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

Is Male dominance still present in society? Patriarchy watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'd definitely reject that I'm a lot more intelligent, perhaps just a little older and a little more experienced (I'm in my mid-20s, I've come to Britain from another country, I was in the Australian Army Reserves for four years... I hasten to add, I am a student... I'm doing a PT law degree over here).
    I'm just a silly teenager on a council estate you're probably a lot smarter than I

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    It's a difficult issue because gender debates naturally engage my lefty political instincts... at the same time, I've known two guys to have killed themselves. One was a guy I went to school with who killed himself at age 17 because of his sexuality, the other when I was in the Reserves when his wife left him and he was only 20. Both killed themselves, I suspect, because of their conception of how they should have been as men.
    I agree, men and women should be able to speak openly about their sexuality openly, an issue that's definitely very much problematic in society, I believe that the bible (a book that definitely gives insight into medival common law) has a lot to blame for it.

    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    In relation to domestic assault, I do think it's important to recognise that 40% of domestic violence victims are men. Because of the current gender "settlement", they often don't feel like they're able to report it or try to end it for fear of being labelled as being something less than a man, which is utterly fallacious and incredibly unfair.
    Exactly, which is why feminism is quite bad in some ways it's not completely egalitarian although women face more severe domestic violence (but that's subjective, because how do we classify severe exactly? Punching? Cigarette burns? Stabbing? It's not measurable)
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I feel strongly that women are not entirely accorded their due in society in a way that's disproportionate, but I emphatically reject the suggestion that "it's a man's world". You only have to look at the suicide rate to put that urban legend to bed.
    I undoubtedly agree here nurses and teachers "feminine careers" deserve better pay than they get now, and more respect and social prestige in recognition.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Is it not possible they're put off reporting such offences by the disdain and disbelief you yourself display?



    So generous of you to concede that not all men are rapists.

    By the way, is .0003% of men a "vast number"?
    Where'd you get that statistic? Since there's ~80,000 rapes a year in the UK, are you really suggesting that that few men are going out there and committing all of them? It sounds like you just pulled that number out of thin air.

    And I wasn't trying to be generous and concede anything, but often whenever I make a generalising statement I get pulled up on it, so I was trying to be clear that I wasn't packaging all men into the rapist box (as feminists are often accused of doing.)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    What he appears to be saying is that it's worthy of examining men's issues and boys issues on the same basis as women's issues.

    That it's worthy of examining why young men kill themselves in such vast numbers... why men die much earlier than women... why men are condemned to do the most difficult, dangerous and awful jobs in society.

    Or would you disagree?
    No, I would agree. But when you only voice interest in one side of the argument (in this case appearing only to care about men's rights) and then try and shout the other person in the argument down because you believe they're only caring about women's rights (which I think I have made it clear from my many posts is certainly not my agenda) I'm not going to just let it slide, it's hypocritical.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    What's interesting is in fact not my ignorance with regards to feminism and the almighty Patriarchy, but yours.
    That fact that you believe it fights for equality and not female superiority shows your ignorance.
    I'm an intelligent guy, how do you think I've come to hate feminism?
    Do you think that I seen one example of feminism mistreating men and instantly presume it was all about that?
    Or do you think I've thoroughly done my research for years now, eventually concluding (contrary to my initial beliefs) that I despise the societal venom that is feminism?
    Lol, enlighten me :rolleyes:
    You've already called me a Nazi and a narcissistic princess, pretty much proving that I'm unable to take you seriously. How about you show us all this "research" you've so clearly done?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    http://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...port2010-a.pdf

    And I quote " (p18: rape lifetime: 22,000,000 last year: 1,300,0000); (p19: forced envelopment lifetime: 5,500,000 last year: 1,300,000)" not exactly a rare occurrence is it?

    If you don't believe this I don't know what you're going to believe.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As I originally asked, please provide statistics to support your forced envelopment point. I am already aware of domestic violence statistics, which was not what I asked you for. (Although congrats on finally using real evidence! It's not that hard is it?)

    The closest I can find to actually mentioning forced envelopment is here: "An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact."

    But the term forced envelopment seems to refer solely to sexual coersion, not including unwanted sexual contact or unwanted sexual experiences (as they are individually named in your report). Again, I would ask for specific evidence referring to "forced envelopment" to back up your argument - particularly as there is no gender definition of the perpetrators in the report.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Obama forced to apologise for complimenting a woman's appearance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22049070

    Raging right now. We need more men with backbone to stand up to women's/feminist's BS. Too many beta men who bow down to every request of women. The time is now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    As I originally asked, please provide statistics to support your forced envelopment point. I am already aware of domestic violence statistics, which was not what I asked you for. (Although congrats on finally using real evidence! It's not that hard is it?)

