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

Incredible women standing up against feminism Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    My point being, most of what feminists attribute to some elusive patriarchy twiddling the knobs of society, can be attributed to sexual dimorphism. Take gender roles as an example; a conspiracy to keep women down, or the performing of tasks our bodies evolved for?
    What we've evolved to do has no bearing on what we should do, that would be a naturalistic fallacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    To be quite honest, the distinction between ordinary feminism and radical feminism has become very blurred as of late. Both flavours act to put the wellbeing of women before men, pretend problems that both genders face are female-orientated problems, and generally have a gender-biased attitude. It may be for equality in theory, but it doesn't appear to behave this way; not when feminists continuously push defunct factoids and almost always ignore the male side of every coin.

    "Plus, these women wouldn't even have 'voices' to be against feminism if it wasn't for feminism!" Meh, that's a bit of a stretch...
    But that's not true, radical feminism may favour to put the wellbeing of women before men, but ordinary feminism doesn't. It simply seeks the equality of women to men - never over men.

    Secondly, it's not really a stretch. The reason women have a voice in the political sphere is because of feminists campaigning for the vote and a voice for women. If we had no vote, would anyone really care about our political input? Even if you thought the points were valid, if we have no vote and therefore no political right granted to us, then who will really listen at all to what you we have to say?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    What we've evolved to do has no bearing on what we should do, that would be a naturalistic fallacy.
    And nobody suggested that it was; so that would be an ad hominem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    And nobody suggested that it was; so that would be an ad hominem.
    How the hell is that an ad hominem?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    How the hell is that an ad hominem?
    Ah, actually, i meant straw man. ****. That's embarrassing lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickidc18)
    Wow the ignorance and idiocy never fails to astound me. These girls needed feminism (not radical feminism) or they would still be their husbands property, locked in the kitchen pushing countless babies out and not even being able to write those stupid cards because of being denied an education. Feminism is still needed widely as many countries have deplorable womens rights in 2014.


    Globally, 1 in 5 girls of lower secondary school age is out of school
    Source: UNESCO - UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics

    Girls’ primary school completion rates are below 50% in most poor countries.
    Source: UNESCO - UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics

    Every year, 10 million girls are forced or coerced into marriage.
    Source: Bruce, J. and S. Clark (2004), “The Implications of Early Marriage for HIV/AIDS Policy”, Brief based on backgroundpaper prepared for the WHO/UNFPA/Population Council Technical Consultation on Married Adolescents New York

    1 in every 3 girls in the developing world is married by the age of 18.
    Source: UNICEF (2011), “The State of the World’s Children 2011, Adolescence: An Age of Opportunity”, New York: UNICEF Population Council.


    The leading cause of death for young women aged 15-19 in developing countries is pregnancy.
    Source: Because I am a Girl. The State of the World’s Girls 2009. Girls in the Global Economy: Adding It All Up, p.51. London, Plan. World Health Organization WHO, Women and Health


    1 in 7 marries before they reach the age of 15.
    Source: The Elders (2010), “Child Marriage”..
    This is such a strawman argument ugh.

    Yes Feminism is relevant outside of western society where all of these gender inequalities are relevant. These problems are hardly relevant in western society, and are pretty much equal to the amount their male counterparts get.

    You feel as if women must have extreme appreciation for feminism, even when it gets hypocritical, based off what it achieved in the past? Get a stronger argument lmao

    and can people stop pulling out the definition argument out of their backside? A definition doesn't define a movement, rather what its members do and how they act create a definition of the movement. I think its pretty safe to say that Feminism is definitely not its exact definition anymore, the definition has been twisted countless times.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i-love-coffee)
    But that's not true, radical feminism may favour to put the wellbeing of women before men, but ordinary feminism doesn't. It simply seeks the equality of women to men - never over men.

    Secondly, it's not really a stretch. The reason women have a voice in the political sphere is because of feminists campaigning for the vote and a voice for women. If we had no vote, would anyone really care about our political input? Even if you thought the points were valid, if we have no vote and therefore no political right granted to us, then who will really listen at all to what you we have to say?
    Again, what feminists claim feminism is and what it actually does can be two different things. From experience, self identified feminists primarily talk about and campaign for the recognition of female [clue: feminism - just sayn'] concerns and issues, while widely disregarding male issues or how these same issues may also affect men. Everything is almost always from a female perspective and bias.

