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

A Look at Feminism - From a Different Perspective Watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    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
    If it wasn't clear, I wasn't calling you an MRA (mens rights activist, bang on) I was just musing on the topic. You can be anti-feminist and notice the amount of crap some people throw at feminists. Some of those people are bullies.

    As for the rest of your post, I'm going to leave you to your graphs. Clearly you're a lost cause for feminism. Oh wells!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    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.
    It's not a question of belief. I wonder, to which gender does it happen more frequently?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    If it wasn't clear, I wasn't calling you an MRA (mens rights activist, bang on) I was just musing on the topic. You can be anti-feminist and notice the amount of crap some people throw at feminists. Some of those people are bullies.

    As for the rest of your post, I'm going to leave you to your graphs. Clearly you're a lost cause for feminism. Oh wells!
    Yes I think I'd rather devote more time to sin, cos and tan then an ineffective movement named feminism
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Yes I think I'd rather devote more time to sin, cos and tan then an ineffective movement named feminism
    *effective.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    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:
    I said "I suspect". You do know what suspect means, right?

    Also, I'm getting really fed up of your posts. You don't make any logical or coherent points, you don't address any of the things which people bring up in their posts to you. You just keep on adding smileys (which I'm very sure you know makes you look like a patronising numpty) and dodging any points made to you. If you want a debate or discussion, then give something back to it. Else people are just going to get fed up with you, like I have.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    *effective.
    Tbf it's not really having much of an effect. The work has pretty much already been done.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    It's not a question of belief. I wonder, to which gender does it happen more frequently?
    Oh, it applies to men more. Men earn more on average, they are more likely to hold positions of power, they are less likely to take time off/leave work to have children and women tend to marry men of higher status than themselves more often than the other way around. But you seemed to be claiming that that was a law biased against men, when it applied to both men and women.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I said "I suspect". You do know what suspect means, right?

    Also, I'm getting really fed up of your posts. You don't make any logical or coherent points, you don't address any of the things which people bring up in their posts to you. You just keep on adding smileys (which I'm very sure you know makes you look like a patronising numpty) and dodging any points made to you. If you want a debate or discussion, then give something back to it. Else people are just going to get fed up with you, like I have.
    What you are getting flustered over is the fact that the verbal sleights-of-hand that feminists often use in debates are yielding precious little effect for you. Not every one of these debates will decay to a circular argument or gender war, and I don't see why you should want that.

    The point about me smiling is a little bizarre. Smiling is good.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    Some but how much?
    It varies on a case by case basis, for example, if one partner has had to give up work because of the marriage, how long they have been married, who brought what into the marriage, who has residency of the children etc. but the same law is applied to men and women. I do believe cultural assumptions of the judge play a part but I don't think the courts are nearly as biased against men as you make out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    What you are getting flustered over is the fact that the verbal sleights-of-hand that feminists often use in debates are yielding precious little effect for you. Not every one of these debates will decay to a circular argument or gender war, and I don't see why you should want that.

    The point about me smiling is a little bizarre. Smiling is good.
    Comes across as a sneer when you're undermining somebodys argument without even bothering to make a point, though.

    And why do you think I want gender war? :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Oh, it applies to men more. Men earn more on average, they are more likely to hold positions of power, they are less likely to take time off/leave work to have children and women tend to marry men of higher status than themselves more often than the other way around. But you seemed to be claiming that that was a law biased against men, when it applied to both men and women.
    You know, I'm somewhat glad you brought up the gender pay gap. I made a separate thread on this a couple of days ago. However, for reasons I can't explain, the feminists of TSR did not see fit to reply to it. :lol:

    By Christina Hoff SommersResident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute

    If you believe women suffer systemic wage discrimination, read the new American Association of University Women (AAUW) study Graduating to a Pay Gap. Bypass the verbal sleights of hand and take a hard look at the numbers. Women are close to achieving the goal of equal pay for equal work. They may be there already.

    How many times have you heard that, for the same work, women receive 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? This alleged unfairness is the basis for the annual Equal Pay Day observed each year about mid-April to symbolize how far into the current year women have to work to catch up with men's earnings from the previous year. If the AAUW is right, Equal Pay Day will now have to be moved to early January.

    The AAUW has now joined ranks with serious economists who find that when you control for relevant differences between men and women (occupations, college majors, length of time in workplace) the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing. The 23-cent gap is simply the average difference between the earnings of men and women employed "full time." What is important is the "adjusted" wage gap-the figure that controls for all the relevant variables. That is what the new AAUW study explores.

    The AAUW researchers looked at male and female college graduates one year after graduation. After controlling for several relevant factors (though some were left out, as we shall see), they found that the wage gap narrowed to only 6.6 cents. How much of that is attributable to discrimination? As AAUW spokesperson Lisa Maatz candidly said in an NPR interview, "We are still trying to figure that out."

    One of the best studies on the wage gap was released in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Labor. It examined more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the 23-cent wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of individual choices being made by both male and female workers." In the past, women's groups have ignored or explained away such findings.

