Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Have you any idea how offensive this is?
    Precisely to whom?
    I have indeed not mentioned much of postcolonial feminism yet, and just discovered the notion of intersectional feminism, if you think I overlooked some particular classes (gender/religious/social etc.).
    Other than that please develop your question, I'm actually intrigued
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Precisely to whom?
    I have indeed not mentioned much of postcolonial feminism yet, and just discovered the notion of intersectional feminism, if you think I overlooked some particular classes (gender/religious/social etc.).
    Other than that please develop your question, I'm actually intrigued
    Nah I was kidding lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snagprophet)
    Nah I was kidding lol.
    Hell, I was planning to stay up and wait for another long reply, that's it I'm disconnecting from the internet :rofl:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Hells no. I got 100 out of 101 in my antiplagiarism quiz :proud:. I might use some ideas from here (mostly my stuff but also some ideas I actually enjoyed from people) but I will cite the whole forum discussion and let the lecturer know I debated on this topic in here. (besides, I'd be happy to have him check out how much I brainstormed on feminism right after coming from his seminar on feminism :rofl:)
    Citing TSR, I guess that's a thing now

    Go for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeverTooLatte)
    Nobody is going to read all that, sorry. I don't blame them. Read it through yourself again and exercise your writing skills; aka keep it concise!
    I actually read the entire thing. Why? Because it was an interesting read and I appreciate her humour and her viewpoint.

    Would you look at a Harry Potter book and say "Sorry Joanne, but nobody is going to read all that "?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    I will read this tomorrow when I'm much less tired.

    Being male, my opinion will never be as valid as either yours or any other female who adds to this discussion. However, from speaking to an awful lot of people about this, I pretty much disagree with everything you say.

    Firstly, it's pretty poor of you to just list two people for radical feminism. You get nutjobs everywhere, and a fundamental part of feminism being pro-choice, I think you'll find the majority of feminists don't want you to have your baby in a test tube. Radical feminism however plays its part much like the green party or Left Unity do in politics; rather than being a feasible option they simply generate ideas and discussion in order to further the feminist cause.

    You completely fail to mention intersectionality and the huge role that plays within feminism. You got halfway there with marxist-socialist, but so far, this post is awfully western-centric.

    Also, a major criticism of liberal feminism is that it focuses on the individual and their responsibility to manage gender equality within a relationship. It's very heteronormative and individualistic. It attracts the white western moderate, perhaps the most dangerous demographic for the preservation of progressive feminism.

    I really don't like the way you single out this Mary Daly for being really into ladies. What's that got to do with anything? Would you explicitly mention that someone is straight? No. Why do it if she's gay?

    Okay. Porn. Basically, to an extent, yes, they are getting paid. it's the same with the criminalisation of prostitution; it's wrong. Where the porn industry doesn't work is the kind of sexual intimacy that is portrayed within which takes on a whole new sinister effect to it, for example, in the emphasis on youthful, almost childlike appearances among ambiguously consenting women. It's basically a legal fantasy about peadophilia. To a lesser extent, porn portrays the white, pure female as the ultimate symbol of beauty, which is quite discriminatory. Also, it's not always their choice, many in the sex industry are students who are desperate for cash. Don't be too quick to assume.

    Men being at risk of low self esteem is bull****. Men aren't objectified and pressurised about appearance in the same way as women are. if you look at the typical male ideals for a woman it's normally white skin, big breasts and arse, and a small waist and a small weight. They are unrealistic and very very specific. There have been numerous posts on this forum about penis size; the almost unanimous verdict from women has always been that it doesn't ****ing matter. If it's existing at all, it's coming from men themselves. It's self imposed.

    Plastic surgery is far, far more popular than injecting steroids. Sorry, but... no one does that.

    I only got so far as work quotas. In short, what you describe is theoretically what's meant to be the case right now, but it clearly doesn't work. We have been socialised to see certain qualities in male and female job candidates regardless of their actual performance; this is perfectly apparent when you state that apparently mother nature forces you to only take certain roles in life. Only a third of MPs in cabinet are female; does that mean that men are naturally better at running a country? Really? Or is it, that, when selecting various politicians to rise through the ranks we already have an idea of who we want to run our country before they've even opened their mouth. Hmmm.

    Anyway, good night. I'll be back in the morning to read this and get mightily ****ed off.
    Your first point is daft. Why would men be unable to come up with equally valid feminist theories? It's as if you think all men are entirely obtuse and that we can't see the empirically identifiable issues that feminism brings the table and ways in which to solve them and ways in which they come about. Of course we can and I don't feel like we are any less able to do that even if, naturally, as males, we are less motivated to do so when those issues are those which specifically hit females the hardest.

    This is why feminists tend to ignore very blatant issues that men have. Such as false-positives with regards to rape cases. Such as them dying sooner and generally being of worse health and education. Such as them being way more likely to be homeless. Such as them being punished far more severely by courts and the whole legal system from the police-officer to the judiciary. Such as them having to do the jobs that nobody wants to far more often than women. Such as them being way more likely to commit suicide. I could go on, but I shan't. What I won't say however is that women are somehow naturally unable to aid me and all men in addressing those very male issues that I listed above. They are not retarded. Even if the issue is not something that affects them they can open their eyes and see it how it affects others, why it is there and how to solve it.

