappy with the way her life has gone and is bitter and resentful of women who chased their dreams and live their lives the way they want, where as she was too afraid.

    The way she talks about her son at the start is pretty creepy too, some sort of reverse Oedipus complex perhaps? I'd say having the mother in law from hell is far more damaging to her sons chances of marriage than feminism. Not that any woman would ever be good enough for her son in her eyes, anyway, no matter how docile and servile.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    You're just so convinced of your own opinion that you won't change your mind. Kinda sad really. And the article I linked explained exactly why it's feminism, not humanism. How do you expect feminists to "rebrand" feminism? The people who need feminism explained to them are generally those who think its some sort of bad thing. Real feminists are nothing like the minority rad fems of tumblr.
    I could say the same. You're just so convinced of your own opinion that you won't change your mind. Kinda sad really. Hey I did it as well! yay for opinions
    If they really wanted an effective movement they would re-brand it, perhaps organisational campaigns, awareness, you'd likely get a lot of support from males this time round. The delusion of modern feminism has even reached the heart of my own school, an assembly purely on women's rights (8months ago), ok, still haven't heard one about males rights yet... uh anytime soon guys?
    It's not bad, its just not effective at all. I agree that radfems bring down the extent of effectiveness of the ''movement'' significantly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Because clearly the author is of the opinion that women should be baby and sandwich making kitchen machines, with no goals of their own.
    Where in the article is this implied?

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Anybody can have the "luxury to bed hop" if they know how to do it. Attractiveness can help but if it were the only factor then most people wouldn't get laid.
    Luxury to bed hop is one thing, but the luxury to do so with the most attractive the opposite gender has to offer is another story. Girls of a certain level of physical beauty are far more likely to be able to do than are the rough-looking girls.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    I could say the same. You're just so convinced of your own opinion that you won't change your mind. Kinda sad really. Hey I did it as well! yay for opinions
    If they really wanted an effective movement they would re-brand it, perhaps organisational campaigns, awareness, you'd likely get a lot of support from males this time round. The delusion of modern feminism has even reached the heart of my own school, an assembly purely on women's rights (8months ago), ok, still haven't heard one about males rights yet... uh anytime soon guys?
    It's not bad, its just not effective at all. I agree that radfems bring down the extent of effectiveness of the ''movement'' significantly.
    What I don't get is your angle. You seem intent on ostracising feminists, like they're doing something bad and so you don't want anything to do with them. If you're a humanist, surely you should acknowledge the feminist argument, and include it as part of a wider argument for how human rights can be improved, rather than trying to push feminists out?

    That's what I never got about MRAs, they're all about "equality" but will fight tooth and nail with feminists any chance they get. If they really cared about equality then surely they would ally themselves with feminists, rather than bullying them.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kunoichi)
    She was talking about the past because the source in the OP said the patriarchy in the past was better, she was then arguing with another user why it was more helpful to men than women.

    They were literally having a debate about the past, not using it to relate to today.
    It actually said the patriarchy always gave more to women than men.

    I believe the girl I was debating this with has already e-mailed the author to get them to elaborate on that point. She also claimed she would disprove the claim herself, reversing the burden of proof protocol, but has failed to do so.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Where in the article is this implied?



    Luxury to bed hop is one thing, but the luxury to do so with the most attractive the opposite gender has to offer is another story. Girls of a certain level of physical beauty are far more likely to be able to do than are the rough-looking girls.
    You really do like that smiley button don't you? I think the whole article stinks of misogyny, obviously I was paraphrasing but the "woman" who wrote it (who I suspect could just be an MRA in disguise, just sayin') has no respect for women, generalizes hugely and it all stinks of opinion rather than fact.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    What I don't get is your angle. You seem intent on ostracising feminists, like they're doing something bad and so you don't want anything to do with them. If you're a humanist, surely you should acknowledge the feminist argument, and include it as part of a wider argument for how human rights can be improved, rather than trying to push feminists out?

    That's what I never got about MRAs, they're all about "equality" but will fight tooth and nail with feminists any chance they get. If they really cared about equality then surely they would ally themselves with feminists, rather than bullying them.
    MRA=men's rights activists? idk was a guess.

    Bull**** I'm bullying you/other feminists, I'm stating my viewpoint on the matter, disagree with it, that's not bullying.

    I don't want to ally with feminists, the movement is not effective, please name something significant that feminism has achieved in the past 10 years and then I may reconsider being less-against but still against feminism. The thing is I'm all about equality, so why can't equality not be branded under feminism as its clearly inclined (as the name states) for women.

    Either reduce the radical-ness of complete equality proposed by humanists or find a new movement, I have not seen any successful or peaceful or effective modern feminist approaches. I started dislocating myself from feminists after the effects I've seen of it nothing positive, just a bunch of women (yes rad fems) screaming rape at a man going to a university about issues facing men (there were a lot of women trust me)

    Now please can you just accept I have opinions so I can continue drawing sin,cos and tan graphs thank you
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    What a ****. If it is written by a woman, she's clearly one of those women who thinks no woman will be good enough for her perfect son. He's probably a **** as well - he's a marine and he's been raised by a woman who thinks women should spend their lives trying to please men. It's not a different perspective on feminism at all - it's the same misogynist ****.

    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    By the same token, divorce laws that entitle just one woman to walk away with half a man's estate and net worth is an example of the patriarchy doing more for women than men.

    Walking away with something under a technicality of the law is ALOT easier than actually earning it in the first place.

    Women can now also do those things that they previously could not.
    It says a lot about your beliefs that you assume it is always the man who owns the estate for a woman to walk away with. Those laws do not only apply to men. If a rich woman with a less affluent partner gets divorced, he is entitled to some of that wealth.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    You really do like that smiley button don't you? I think the whole article stinks of misogyny, obviously I was paraphrasing but the "woman" who wrote it (who I suspect could just be an MRA in disguise, just sayin') has no respect for women, generalizes hugely and it all stinks of opinion rather than fact.
    See here and here.

    What makes your stance even more amusing is that you're committing these logical fallacies without knowing for a fact who the author even is. :lol:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    What a ****. If it is written by a woman, she's clearly one of those women who thinks no woman will be good enough for her perfect son. He's probably a **** as well - he's a marine and he's been raised by a woman who thinks women should spend their lives trying to please men. It's not a different perspective on feminism at all - it's the same misogynist ****.



    It says a lot about your beliefs that you assume it is always the man who owns the estate for a woman to walk away with. Those laws do not only apply to men. If a rich woman with a less affluent partner gets divorced, he is entitled to some of that wealth.
    Some but how much?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.