Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    the girls you posted clearly don't know what feminism means smh
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Even using your estimates it is still a mere 0.002% of the female population.

    Still a tiny proportion. It is still therefore irrational fear.
    No source? No transparent methodology? When will you learn?

    Additionally, there are flaws in using the entire female population. Your variables have not been controlled by age. If you were to study gender in relation to credit card fraud, you wouldn't be including 10 year olds in your sample size. Rape in relation to gender also needs to be controlled by age, to get a descriptive results. Thus:

    Government statistics released in January 2013 estimated that 85,000 women are raped on average in England and Wales every year, that over 400,000 women are sexually assaulted annually, and that 1 in 5 women (aged 16 - 59) has experienced some form of sexual violence since the age of 16. The same study reported that 28% of women who are victims of the most serious sexual offences never tell anyone about it, and we know from our experience within the Rape Crisis movement that only around 15% of women and girls who experience sexual violence ever report to the police.

    http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsampfacts2.php
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lasertown)
    I have skimmed through this thread and I am going to make the assumption that you are most certainly not a feminist.
    Considering you have said that misogyny and misandry are as present as each other, would you say rather, that you are simply just a supporter of gender equality.

    I was a feminist until I realised how many feminists out there weren't feminists at all, simply misandrists or people who hopped on the bandwagon under the misconception that it is about privileges for women, rather than equality of the sexes. My idea of feminism was just gender equality but I think the meaning has been lost and manipulated in this movement.

    Even those feminists that believed in equality of the genders still focussed on women more.
    The first definition for feminism that comes up is this:
    feminism
    the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
    This just proves that there is a definite focus on women in the feminist movement.

    Therefore, I would hate to be associated with a movement that puts women on the pedestal when the fact is that men have issues too. You cannot compare, as the severity of the problems faced by the genders is subjective, and so it is impossible to say that either gender has it worse.

    To separate myself from this association, rather than identifying myself as a feminist, I simply say I am a strong supporter of gender equality. The real feminists shouldn't see the difference.

    I would like to see your view on this, please, if possible.
    My view is that you've spoken more sense in this post than the vast majority of anyone else in the thread, and in a refreshingly cool-headed manner. I agree entirely. I would support gender equality, yes, which wouldn't include positive discrimination.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by louieee)
    the girls you posted clearly don't know what feminism means smh
    A weak, cheap way of denying that women who oppose the reality of feminism could possibly exist.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    My view is that you've spoken more sense in this post than the vast majority of anyone else in the thread, and in a refreshingly cool-headed manner. I agree entirely. I would support gender equality, yes, which wouldn't include positive discrimination.
    The ironic thing is that though feminists claim they are for gender equality, even by very definition this is focused only on issues disadvantaging females. They'll dismiss people like you as misogynistic, when you in fact are an actual supporter of gender equality, with no bias towards either gender.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    And ISIS aren't true Muslims too, right?

    Wake up. It isn't your decision who is and is not a Feminist. The meaning of a term is in its use, and one of the widest uses of the term 'Feminist' in the West now is as a label to describe those women who believe in the patriarchal conspiracy theory, and 'rape culture', that gender is a social construct, and so much other nonsense.

    It would be amusing if it wasn't pathetic how you try to write of critics of Feminism as suggesting that it is full of 'man-haters'. I don't think its full of man haters. I do, however, think it is nonsensical, and undermining due process in America, and undermining efforts to solves the abuse of women and men in the western world, and efforts to solve the abuse of women in the middle-eastern world.

    Yes, there are many such Feminists in this thread. There always have been many such Feminists. It's an important part of Feminism, even if it doesn't comprise all of it.

    People such as yourself need to learn that the western world has moved on from Feminism. The belief than men and women are (at least politically and morally) equal is ubiquitous to such a degree that nobody even questions it without risking absolute vilification. Egalitarianism is 'where its at' now, and this is a god-send. We can move on from the nonsense Marxist hand-me-downs that have infested Feminism for so long, and start to accept plain old common sense.



    No, it isn't 'well put'. Ordinary men don't rape because rapists are not ordinary men. Yeah, men who are otherwise ordinary rape, but only in the same way that Psychopaths who are otherwise ordinary are ordinary. Even if rape was socially caused, why would anybody suggest distinguishing it from other crimes? Are you suggesting that rape just happens to be the only crime that has a social cause, and that we can solve it outright by Feminism? That seems ludicrously improbable. Unless you're suggesting they're all socially caused? In which case, why Feminism, why not just be a normal person and suggest we do whatever we can to prevent crime? That's to ignore the fact that there's no solid evidence for the claim that rape is caused primarily by social factors.