    Absurd, unrealistic and frankly disgusting and discriminatory views do nothing to advance feminism or its cause. In fact they do the very opposite. Their extremist nonsense is great at putting people off from more 'liberal' or frankly, realistic and sane forms of feminism and thereby is only good for preventing that positive change that we all should want. The fact that these radicals are given so much air-time in feminist academia is a testament to some flaw with the way in which feminism operates now. I imagine that was the OP's point although I may be wrong. None of this is a problem that is necessarily an issue with feminism, but it is, for whatever reason, a problem that it has right now.

    Western-centric is a criticism? Do elaborate please? Unless you can prove the axioms that the OP subscribes to with regards to #lifepolitics are inferior or flawed then I don't view that as a criticism rather than a mere acknowledgement. Same applies to your next paragraph.

    The point about a particular feminist's sexuality is fair, however I don't think the OP intended for that to be anything other than a bit of a joke; I don't think the OP thought that somehow negated all of Daly's arguments... You're being pedantic.

    Rhetoric, it is a choice; a choice that radical feminists would take away from those women; from those students who are too poor to afford their degrees (evidently not British students then since our degree loaning system solves that issue). How on Earth porn creates legal pedophilia is way beyond me. Do you even ****ing pedo? Pedo means pre-puberty. Porn-stars do not look pre-pubescent. Comeon, it's just an objective sexual fact that youthfulness is attractive. It's very obvious why and that isn't some grand male conspiracy to get women of young age to all act like sluts and old women to stay in the kitchen. No, it's just basic evolutionary biology. It is only fairly recently that our society has decided, fairly arbitrarily, that finding 16-18 year old girls attractive is somehow perverse and immoral. In fact, you'll struggle to find such views anywhere in the rest of the world outside the UK and US even now.

    The idea that males have nothing to be insecure about is nonsense even if you only mean relative to females. I tell you what is an unrealistic expectation. Being a 6ft+ male. As a 5'5 male I can assure you I feel the pain of my height and not only in terms of dating, which we all know, even from TSR that being at such a height disadvantages you, but in terms of fighting too as my height simply cannot easily maintain a heavy stature which makes fighting more difficult. Given my very working class background fighting was the main way to retain masculinity and therefore as a male, popularity. Now, I taught myself martial arts and learnt how to properly strike from an early age so I was alright, but others weren't/aren't. The emphasis women put on height is one unrealistic expectation. Then again... What about the whole ripped body thing with fat levels so low that they hinder athleticism? What's the point of that other than to unnecessarily create insecurity?

    And riddle me this sir. If males have nothing to be insecure about then why in general do males commit suicide far more and are far more likely to be mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs? Are crises of masculinity not a thing in your world? They're bloody evident in mine! All over. I see men absolutely distraught in their lives because they find themselves unable to live up to the masculine ideals that society sets for them. I could talk about suicide a lot more. Suffice to say it is not merely a coincidence that males commit more suicide and that females are more likely to be religious. The two are connected quite closely.

    I don't think that women are innately inferior at maths or science or leadership positions however I also don't think that most of the discrepancy in employment in those fields is due to discrimination at all, nevermind overt, conscious discrimination. Most of it is to do with the choices women make, which while influenced by society and potentially problematic in and of themselves, is very different from saying its just because males hate letting women get into such positions. For example, the whole gender pay-gap thing being down to discrimination is just a priori absurd. If that was true no employer would employ male worker, especially for such higher wages... Obviously women apply to become an MP far rarer than men. Obviously earlier on than that some causal effects take place that pre-dispose women to being less MP-able than men, that's not innate at all, but it still doesn't mean men are the reason for this failing of women in society, it's a societal thing as a whole, not something males inject into society with all their hatred and it's something that both genders must work on in order to overcome.

    In summary both men and women have problems in their integration in society that makes live tougher for them than it needs be. It is a waste of time to argue about who has it harder - who gives a ****. What I care about is making life easier for men and women. The first thing one must do when trying to solve any problem though is recognise the problem and the problems facing each gender are very distinct and so too must our reaction to solving such problems be very distinct with regards to the different genders.

    Nice thread OP.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism is believing in equal rights and opportunities of the sexes. Regarding whether your male or female, if you don't agree with feminism you don't agree with equal rights and opportunities of the sexes (which is horrible and stupid). That is all, it's very simple.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Christ, it's the Great Wall of China in text form.

    Fellow feminists, fill me in. Does OP make a good point, completely misunderstand feminism, or are they an idiot trying to ingratiate themselves with men?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    Bet I'm going to get a lot of viewers with that provocative title :teehee:
    Disclaimer No.1: Ladies, please hold your estrogen/prolactin hormones to a normal level until you finish reading my thread. Gents, please also hold your testosterone to a normal level until you finish reading my thread. Thank you :cute:
    Disclaimer No.2: This post is meant to challenge feminism- the ideology, and the movements (or mini-ideologies) within it. I am not against feminism as a whole in the same way as I am not in favour of it. I also encourage you to challenge my arguments, come up with your own in favour/against Feminism in order to make this post a debate and not a *****ing arena.
    Disclaimer No. 3: For those of you thinking that I have too much time on my hands to write this, I'm letting you know that debating over any ideology is part of my degree- so I'm actually being productive now xD

    I decided to write this just after coming from a seminar on "Feminism", and will start by saying that I don't hate "feminism" because of what it implies, I hate it because even after reading from so many books about this ideology, I am still not sure if I am a "feminist" or not (*)

    I also hate "feminism" because to the average person -regardless whether man or woman- not studying politics/IR/other social study or not reading about the ideology, feminism is still perceived as only being radical feminism.I met women that claimed that they wanted equality (which is what mostly liberal feminism is concerned with) but they didn't want feminism because they thought that all feminists are angry men-hating women, which is not by any means true.