    Women still had freedom of speech before getting the vote (and all men only got the vote a few years prior). Also, 'feminism' has really changed a great deal since the women's suffrage movement, both in its priorities, its supporters, and how it behaves.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Equality yes feminism no.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Ah, actually, i meant straw man. ****. That's embarrassing lol.
    Fair enough, but back on topic, you mentioned that gender roles are something we've evolved to have. If you accept that this isn't a valid reason to follow then I don't know what you're suggesting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Fair enough, but back on topic, you mentioned that gender roles are something we've evolved to have. If you accept that this isn't a valid reason to follow then I don't know what you're suggesting.
    I
    am not suggesting we evolved gender roles therefore we should follow them; that would, as you say, be a naturalistic fallacy.

    My point is that gender roles exist biological, and we will follow them to an extent, and that it is not evidence for a patriarchy but of our own nature.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    My point being, most of what feminists attribute to some elusive patriarchy twiddling the knobs of society, can be attributed to sexual dimorphism. Take gender roles as an example; a conspiracy to keep women down, or the performing of tasks our bodies evolved for?
    I guess you'll be setting your alarm early tomorrow morning for the bison hunt then...

    Feminism, insofar as that means "women having careers", mainly came about because the following things gave women dead time which would be better used earning a wage:
    1. household appliances meaning less housework (1950s)
    2. contraception meaning less child-raising (1960s)
    3. social welfare meaning no need to raise kids to keep you in old age (1920s)
    4. medical advances and NHS meaning less infant mortality (1940s)

    This was accelerated by the transition to a services economy rather than an industrial one relying on the physical strength of men, meaning women were now not incapable of the work that was available.

    Faced with the evaporation of much of their home-making responsibilities, families (not men or women) made the pragmatic decision to use that time to get an extra few bob coming into the household. Now, working-class women have been fitting work around the kids for centuries, but now there was the opportunity for women to not only just do odd work while Billy was off at school but to actually build their own cohesive careers and come to define themselves by their job.

    And so it becomes clear that the gender role was mainly just defined by the need to divide labour when labour was so time-consuming it needed dividing (and obviously the man had to have the job because it mostly consisted of hauling massive hods of coal around), rather than being defined by "what men and women evolved to do". We haven't been living in settled communities long enough for it to really affect our evolution anyway.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Ugh, anti-feminist campaigns are as bad as ultra feminist ones. Feminism doesn't equate to prioritising women above men, men who get on their high horse about it are in fact referring to sexists. Women who criticise feminism to join this movement are mad. If this is a way to push the very vocal hardcores back, good. To undermine feminism? I hope not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I guess you'll be setting your alarm early tomorrow morning for the bison hunt then...

    Feminism, insofar as that means "women having careers", mainly came about because the following things gave women dead time which would be better used earning a wage:
    1. household appliances meaning less housework (1950s)
    2. contraception meaning less child-raising (1960s)
    3. social welfare meaning no need to raise kids to keep you in old age (1920s)
    4. medical advances and NHS meaning less infant mortality (1940s)
    5. transition to a services economy rather than an industrial one relying on the physical strength of men, meaning women were now not incapable of the work that was available.

    Faced with the evaporation of much of their home-making responsibilities, families (not men or women) made the pragmatic decision to use that time to get an extra few bob coming into the household. Now, working-class women have been fitting work around the kids for centuries, but now there was the opportunity for women to not only just do odd work while Billy was off at school but to actually build their own cohesive careers and come to define themselves by their job.

    And so it becomes clear that the gender role was mainly just defined by the need to divide labour when labour was so time-consuming it needed dividing (and obviously the man had to have the job because it mostly consisted of hauling massive hods of coal around), rather than being defined by "what men and women evolved to do". We haven't been living in settled communities long enough for it to really affect our evolution anyway.
    I do not understand your first point.

    Skipping past the trivial to your last point about why pragmatism somehow is opposed to evolutionary gender roles: Men had to do it, because work involves labour, which men are better at. Why? Our bodies are built for it, and thus a product of evolution. There is the gap in your reasoning.

    "work" has been the equivalent of hunting etc for millennia. Men do the hard physical labour, and the protection, as their bodies are clearly built for. Women, whose bodies are clearly made for raising kids, raise the kids. I do not see how you can argue against that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by i-love-coffee)
    But that's not true, radical feminism may favour to put the wellbeing of women before men, but ordinary feminism doesn't. It simply seeks the equality of women to men - never over men.