    "In fact," says the National Women's Law Center, "authoritative studies show that even when all relevant career and family attributes are taken into account, there is still a significant, unexplained gap in men's and women's earnings." Not quite. What the 2009 Labor Department study showed was that when the proper controls are in place, the unexplained (adjusted) wage gap is somewhere between 4.8 and 7 cents. The new AAUW study is consistent with these findings. But isn't the unexplained gap, albeit far less than the endlessly publicized 23 cents, still a serious injustice? Shouldn't we look for ways to compel employers to pay women the extra 5-7 cents? Not before we figure out the cause. The AAUW notes that part of the new 6.6-cent wage-gap may be owed to women's supposedly inferior negotiating skills -- not unscrupulous employers. Furthermore, the AAUW's 6.6 cents includes some large legitimate wage differences masked by over-broad occupational categories. For example, its researchers count "social science" as one college major and report that, among such majors, women earned only 83 percent of what men earned. That may sound unfair... until you consider that "social science" includes both economics and sociology majors.

    Economics majors (66 percent male) have a median income of $70,000; for sociology majors (68 percent female) it is $40,000. Economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute has pointed to similar incongruities. The AAUW study classifies jobs as diverse as librarian, lawyer, professional athlete, and "media occupations" under a single rubric--"other white collar." Says Furchtgott-Roth: "So, the AAUW report compares the pay of male lawyers with that of female librarians; of male athletes with that of female communications assistants. That's not a comparison between people who do the same work." With more realistic categories and definitions, the remaining 6.6 gap would certainly narrow to just a few cents at most.

    Could the gender wage gap turn out to be zero? Probably not. The AAUW correctly notes that there is still evidence of residual bias against women in the workplace. However, with the gap approaching a few cents, there is not a lot of room for discrimination. And as economists frequently remind us, if it were really true that an employer could get away with paying Jill less than Jack for the same work, clever entrepreneurs would fire all their male employees, replace them with females, and enjoy a huge market advantage.

    Women's groups will counter that even if most of the wage gap can be explained by women's choices, those choices are not truly free. Women who major in sociology rather than economics, or who choose family-friendly jobs over those that pay better but offer less flexibility, may be compelled by cultural stereotypes. According to the National Organization for Women (NOW), powerful sexist stereotypes "steer" women and men "toward different education, training, and career paths" and family roles. But are American women really as much in thrall to stereotypes as their feminist protectors claim? Aren't women capable of understanding their real preferences and making decisions for themselves? NOW needs to show, not dogmatically assert, that women's choices are not free. And it needs to explain why, by contrast, the life choices it promotes are the authentic ones -- what women truly want, and what will make them happier and more fulfilled.

    It will not be not easy for the AAUW and its allies to abandon the idea of systemic gender injustice. AAUW officials are trying mightily to sustain the bad-news-for-women narrative. According to "Graduating to a Pay Gap" publicity materials, "The AAUW today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers. Women are paid less than men even when they do the same work and major in the same field." Many journalists seem to have read and reported on the AAUW's press releases rather than its research.

    That is the hype. Look at the numbers.

    Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and the War Against Boys. Her new book, Freedom Feminism -- Its Surprising History and Why It Matters, will be published in 2013 by AEI press.
    ----------------------

    Men earn more on average, they are more likely to hold positions of power
    I think it's a little self-defeating to imply that men are more suited to leadership positions.

    tend to marry men of higher status than themselves more often than the other way around.
    Yes, I believe this was one of the points made by the author in the article.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Comes across as a sneer when you're undermining somebodys argument without even bothering to make a point, though.

    And why do you think I want gender war? :confused:
    You don't have much of an argument (if any) to undermine, tbh.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    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:
    Not at all! As a life rule I never attack someone for their belief or points, I only ever openly ridicule people who don't just come out and say what they think and why. Disagreeing with someone is different to attacking, and as you've used other people as a medium for your views I'm not going to let you off lightly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Not at all! As a life rule I never attack someone for their belief or points
    Glad to hear it, my friend.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    You know, I'm somewhat glad you brought up the gender pay gap. I made a separate thread on this a couple of days ago. However, for reasons I can't explain, the feminists of TSR did not see fit to reply to it. :lol:
    Eh? I never actually said that there was wage discrimination - I said that men tend to earn more money than women. That is fact. Whether they earn less because they are discriminated against, because they're the ones having babies, because they're just not as useful to the capitalist economy etc. is irrelevant to the point.

    I think it's a little self-defeating to imply that men are more suited to leadership positions.
    Where did you pull that out of? I said they are more likely to hold positions of power, which is fact. Nowhere did I say they are more suitable for those roles - I simply said this is the case currently.

    Yes, I believe this was one of the points made by the author in the article.
    Let's examine why that is. Powerful women are not seen as attractive. For many men, marrying a woman more powerful than himself would be unacceptable. For women, the opposite is true - we have been brought up in a society that values powerful men. Therefore, many women find this attractive and will want to be in a relationship with them. This results in couples tending to be made up of a more powerful man and a less powerful women. It is simply what we have been taught about masculinity and femininity and our internalisation of that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    In regards to people thinking women are inferior outside the kitchen - no one in the thread actually said this.