    I also hate "feminism" because it just feels like all the ideologies this world currently has are compressed and divided from a single gendered perspective.

    1)You have liberal feminists: their proponents claim that the single and most important goal for women's liberation is sexual equality or gender justice

    2)You have socialist-marxist feminism: their proponents mostly attack the existing divisions of labour in society that made women primarily responsible for domestic duties. Just like Socialists-Marxists, they're also seeking the need for a revolution to overthrow capitalism, but also to overcome male dominance.

    3)You have radical-feminism (my personal least-favourite one):
    These people (mostly women) are virtually nuts.
    a) A lady called Shulamith Firestone claims that male power and control over women's biology can only be abolished by relieving women of their reproductive role.She's basically suggesting that us women shouldn't be mommas and that we should make babies in a tube. No thanks, I'm personally looking forward to feel some kicks in my tummy in the next decade or so.
    b) A lady called Mary Daly, who's really into ladies (if you know what I mean :sexface:)claims that women should create a culture separate from men. She, just like other radical feminists criticises liberal feminism for never questioning whether masculine and/or feminine traits are worth keeping.

    There are many other types of "feminism" but I won't go into them as this is not the point of my thread.

    (*) coming back to the idea I underlined earlier. I am still having a hard time deciding if I am a "feminist" or not, because of these disparaties I just mentioned. Every type of feminist movement is only concerned with one apparent problem. I can't consider myself any of them, because some are endorsing a number of ideas to which I agree, but they may be overlooking some that I also consider to be a problem. Some might have some ideas to which I agree, but they also have some ideas to which I am highly against. So, until I'll make up my mind whether I am or not a "feminist" per se, I will keep anything related to the word/ideology "feminism" in quotation marks (because I am still questioning and challenging the ideology).

    I'll now ennumerate the problems I see with "feminism" so far, and I will engulf all waves and movements in this summation:

    So far all movements of "feminism" that I reviewed raise the issue of inequality between the sexes. However, "feminists" such as radicals for instance, raise discrimination from men as an issue but at the same time discriminate other women. They're accusing women working in modelling or in the porn industry for doing what they are doing, but in reality it's their choice, and they are getting paid for what they're doing. They are shoving "objectification" as an issue whenever they're looking at magazines such as FHM, PlayBoy, Sports Illustrated, etc., but men are also at risk to have lower self esteem whenever they're looking at magazines with buff gym guys (most of whom take steroids and take other unorthodox methods to achieve that look). Does that mean women are more sensible to these adverts, hence should be pitied more and that men can deal with it because they've got an extra load of meat in their crotch? Sorry, but that's bs.

    This issue over the "ideal look" projected by the media and other companies is an issue for both sexes, therefore I don't see this as a legit pretext to be used by some feminists. Anorexia/plastic surgery resulting from what some girls see in the media is an equally severe problem to the one some men are having when they're injecting steroids into their bodies, as a result of what they're also seeing in the media.

    I also hate the idea of work quotas. In some parts of the world there is a certain number of positions allocated for women only, that companies must have. I see this as a response to "gender discrimination" by gender discrimination. I am sorry to say this, ladies, but we are not physically constructed by mother nature to fulfil some tasks. However, that doesn't mean that women shouldn't have access to all types of jobs, god forbid, but I believe that both men and women should first be tested for their skills and then be employed. Probation periods are a good example. If an applicant of either gender proves not to be fit for the job, that's the result of their capabilities. Women can work in the army, women can work in construction, women can do jobs that also men can do, but not all. This goes vice-versa.
    Of course there is still gender discrimination going on in the working environment, and of course some women are being paid less than some men for the same job, but men are not the only ones to blame for this. Gender inequality is a socially constructed concept and I think that the best way to respond to this is to not see a human being in terms of gender, at least when it comes to the work environment. When an employer looks at a prospective employee, he/she should see only the employee and what he/she must to for the job and not a man employee or a woman employee. If I was an employer and I had my company I would put a big sign in front of my office saying "I don't see gender in my employees; if you prove yourself fit for the job, you'll get it, and your pay is based on what you are assigned to do" (I would also add a small disclaimer saying "if you don't get accepted and you're shoving patriarchy/racism/atheism/homophobia in my face for that, gtfo).

    The lecturer I had for Feminism (who was a man) showed us some statistics with how many women are employed in some jobs, but a colleague of mine (who was a girl) asked a very good question- does that statistic show how many women actually applied for the jobs?

    Both men and women are discriminating women when it comes to gender inequality, because people from both sides have "absorbed" this concept in their day to day lives, either consciously or unconsciously. Men are supposedly treating/ regarding women as "a piece of meat", but some women often use the phrase "Am I (or is she) just a piece of meat to you?" to their partners/ other men. As a woman, you are basically using this argument against you and your own gender, whether you're acknowledging or not. Same goes for some blacks, whenever one says "Oh, you think that's (=usually a bad thing) because I am black?". Sorry, but to me you are directly implying that blacks are bad, simply by saying that. This example can be merged to many other situations, but my post is long so please forgive my apparent bias- tis unintentional.