    Are you sure criminals aren't biologically predisposed to crime?
    I haven't actually heard of Egalitarianism before but after a quick google search it does seem to be more what i support: equality for everyone. So thank you for making me aware of it

    I didn't mean to class feminism critics as thinking it's full of man haters, that is just the argument i've seen many many people use in my life experiences. Sorry if it came across as a generalisation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    The ironic thing is that though feminists claim they are for gender equality, even by very definition this is focused only on issues disadvantaging females. They'll dismiss people like you as misogynistic, when you in fact are an actual supporter of gender equality, with no bias towards either gender.
    It is infuriating to no end. The ferocity of their conviction and hostility to anyone in disagreement is often almost Orwellian. We can only hope that reason will prevail.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    It is infuriating to no end. The ferocity of their conviction and hostility to anyone in disagreement is often almost Orwellian. We can only hope that reason will prevail.
    We both know that reason won't prevail. Perhaps a reactionary movement in opposition will though.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lasertown)
    The first definition for feminism that comes up is this:
    feminism
    the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
    This just proves that there is a definite focus on women in the feminist movement.
    does it really matter, they're still aiming for equality, not claiming supremacy?

    It's hard to make things equal in a world of instability, so they focus on the woman's side of it and try to overcome the more extreme things which need attending to. It's like people who try to overcome racism, they're not one-sided, they just recognise for instance that it's more valuable to minimise the pay gap by increasing the wages of people of colour to match that of whites, rather than put their efforts into smaller things like promoting the fact that white people can be rappers too.

    I know it'd be near impossible to eradicate any sort of discrepancies between the genders, but I think it's fairly obvious that women are at a greater disadvantage overall, and it isn't helping that people have this negative narrow-minded view about feminism without really knowing what it means. Anyone who doesn't believe in equality is a fool in my opinion, and if people can't see that the only way for a disadvantaged group to even approach equality is by advocating their rights then they're just silly.

    Women got the right to vote because somebody advocated women's rights, not because women were like "ooh men and women both have inequalities ooh so lets allow women to actually have tea parties without their husbands permission and then to make it fair we'll let men wear make-up too without prejudice". See what I mean? Sometimes the bigger issues need to be focussed on and addressed, even if on the surface it does seem one-sided.

    And the pay gap, I mean that's a pretty important issue (at least in the US) so I think that's a thing to focus on in particular, and things on that scale is mostly what feminism is all about, it's not just about letting girls not shave their arms, it's about objective inequality which can be measured.

    I don't see why feminism and men's rights people can't go hand in hand, like one group can focus on teaching boys that it doesn't matter what a girl is wearing because it isn't a mixed message f she says 'no' no matter how short her skirt and you can just learn to control yourself because rape is only a woman's fault if she is doing the raping likewise it's only a man's fault if he is the rapist, and the other can help men see that they don't all need to spend their weekend at the gym, just like how not all girls have to perfect liquid eyeliner to please people. But without the advocacy of anybody's rights, those right's won't be won.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone in this thread explain to me the difference between working towards gender equality and feminism as we know it?

    I ask because what I see are social justice warriors taking "gender equality" to the logical conclusion, pretty much Poe's law levels of madness. In any Western nation, no woman is disadvantaged by society as it currently stands. The only real differences between men and women are biological, which inform our behavioural patterns and make us demonstrably different.

    So, feminists want equality of outcome because equality of opportunity has already been met. But what is 'gender equality' and why do you support it?
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Are you saying that some men who rape are not monsters? :confused: I beg to differ. If a man rapes somewhat, and he is not otherwise rendered irresponsible, he is a monster.

    Seriously I'm so confused by what you just said. The way we should solve rape is by treating people who rape like they aren't doing anything too
    wrong? You are insane. Rapists are evil people, evil people deserve punishment. It is this simple.
    Rapists deserve punishment (nobody is claiming otherwise...), but when you dehumanise them and disregard them as mere monsters, the girl who was raped by her teacher, pastor, uncle any authority figure that she was taught to be decent and respectable, she will be discouraged from stepping forward against them.
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    You do realise that we're never going to reduce all crimes to social reasons? That would just be to reject any notion of responsibility. Good luck creating any working system which denies responsibility.
    Yeh, you completely missed the point. We can hold rapist accountable for their actions, as well as exploring the reasons for such trends, and putting an end to it. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Crime varies from region to region. We look like a very violent society up against say; Norway (if we are comparing crime rates) That is due to social/economic factors.

    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Um, just because the law is a 'social construct' (Though it isn't, it is a political and legal one), it isn't the case that violations of it can't have biological causes. Obviously they do at least sometimes, for instance when someone dependent on heroin buys heroin, they're breaking the law, and the cause of biological.
    How does one become dependant on heroin anyway? Don't they have do it 1st? Does their genetics cause them to try heroine, or is it the social factors they are subject to that exposes them to heroine in the 1st place?
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Can someone in this thread explain to me the difference between working towards gender equality and feminism as we know it?

    I ask because what I see are social justice warriors taking "gender equality" to the logical conclusion, pretty much Poe's law levels of madness. In any Western nation, no woman is disadvantaged by society as it currently stands. The only real differences between men and women are biological, which inform our behavioural patterns and make us demonstrably different.