    Secondly, it's not really a stretch. The reason women have a voice in the political sphere is because of feminists campaigning for the vote and a voice for women. If we had no vote, would anyone really care about our political input? Even if you thought the points were valid, if we have no vote and therefore no political right granted to us, then who will really listen at all to what you we have to say?
    No it doesn't if I ask you to make me a sandwich a feminist would go mad, but a decent anti feminist would say yes and we'd both be happy and not argue.
    It's simple things like this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wow. I think the people who claim to be anti-feminists don't understand what feminism is. It's not man hating. It's a concept and movement which has developed and changed since Simone de Beauvoir and indeed the 70's. Feminism is not about body hair, it's something which relates to society, history and culture. But seriously, body hair is not the 'big' issue in modern feminism.
    Feminism is an ever changing and developing concept which is constantly evolving, making it very hard to define rigidly. This is part of the problem. If you had a clear cut definition of what feminism is about, I think people would be less likely to get confused and make it out to be something it's not.
    A Common misconception about feminism is that its a women's issue. It's not, it's an inclusive concept/movement, that should matter to everyone, regardless of sex. Men can be feminists.
    One of the most groundbreaking theorists of our age in gender theory, is philosopher Judith Butler. What she says really represents modern day (3rd wave) feminism. Look her up, I would recommend 'Gender Trouble' as a starting point.
    In brief, she argues that gender and sex are two different things. Sex being biological and gender a social construct. She also introduces this notion of gender performativity. It's really ground-breaking and interesting stuff that also links into homosexuality discourse.
    She also raises the point that old-school feminism doesn't fully represent women, because it fails to take into account for differences between women such as socio-economic status, race etc...

    If you're interested check this Ted Talk out, it's about domestic violence, but raises some intersting general points around linguistics -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvSfeCRxe8

    A better understanding of gender constructs does not only benefit women but everyone, and this idea of benefiting all, really lies at the heart of modern day feminism.

    And let's just remember that less than a 1/3 of the most high powered jobs in the UK are held by women... this is baffling as women are no less capable than men. You have got ask why this is, especially when females outperform males academically during school and university.

    So shame on those so called antifeminists!!! I'm sure if you actually realised what you were talking about then you would be pretty shocked to hear yourselves.

    I'm a feminist and proud of it!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I do not understand your first point.

    Skipping past the trivial to your last point about why pragmatism somehow is opposed to evolutionary gender roles: Men had to do it, because work involves labour, which men are better at. Why? Our bodies are built for it, and thus a product of evolution. There is the gap in your reasoning.

    "work" has been the equivalent of hunting etc for millennia. Men do the hard physical labour, and the protection, as their bodies are clearly built for. Women, whose bodies are clearly made for raising kids, raise the kids. I do not see how you can argue against that.
    My point is twofold.
    1. Work is not "hard physical labour" in this country any more.
    2. Yes, women still raise kids, but not as many of them, and they don't have to spend an entire day scrubbing the kid's clothes over a washboard.

    So women have dead time, and jobs they can do are out there, it makes sense for the family/household for them to go out to work, and having a proper career rather than just odd jobs is the easiest way to earn the most money possible/guarantee earning potential into the future.

    Sexual dimorphism appears to constrain pragmatism only when the jobs are hard physical labour. They're not any more and haven't been for half a century or more. There's the gap in your reasoning.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    My point is twofold.
    1. Work is not "hard physical labour" in this country any more.
    2. Yes, women still raise kids, but not as many of them, and they don't have to spend an entire day scrubbing the kid's clothes over a washboard.

    So women have dead time, and jobs they can do are out there, it makes sense for the family/household for them to go out to work, and having a proper career rather than just odd jobs is the easiest way to earn the most money possible/guarantee earning potential into the future.
    I'm not sure what points you're arguing against; certainly not mine.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    I'm not sure what points you're arguing against; certainly not mine.
    If you say so, but it's not applicable to the knowledge and services economy and not having loads of kids demographics we have had since the war, so the idea that men and women should be constrained by evolutionary/traditional gender roles is obsolete and not applicable to people today. The feminists are right about that one at least.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    If you say so, but it's not applicable to the knowledge and services economy and not having loads of kids demographics we have had since the war, so the idea that men and women should be constrained by evolutionary/traditional gender roles is obsolete and not applicable to people today. The feminists are right about that one at least.
    But nobodies saying that; we're saying that behaviour attributed to sexism can be put down to it instead.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    But nobodies saying that; we're saying that behaviour attributed to sexism can be put down to it instead.
    Oh ok yeah probably
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.