    I was recently provoked by what appeared to be a radical feminist after she heard I was wearing a corset whenever I'm sitting at my desk/sleeping. She blamed me for "torturing myself" to achieve some ideal female standards that she was blabbering about. Of course that corset offers me an hourglass figure (with which I was in fact born- thanks momma) but my main use of the corset is to redress my position, because I have some pretty bad scoliosis. Of course, I would also sound like a hypocrite to say that that's the only reason why I'm wearing one. I decided to buy a corset for that health reason, but I'm also enjoying the fact that it keeps (and mildly accentuates) my hourglass figure. Our bodies are a living canvas, and we're biologically constructed to have a certain shape, colour, and height. Being happy with/taking advantage of mother nature gave us is not a bad thing- of course exceptions apply, but each of us have our own standards of what is decent/indecent. For instance, I saw myself disliking some girls that were wearing shorts shorter than my boxers, but at the same time I was wearing a V neck top that was mildly accentuating my cleavage. "Decency" is another heated debate topic - among both sexes- and my post is already getting pretty damn long so I will only use this concept to challenge another "feminist" argument sexism. Although I already challenged this argument in what I said earlier, I will address some other examples of things considered to be sexist:

    One time I was talking on the phone with my ex and at some point (after teasing him) he said "shut up and go to the kictchen where you belong". I laughed so hard because I was actually in the kitchen stirring in my porridge. Personally, as a woman, I don't feel offended by this. I feel that I "belong in the kitchen" because I like cooking, but so does dad- he's a chef (that's why when he teases me I also ask him to go to the kitchen and make mum and me dinner xD)

    If she slept with more guys she's a ****, if he slept with more girls he's a legend.
    (Then there's the Taylor Swift saga of songs in which she's *****ing about all her exes for being players.)

    In my view, the expression above doesn't make either side more appealing to me. I personally wouldn't sleep with "a legend/player" etc. However, the fact that I'm into guys looking for a stable/committed relationship doesn't make me any more of a saint than a girl who's into having casual sex. It's a matter of preference. The idea is that we both know (or should know) what to expect when we're approaching some guys, in the same way that guys know (or should know) what to expect when they're approaching some girls.

    I was once at the beach playing volleyball with some friends and I hugged a guy from my team for saving the ball when I missed it. When I hugged him he got a boner and my gal friend snapped at him saying "she's taken, you jerk". Including the fact that that guys can get boners in plenty other embarrasing/not embarrasing situations, feeling aroused or attracted when you're seeing a girl showing more of her body is not your fault. That's your body's signal of saying that it wants some special time ( :hubba:), whether you listen to it and "take action" or not, that's a different story.


    This also reminded me of the "free the nipple campaign", and how people (particularly women) are aiming to allow women to walk topless/ be shown topeless in some circumstances.

    I see nothing wrong with this, but they should not disregard the fact that both men and women find boobs more arousing than moobs (a.k.a. man boobs- sorry guys :sad:). It is normal. It is natural. Men love lady breasts, and so do women, or at least some women (including myself :sexface:). Lady breasts, big or small, round or oval, pink nippled or dark nippled are a sign of fertility, and it is instinctual for men to enjoy seeing them.
    I personally wouldn't show my breasts out in the public, because I consider them to be something I would only show to my lucky man (:hubba:) but if any other woman decides to show it, that's fine by me. However, and now I'm referring to the last argument that I will challenge: "she asked for it", women shouldn't be surprised if they arise attention from men by exposing some parts of their body, and this includes the rest of the female body, not just the boobies. Again, it is instinctual for men to enjoy breasts, seeing some bum bum or whatever else gets them excited. Vice versa for us ladies. If I see a guy's naked back, and he has a bit of definition to it, I find it hard to still have courtesy :sexface:. Whether we like it or not, during puberty our body gets moulded into a sex machine, it is programmed to do so, because our species relies on it. By young adulthood our body is expecting to give it some lovin from somebody else, and it is natural. How we show our interest to our potential sex partners is a different issue. And here comes the issue of rape, and I'll intertwine it with the "she asked for it" issue. Rape is a very unfortunate, disgusting, dreadful crime. So is stealing from and afterwards killing a person. So is paedophilia. And these are just a handful of examples. Why do these crimes happen? A criminal would usually aggress a person who would fits his/her criteria. A male rapist would most likely attack a female, should he be heterosexual. A female heterosexual rapist would attack a man. Homosexual rapists of either gender would attack people of their own gender. In a criminal's eye the victim is "an easy", helpless target, regardless whether the victim is a he or a she. So is a child in the eyes of a paedophiliac, and moreover- paedophiliacs don't only assault children because "they're easy", but also because they're mentally really into kids. A robber would most likely attack an older person, because they're less likely to fight back/run to them. A wolf would only attack a prey that's weak, either old, young or sick.
    Nobody is ever asking to be assaulted in any way. A male heterosexual rapist, if "in the mood", will attack a woman/girl, regardless whether she's wearing a bikini or she's covered from head to toe.

    It is true that women are more prone to being raped because there are more heterosexual rapists out there than any other type, but I believe that rape, just like any other crime, should be unacceptable for either gender. Men that are raped are often ashamed to speak out, primarily because they think that by doing so they're losing their manlihood.As far as the victims are concerned, being raped doesn't make you any more of a woman (= weak) than it makes you any less of a man(=weak).