    So, feminists want equality of outcome because equality of opportunity has already been met. But what is 'gender equality' and why do you support it?
    We have legal equality. We don't have social equality. That's the simplest way it can be put.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Truths)
    We have legal equality. We don't have social equality. That's the simplest way it can be put.
    Yeah I know the simple way to put it. Tell me what social equality involves.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    A weak, cheap way of denying that women who oppose the reality of feminism could possibly exist.
    Read each of the girl's signs. One of them thinks feminism is not about equality, and instead it's about supremacy. Another thinks that feminism is useless because rapists know that they shouldn't rape anyway (I genuinely can't get the logic here at all). Another doesn't want feminism because she realises men have issues too (does she not realise that feminism is for equality of all genders?). Another is against feminism because she doesn't want to demonise men (feminism =/= man-hating) and she takes responsibility for he own actions (is she taking responsibility for her smaller paycheck than her male counterparts too?). Another doesn't need feminism because she doesn't think women are at a disadvantage - well the statistics say otherwise: she's 9x more likely to be raped, and if she's american she gets paid only 77% of her male counterpart. Another doesn't need feminism because she loves men and respects their rights...lol k. And also apparently feminism made her feel in dangers, and it steps on the black community?? Another doesn't need feminism because it apparently implies that she's currently weak (I really can't see the logic there, all it implies is that in some major aspects of her life she isn't going to be considered equal to a male counterpart, for example in media portrayal, job prospects and pay, sexual assault etc).

    Can you please read the above and explain to me how these girls' opinions are educated and open-minded?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    In any Western nation, no woman is disadvantaged by society as it currently stands.
    Do you want me to just ignore the huge pay gap (which does exist, most notably in the US), and the fact that women are 9x more likely to be raped than a male? Are these not disadvantages? I could list lots more if you like.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    I don't need feminism because I don't think it's democratic to bar one half of the population from standing for Parliament on account of their gender, nor respectful of the ability of the other half to succeed without a patronising leg-up from the state.
    you realise without feminism a woman wouldn't even be able to vote for a party, let alone stand up for parliament? So that's one half of the population barred on account of their gender anyway :')
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birkenhead)
    My view is that you've spoken more sense in this post than the vast majority of anyone else in the thread, and in a refreshingly cool-headed manner. I agree entirely. I would support gender equality, yes, which wouldn't include positive discrimination.
    Thank you. I am also a big fan of how you managed to retain your logical and composed state of mind even in the face of aggressive attacks. It can sometimes be very tempting to stoop to others' levels, especially during such a heated debate on a controversial issue.

    Personally I think we should bin terms like feminist (not at all disregarding what some feminists have done to progress equality) considering that we are at a point now where there are clear, indisputable issues for both genders that need to be addressed.

    One of my first doubts about the meaning of feminism surfaced in Sociology, when my teacher told me men couldn't be feminists, because "problems were worse for women". I completely blanked at that, it completely excludes an entire gender, further perpetuating division between genders.

    There is no confusion or bias or misconceptions with gender equality. It is what it is. For too long it seems on this issue of gender equality that it's almost men vs. women, when it should be a collaborative effort.
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    The ironic thing is that though feminists claim they are for gender equality, even by very definition this is focused only on issues disadvantaging females. They'll dismiss people like you as misogynistic, when you in fact are an actual supporter of gender equality, with no bias towards either gender.
    When you actually think about it. In all respects in that gender equality "disadvantages" the man, it is mostly a counter balance to the misogynistic attitudes, men upheld in the 1st place. For example the same reasoning, that prevented women enrolling in the army, is the same reasoning why female violence against men is not taken seriously and why females get more lenient sentencing. That reasoning is, "women are weak". The same justification for dismissing women at work/lower salaries etc, is the same reasoning to justify giving women preferential custodial treatment. That reasoning being, " It is woman's job to stay home and look after the children". So to complain about misandry, you really look foolish because it's just a by product of the oppression of women.
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HigherMinion)
    Yeah I know the simple way to put it. Tell me what social equality involves.
    Like when a man has a long sexual history, he's the man but if a female did the reverse she's a whore.
    When a man takes charge, he's the man, but when a woman takes charge, she's bossy, she's a ***** etc. Things like that. :bebored:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Men commit the vast majority of crimes, and particularly violent crimes.

    The vast majority of men are straight.

    Therefore it is neither sexist, nor an indication of a 'rape epidemic culture' that women are sexually assaulted in much higher numbers than men.

    Also worth noting that men are much more likely to be physically assaulted than women are to be sexually assaulted - but you don't see constant refrains about 'assault culture' or plaintive cries about victim blaming nonsense on that topic.

    Bad, violent criminals will always exist and they will always be mostly male. For men, this means they will always be at risk of physical assault; for women, they will always be at risk of sexual assault. The sooner they get over that and accept it, the better for their own sakes.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.