    You saying things like this...



    ...is typical anecdotal nonsense that brings nothing to debates. And plus, notice how you're now wording your original statement a little less harshly now that you've been called out on it.

    Also, trying to compare a life as a stay at home mother to murdering someone (a criminal offence with severe legal consequences) as a rationale that free will doesn't exist is also rather silly. Not least because you brought sexual discrimination law into the fray, which our hypothetical stay at home mother has not infringed upon.
    Why can't you grasp this? Yes, no-one before me said it, because it was a relevant part of my response to someone else's post. I'm not talking about a typical stay at home mother either, how many times do I need to reiterate this? I'm talking about a woman who does not believe women belong in the working world. Oh, you daftie I also never said that free will doesn't exist, simply that the law does not always allow it to be exercised, which is true.

    I'm not trying to word things less harshly, I'm just trying to explain something very simple to someone who cannot grasp it. Typing the same thing wouldn't be productive so obviously I'm going to have to reformat it in ways you might understand.

    I'll set out the conversation I was having for you in basic terms so that you can understand it:
    A: I can't believe the article in the OP could have been written by a woman!
    B: I've heard women with archaic views say such nonsense before. (i.e. it's very possible it was written by a woman)

    Now if you'd disagreed that the text in the OP contained nonsense, I'd understand what you have to contest. As it is, you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake.

    If you're still not grasping this, please don't bother replying. I do thank you for one thing though, you've shown me I don't have the patience to be a teacher .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Why can't you grasp this? Yes, no-one before me said it, because it was a relevant part of my response to someone else's post. I'm not talking about a typical stay at home mother either, how many times do I need to reiterate this? I'm talking about a woman who does not believe women belong in the working world. Oh, you daftie I also never said that free will doesn't exist, simply that the law does not always allow it to be exercised, which is true.

    I'm not trying to word things less harshly, I'm just trying to explain something very simple to someone who cannot grasp it. Typing the same thing wouldn't be productive so obviously I'm going to have to reformat it in ways you might understand.

    I'll set out the conversation I was having for you in basic terms so that you can understand it:
    A: I can't believe the article in the OP could have been written by a woman!
    B: I've heard women with archaic views say such nonsense before. (i.e. it's very possible it was written by a woman)

    Now if you'd disagreed that the text in the OP contained nonsense, I'd understand what you have to contest. As it is, you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake.

    If you're still not grasping this, please don't bother replying. I do thank you for one thing though, you've shown me I don't have the patience to be a teacher .
    I am merely informing you that all of your posts are anecdotal nonsense and do nothing to discredit the points made by the author in the OP.

    And yes, I agree that you shouldn't be a teacher.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    But if you claim that it's incorrect, and with such certainty that you literally "LOLed", then surely you must have something that can refute the claim? i.e. You could explain how the patriarchy did more for men than women?

    I don't think she hates feminism per se, but rather what the results of it have been. She's writing as a concerned mother, which is a much greater power than self-righteous political correctness.

    Kitchen comment was somewhat hypocritical. Why do you feminists have such a "it's us against the rest" attitude, lmao?
    Did you seriously ask that question? By definition a patriarchal society is a system in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it. An obvious example is when women were unable to achieve financial independence by being unable to work thus having to rely on their partners. And what about the stigmatisation of female sexuality in a way that is oppressive? Oh god I could keep going on and on.
    Also the mother wrote that her son will be spending years meeting and sleeping with women, but then calls the WOMEN loose but not her son? Surely he is just as easy?
    This whole thing is ridiculous and holds so many double standards I don't even know where to start. As a woman I owe so so much to feminism.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Eh? I never actually said that there was wage discrimination - I said that men tend to earn more money than women. That is fact. Whether they earn less because they are discriminated against, because they're the ones having babies, because they're just not as useful to the capitalist economy etc. is irrelevant to the point.
    Yes and that's why women have probably gained more from divorce settlements than men. It's a little like being punished for doing well.

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Where did you pull that out of? I said they tend to hold positions of power, which is fact. Nowhere did I say they are more suitable for those roles - I simply said this is the case currently.
    Has no relevance to the divorce settlements issue.

    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Let's examine why that is. Powerful women are not seen as attractive. For many men, marrying a woman more powerful than himself would be unacceptable. For women, the opposite is true - we have been brought up in a society that values powerful men. Therefore, many women find this attractive and will want to be in a relationship with them. This results in couples tending to be made up of a more powerful man and a less powerful women. It is simply what we have been taught about masculinity and femininity and our internalisation of that.
    I'm afraid you can't speak for "many men" and say they wouldn't find powerful women attractive.

    And that women are attracted to powerful men is not justification to them walking away with half/alot of his wealth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see how that's from a different perspective. That letter, and the rest of her blog, sound like all the other 'feminism=misandry' blogs and posts I've seen recently.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.