    This is a very long post that addresses only a handful of problems regarding "feminism"- both what it implies and how it is perceived by people of either sexes nowadays. As I mentioned in my second disclaimer, I invite you all who read and feel like they want to share their thoughts to do it; feel free to write pro-contra arguments of what I said, challenge the ideology by giving further examples and also say what's good with feminism and what should be kept. Thank you :cute:

    Here's a link to make you smile after so much reading. Please feel free to watch the link before commenting, as it will melt your hearts and release good neurotransmitters in your brains. That way I'll be dealing with less rage from the ones who felt angered by what I said. Consider it a benefit for both you and I xD.
    I didn't read all of it but from what I understood is that you're a lil bit confused regarding what feminism actually is. That's easily fixable and I hope this helps
    You have claimed that for an avarage person the idea of 'feminism' is scary because feminists are often portrayed as angry men haters. You then said that this obviously isn't true and that's great because you're correct! An avarage person who hasn't been interested or read about feminism, will most likely gain their information from twitter or other sorts of media. Media portrays feminists negatively because gender equality is not in their favour- you need to always always keep in mind WHERE the information comes from and analyse the sources. Sadly, most people get threatened by feminists because of this bad portrayal, hence them not wanting to be associated with feminism. This will change when you evaluate your sources and see that twitter or fb isn't a really good way of making decisions regarding feminism or anything really

    You don't like different definitions of feminism? Then don't worry, as long as you understand that feminism is equality of the sexes you don't need to dwell into it. All the ideologies this world currently has are compressed? YES because there is a significant connection between gender inequality, economic inequality, capitalism and the whole system.
    Radical Feminists? You gave me examples of two women- they really shouldn't cloud your opinion of the whole movement.
    Women in porn? Yes a woman is entitled to do whatever she wants with her body, however the porn industry is benefiting really really rich males and is very corrupt- full of rape, drugs etc. It also sets ridicilous standards for women and is really not like sex in reality.
    Social standards affect both genders- yes. Sadly, females are known to be affected by it more (media media media media) and are conditioned to feel insecure in order to buy buy buy lots of products (capitalism capitalism capitalism) etc MEN DO TOO - men suffer a LOT because of the standards and feminism wants to get rid of ALL inequality. Female inequality is just more spoken of as it is obviously a bigger issue

    Couldnt be bothered to read the rest. BASICALLY if we get rid of sexism males will ALSO benefit as they will be released from lots of social opression which also hurts them a lot. Gender inequlity is really really bad, and affects me along with millions of women everyday. feminism is GOOD !!!!!
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Seriously what is the matter with you all? Are you incapable of focusing your attention on a few hundred words? Have you never read a classic novel in your life? A damning reflection on our generation being raised on the YouTube and MTV.
    Considering I said I did read it, the question is are you capable of focusing your attention on even fewer words?

    /resentment of being quoted in this
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smilin’ Knight)
    A good analogy would be;

    "Don't poke the bear"

    That doesn't excuse the existence of the metaphorical bear, but you still shouldn't poke it. But thats a very sensitive subject that peoples opinions may differ by very small amounts leading to hugely different outcomes.
    Not following you on this one. Which party in this is a metaphorical bear?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)
    I wouldn't say acceptable, but to some degree ( and clearly in some situations only ) understandable.
    Like I said, we are naturally designed to feel excited when we see some parts of a person. This is resumed to our sexuality. Heterosexual men are prone to enjoy (and maybe compliment, corteously or not) women in yoga pants just as homosexual men are prone to do that to men in yoga pants (or perhaps women who like seeing that part of the man more pronouced, I guess :giggle:).

    Rape itself is linked to the sexuality of the aggressor. There are cases in which a heterosexual male rapist might attack a woman showing more flesh because of his prejudice. He sees the woman weak, but not because she is weak per se, but because she is his victim, and in the criminal's perspective he is the predator and the victim is prey. If an old person was going out on the streets with their wallet exposed, they would also attract more attention from robbers, because of a possible robber's prejudices (that old people are less likely to fight back/run to them/ask for help).
    So you are saying that it's acceptable to verbally harass somebody and mildly(?) physically harass them, provided you don't rape them? :confused:

    Personally I would strongly disagree with that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    You didn't really say much in your wall of text. Mostly just anecdotes and confused thoughts jumping from one topic to another without coming to any real conclusions.

    I suggest planning what you want to write before writing it so it isn't so haphazard.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest this argument against feminism isn't the best. Too vague and incisive. At its best it does what I do in a single paragraph.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    Seriously what is the matter with you all? Are you incapable of focusing your attention on a few hundred words? Have you never read a classic novel in your life? A damning reflection on our generation being raised on the YouTube and MTV.
    Are you serious? You're comparing this to a damned novel :lol: Get off your high horse please. I read plenty, and I barely use social media. This isn't some test. I'll read what I want when I want. I'm not going to invest a lot of time reading some randomer's post on a site. Much like I can barely invest much time on you and your ignorance right now, so don't expect me to read your next drivelling post/reply!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rjkooljay)
    I actually read the entire thing. Why? Because it was an interesting read and I appreciate her humour and her viewpoint.

    Would you look at a Harry Potter book and say "Sorry Joanne, but nobody is going to read all that "?
    Why does everybody have to question every little thing on this site. I would have thought you'd be aware that "nobody" shouldn't be taken literally. My post was my opinion and did not come across nasty or spiteful at all, so I didn't really need your input, thanks. And I also appreciated the humour of other posters. I'm sorry if that didn't please you, m'lord...And again, another deluded person thinking I came here to read a novel...a famous one, at that...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LaMandarine)

    Awwwwww yeah, been looking for a response like this. :fan: Although I am pretty tired myself and I will reply to as many points as I can now. So I'll add up responses to each of the segments I numbered from your quote later.

    Disclaimer (also referring to 3) ): I didn't title this post as "All you need to know and hate about feminism (since you're criticising me for not mentioning some aspects/people/etc) but "What I hate about feminism" (from what I know so far of it). I think I mentioned more than twice that I mean this to be a debate in which people challenge/ and even come up to support feminism. I could use the image with "it's not about bias, it's about sending a message" here, but as a
    white, middle class, cis-gendered and able-bodied female myself, after going again through what I wrote I realised that my arguments on feminism are indeed Western-Centric. I thereby thank you for mentioning intersectional feminism, which is something that was not actually mentioned in my lecture today and I will research it. As you were able to realize by now, my debates were primarily based from my own experience. As a Western woman, I challenged feminism from my perspective and how it has affected my life/perception so far. I thereby believe that my vision of feminism as a white persion is equally valid (bare in mind I said equally valid and not superior/universal) to a vision of feminism of a coloured/ pauper class/ transgendered and/or disabled female/male. I do not believe that the voice of the latter should be ignored, I actually believe that it should be heard more.

    1. "Being male, my opinion will never be as valid as either yours or any other female who adds to this discussion."

    Are you implying that men endorsing feminism (pro-feminists) have a lesser valid opinion to the feminist cause than women do? Inequality! John Stuart Mill became the first member of the British Parliament to to introduce a bill calling for women to receive the vote. In 1861 wrote "The Subjection of women" alongside his wife. Now I'm kind of feeling sad for not including him in my main post. But I just remembered him now :ashamed:.

    Like I said, one key issue addressed in feminism is inequality. You are basically implying that feminism is primarily a women's ideology (or that women are the best people to speak for this cause), hence to some extent you are deepening the disparaty/ inequality which many feminists seek to destroy.

    2. I have researched 14 notable feminists so far, and found 6 interesting Radical feminists. Please do bare in mind that my post has already been nuked for being too long, so I only managed rise 2 in my discussion. Should you want me to discuss about the other 4, I will gladly have a PM discussion with you on the remainder. Also, the feminist cause or their feminist cause? I, as a woman, have been bullied by some radical feminists. Does that mean that I hate "the feminist cause"? Hell no. We both know that there is no such thing as "a single feminist cause". I have been criticised by rad fems for objectifying myself into a barbie doll, because I love wearing corsets and wearing make-up, and I've been told that everything women do now to themselves is because they have been indoctrinated with an idea that the perfect woman is "x,y,z". I am happy to say that my ex "accepted me" with makeup/without makeup/ shaven or unshaven, toned or chubby after Thanksgiving/Christmas stuffing. I love waxing my body not only to attract males- I encourage you to feel bare skin touching new sheets, it's one of the most fulfiling things for me. I was even criticised for keeping my hair long, because taking care of my hair apparently makes me more of a sex doll. The fact that I see "the perfect me" as being long haired (suits my face shape much) hourglass (I was kind of born that way) waxed and toned does not mean that I am the victim of patriarchy and I am designing myself to be a man's toy. Showing that you're taking care of yourself (both in terms of "pampering"/diet/lifestyle) is appealing for either sex, again something deriving from natural instinct. In short- we are more prone to be sexually attracted to people who actually look sexually appealing to each of us (duh). This forum has shown that there are women into chubby men and men into hairy women.
    [will continue later morning, damn don't I have a reason to wake up early :giggle:]
    Right. Your reply was impeccably numbered. Mine won't be. Sorry. I just woke up.

    Basically, what I was saying about my opinion not being valid is a bit like how, if there were SU elections at my uni, I wouldn't ****ing run for BME officer. I can't truly understand the nuanced and embedded nature of sexism since, well, I'm not a woman and the vast majority of sexism is directed at women. I can't say, feminism is like this because women are discriminated in X way because I shouldn't be speaking on anyone else's behalf. That would just be me thinking that because I'm male I'm an expert on everything, even things which primarily affect women. I'm not deepening an inequality, because I'm still here and participating in a discussion. If I was deepening an inequality it would be me expressing my opinion because I am male, and thus reinforcing male privilege (I am cleverer than you because of my gender etc etc.)

    Does that mean that I hate "the feminist cause"? - To be fair, your post is titled "Why I hate feminism," you can't blame me for extrapolating. I would argue that actually, there is, if you look widely and fundamentally enough. It's for equality; radical, intersectional, cultural, liberal, socialist - they all argue for the same thing, they just want to do it in a different way or for a different aspect; radically and comprehensively, for people of all races and of all demographics, individually, individually, and economically respectively.

    Regarding pro choice, shaving and objectification and all that. I don't deny that you've been "bullied" by some radical feminists. I know one myself, though she isn't so argumentative. I praised radical feminism for being a sort of concept group that wasn't entirely thought through but promoted discussion. This leaves it obviously open to quite radical and left-field ideas, some of which aren't great. Every feminist I know, and I know a few, has absolutely no qualms whatsoever about pro-choice. You seemed to vilify radical feminists for being nut-cases; they're actually very few and far between. Not many people actually believe what they say, and most feminists would actually think you're great for doing what you want to do. To a large extent, socialisation whereby people are led to believe that a certain body type is the ideal one happens; walk into most clothes shops (Urban Outfitters and Topshop/Topman especially) and you'll see that is the case. Flesh coloured tights only come in one colour of flesh. If you want to conform to that ideal, then great. You're doing it because you want to, not because someone is telling you to do so against your will. The role of radical feminism in that context is to show people that they don't have to conform to that one body type. The two can work cohesively; the kind of 'feminism' where you are criticised for doing that is a very small and very judgemental (and perhaps malicious) type of feminism. It's not what most people think.

    The only problem with socialisation/conditioning is how it affects people like you who want to be like that and make themselves attractive but are of a different race, or not as able as you or simply don't have the same features. For you, it's easy, you're white, you're western, cisgender and you can conform to that. For those of colour, that's impossible, and that's where radical feminism steps in and says actually, what the **** is going on with this whole ideal of beauty, anyway? It makes you question it.

    Yeah, of course there are, there will always be a small proportion who are attracted to that body type. Just because there are some though doesn't make it okay. The overwhelming majority think differently to that. Individual cases tell you very little.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Your first point is daft. Why would men be unable to come up with equally valid feminist theories? It's as if you think all men are entirely obtuse and that we can't see the empirically identifiable issues that feminism brings the table and ways in which to solve them and ways in which they come about. Of course we can and I don't feel like we are any less able to do that even if, naturally, as males, we are less motivated to do so when those issues are those which specifically hit females the hardest.

    This is why feminists tend to ignore very blatant issues that men have. Such as false-positives with regards to rape cases. Such as them dying sooner and generally being of worse health and education. Such as them being way more likely to be homeless. Such as them being punished far more severely by courts and the whole legal system from the police-officer to the judiciary. Such as them having to do the jobs that nobody wants to far more often than women. Such as them being way more likely to commit suicide. I could go on, but I shan't. What I won't say however is that women are somehow naturally unable to aid me and all men in addressing those very male issues that I listed above. They are not retarded. Even if the issue is not something that affects them they can open their eyes and see it how it affects others, why it is there and how to solve it.

    Absurd, unrealistic and frankly disgusting and discriminatory views do nothing to advance feminism or its cause. In fact they do the very opposite. Their extremist nonsense is great at putting people off from more 'liberal' or frankly, realistic and sane forms of feminism and thereby is only good for preventing that positive change that we all should want. The fact that these radicals are given so much air-time in feminist academia is a testament to some flaw with the way in which feminism operates now. I imagine that was the OP's point although I may be wrong. None of this is a problem that is necessarily an issue with feminism, but it is, for whatever reason, a problem that it has right now.

    Western-centric is a criticism? Do elaborate please? Unless you can prove the axioms that the OP subscribes to with regards to #lifepolitics are inferior or flawed then I don't view that as a criticism rather than a mere acknowledgement. Same applies to your next paragraph.

    The point about a particular feminist's sexuality is fair, however I don't think the OP intended for that to be anything other than a bit of a joke; I don't think the OP thought that somehow negated all of Daly's arguments... You're being pedantic.

    Rhetoric, it is a choice; a choice that radical feminists would take away from those women; from those students who are too poor to afford their degrees (evidently not British students then since our degree loaning system solves that issue). How on Earth porn creates legal pedophilia is way beyond me. Do you even ****ing pedo? Pedo means pre-puberty. Porn-stars do not look pre-pubescent. Comeon, it's just an objective sexual fact that youthfulness is attractive. It's very obvious why and that isn't some grand male conspiracy to get women of young age to all act like sluts and old women to stay in the kitchen. No, it's just basic evolutionary biology. It is only fairly recently that our society has decided, fairly arbitrarily, that finding 16-18 year old girls attractive is somehow perverse and immoral. In fact, you'll struggle to find such views anywhere in the rest of the world outside the UK and US even now.

    The idea that males have nothing to be insecure about is nonsense even if you only mean relative to females. I tell you what is an unrealistic expectation. Being a 6ft+ male. As a 5'5 male I can assure you I feel the pain of my height and not only in terms of dating, which we all know, even from TSR that being at such a height disadvantages you, but in terms of fighting too as my height simply cannot easily maintain a heavy stature which makes fighting more difficult. Given my very working class background fighting was the main way to retain masculinity and therefore as a male, popularity. Now, I taught myself martial arts and learnt how to properly strike from an early age so I was alright, but others weren't/aren't. The emphasis women put on height is one unrealistic expectation. Then again... What about the whole ripped body thing with fat levels so low that they hinder athleticism? What's the point of that other than to unnecessarily create insecurity?

    And riddle me this sir. If males have nothing to be insecure about then why in general do males commit suicide far more and are far more likely to be mentally ill and/or addicted to drugs? Are crises of masculinity not a thing in your world? They're bloody evident in mine! All over. I see men absolutely distraught in their lives because they find themselves unable to live up to the masculine ideals that society sets for them. I could talk about suicide a lot more. Suffice to say it is not merely a coincidence that males commit more suicide and that females are more likely to be religious. The two are connected quite closely.

    I don't think that women are innately inferior at maths or science or leadership positions however I also don't think that most of the discrepancy in employment in those fields is due to discrimination at all, nevermind overt, conscious discrimination. Most of it is to do with the choices women make, which while influenced by society and potentially problematic in and of themselves, is very different from saying its just because males hate letting women get into such positions. For example, the whole gender pay-gap thing being down to discrimination is just a priori absurd. If that was true no employer would employ male worker, especially for such higher wages... Obviously women apply to become an MP far rarer than men. Obviously earlier on than that some causal effects take place that pre-dispose women to being less MP-able than men, that's not innate at all, but it still doesn't mean men are the reason for this failing of women in society, it's a societal thing as a whole, not something males inject into society with all their hatred and it's something that both genders must work on in order to overcome.

    In summary both men and women have problems in their integration in society that makes live tougher for them than it needs be. It is a waste of time to argue about who has it harder - who gives a ****. What I care about is making life easier for men and women. The first thing one must do when trying to solve any problem though is recognise the problem and the problems facing each gender are very distinct and so too must our reaction to solving such problems be very distinct with regards to the different genders.

    Nice thread OP.
    woah.

    I answered this already but to summarise; we're not discriminated against, so how could we possibly know what to do to solve this discrimination? That would basically be men thinking they know everything because they're male. There are some things you don't and can't understand, y'know?

    lol. false positives don't happen. It's some hyped up bull****. if the rest of your post considers in the same vein I won't bother reading, it's too ridiculous. It's nowhere near as big as some major feminist issues, like objectification and the gender-pay gap. regarding courts, men are far more likely to offend than women. If there is any difference, it's just the predictable variation due to a smaller sample size. Besides, easy way round that, don't offend. Jobs; do you want to be a cleaner? A midwife? Unemployed?

    Maybe it's because the scale of discrimination against women is far more widespread and ingrained than that against men.

    Are you thick? "Do you even ****ing pedo? Pedo means pre-puberty. Porn-stars do not look pre-pubescent. Comeon, it's just an objective sexual fact that youthfulness is attractive."

    Shaved hair; pubes don't grow until puberty sets in, thus unshaved hair means pre-pubescent. Are you trying to justify the abuse of trust that happens when older men prey on younger women? Disgusting.

    I gave up. I bet you loved #ALLLIVESMATTER.

    ****ing liberals.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    ``
    (Original post by Guills on wheels)
    woah.

    I answered this already but to summarise; we're not discriminated against, so how could we possibly know what to do to solve this discrimination? That would basically be men thinking they know everything because they're male. There are some things you don't and can't understand, y'know?

    lol. false positives don't happen. It's some hyped up bull****. if the rest of your post considers in the same vein I won't bother reading, it's too ridiculous. It's nowhere near as big as some major feminist issues, like objectification and the gender-pay gap. regarding courts, men are far more likely to offend than women. If there is any difference, it's just the predictable variation due to a smaller sample size. Besides, easy way round that, don't offend. Jobs; do you want to be a cleaner? A midwife? Unemployed?

    Maybe it's because the scale of discrimination against women is far more widespread and ingrained than that against men.

    Are you thick? "Do you even ****ing pedo? Pedo means pre-puberty. Porn-stars do not look pre-pubescent. Comeon, it's just an objective sexual fact that youthfulness is attractive."

    Shaved hair; pubes don't grow until puberty sets in, thus unshaved hair means pre-pubescent. Are you trying to justify the abuse of trust that happens when older men prey on younger women? Disgusting.

    I gave up. I bet you loved #ALLLIVESMATTER.

    ****ing liberals.
    1) Yes we are.
    2) Because such discrimination is empirically observable and thus the cause of it and the solution to it can be deduced my both females and males. Like I said, it's just less likely that males will bother themselves with such concerns when the discrimination in question doesn't disadvantage them.

    Riiiiiiiight. False positives don't happen. Sure. What about false-positives concerning capital punishment? Do you think they don't happen either? Granted it's not an issue in the UK but it is in the US and God-forbid we consider how men are treated outside of EU/NA.

    So if a women shaves her armpit and genital hair she suddenly looks like a pre-pubescent child? Terribly thin, no breasts whatsoever, no ass, no thighs, no hip-fat and is only 4foot tall... Erm, no, that's not what pornstars look like at all. They are clearly womanly, just a youthful woman. I.e. 16-25, not 8-12... And given how such youthfulness is objectively attractive for men it should be fairly ****ing obvious why that exists and how that is not the result of some societal conspiracy by men. How the **** you go from the above point to saying that I justify abuse of trust in sexual relationships is beyond me.

    Men are far more likely to be charged as being guilty when being accused of doing the same crime. Now, bear in mind, women themselves due to the way police positively discriminate against them are themselves far less likely to get accused of doing a crime even when they have done it in the first place. But even if they are they are then much less likely to be charged for that crime and even if they are charged for it they are typically sent to prisons that are frankly... More amicable and serve on average a shorter sentence for the same crimes. Again of course with all court matters there is a serious issue of false positives.

    The gender pay gap is not due to discrimination though. While a problem, it is nowhere near as big of a problem as people make out - if lower wages are mostly brought on by ones own choices then that's hardly problematic. Granted the way in which society influences one's choices to replicate innate 'patriarchal' factors is worrying. But the solution to this is certainly not to raise 'awareness' of how this problem is caused purely by male discrimination because that just isn't what causes it... If it was then females would never be unemployed by choice given that businesses can get away with overtly paying them ~20% less than their equally suitable male candidates...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seaholme)
    So you are saying that it's acceptable to verbally harass somebody and mildly(?) physically harass them, provided you don't rape them? :confused:

    Personally I would strongly disagree with that.
    O_O What the f**k. I'm sorry but why do you keep using the word acceptable when I already said not acceptable, but understandable.
    Another person gave a very good example of a man dressed in a tuxedo walking in an alley. He will most definitely get robbed. Did he ask for it? No. But I'm pretty sure he was aware of the circumstances.

    Rape, like any other crime, unfortunalety cannot be fully erradicated, but such crimes can be reduced if there is some awareness among women. There is not a fixed pattern that a rapist follows, but precatuion never hurts.

    I was almost kidnapped when I was 12 because I decided to play with a dog next to my bloc at 11 pm. After that happened I flipping got in the house at sundown.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2016

2,172

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.