    What on earth?
    Forced envelopment means, forced to penetrate as women don't have a penis they can't penetrate.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    The closest I can find to actually mentioning forced envelopment is here: "An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a non-physical way); and 27.2% of women and 11.7% of men have experienced unwanted sexual contact."
    What? Did you not read the statistics properly?
    Sexual coercion/ unwanted sexual contact =/= rape / forced envelopment (a.k.a, forced envelopment= forced to penetrate ) so ummm, you might want to go and read the document again. Pages 17-19.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    But the term forced envelopment seems to refer solely to sexual coercion, not including unwanted sexual contact or unwanted sexual experiences (as they are individually named in your report). Again, I would ask for specific evidence referring to "forced envelopment" to back up your argument - particularly as there is no gender definition of the perpetrators in the report.
    Ummm no, it doesn't! It's referring to sexual intercourse/anal/oral without consent(not sexual coercion that's getting pressured into sex, different to rape or forced to penetrate)... And you obviously haven't read it properly, also the same way the vast majority of rapists are men, the vast majority of people forcing men to penetrate them are women it's just so obvious.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Where'd you get that statistic? Since there's ~80,000 rapes a year in the UK, are you really suggesting that that few men are going out there and committing all of them? It sounds like you just pulled that number out of thin air.
    Most rapists are repeat offenders, they commit the crime again and again until caught, so yes it's a very small amount of men doing the crime multiple times. Like getting mugged doesn't mean there is a lot of muggers just the muggers committed the crime a lot of times.

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    And I wasn't trying to be generous and concede anything, but often whenever I make a generalising statement I get pulled up on it, so I was trying to be clear that I wasn't packaging all men into the rapist box (as feminists are often accused of doing.)
    Accused? So by saying that not all men are rapists but a lot are? Yeah not at all....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Obama forced to apologise for complimenting a woman's appearance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22049070

    Raging right now. We need more men with backbone to stand up to women's/feminist's BS. Too many beta men who bow down to every request of women. The time is now.
    Surely this is a joke? Obama's getting called a chauvinist, for complimenting a woman on her looks? Wow....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    No, I would agree. But when you only voice interest in one side of the argument (in this case appearing only to care about men's rights) and then try and shout the other person in the argument down because you believe they're only caring about women's rights (which I think I have made it clear from my many posts is certainly not my agenda) I'm not going to just let it slide, it's hypocritical.
    Umm no, I'm concerned about woman's problems, I'm concerned about the number of women in parliament for example, but I'm also concerned about male rights too, like the right to not have a part of his penis cut off at birth..... Don't assume I don't care about the rights of women. I could assume you don't care about male rights either.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Except that Edward VI was the sovereign. He didn't just have superiority over his sisters, he had superiority over every living being in England.

    Similarly, when his sister Elizabeth ascended the throne, she had authority over every living being in England. Rather handily demonstrates that this was more about class than gender.
    Sorry, I have to jump in here - I'm very passionate about the Tudor period. Edward had higher authority over Mary and Elizabeth based on his gender alone. Yes, Mary and Elizabeth were declared illegitimate, but if Katherine of Aragon (Mary's mother) had also borne Elizabeth and Edward, Edward would have still inherited the crown based on the Right of Ascension - men inherited over women. So even before he became King, he had authority over his sisters.

    So, yes class comes into it, but also gender - the point about Elizabeth is moot, before she became Queen she had relativeley no authority. The trouble with debating about the Tudor monarchy is to decide where Mary and Elizabeth's rights were cut off for being female, or because they were declared illegitimate. Nonetheless, I don't think anyone can deny that women in that period had decidely less rank than their male counterparts. A better example would be to look at Henry's queens, who had nothing without him.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Obama forced to apologise for complimenting a woman's appearance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22049070

    Raging right now. We need more men with backbone to stand up to women's/feminist's BS. Too many beta men who bow down to every request of women. The time is now.
    Pretty ironic then, that it's men like you that make feminism all the more necessary. The point isn't that he complimented her and it's not okay for men to compliment, it's that a woman in a powerful position who has made great strides in politics, is still brought down to the basest of things, her physical appearance.

    Say Diane Abbott, or Harriet Harman (both women who I dislike the policies of, but they are women who hold positions of power in government hence the example) met you because you'd done something prestigious, you'd made a great achievement at work for example, and they said the same thing to you? You'd probably be at least a little miffed that your appearance was even brought up - what does it have to do with your achievement?

    I think you just want an excuse to rage at women, full stop. It's a bit sad that you get so het up about something that affects you so very little.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Obama forced to apologise for complimenting a woman's appearance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22049070

    Raging right now. We need more men with backbone to stand up to women's/feminist's BS. Too many beta men who bow down to every request of women. The time is now.
    The time is now, mate.
    Women fought back against their oppressors one day; now it's our turn to fight back against ours.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    The time is now, mate.
    Women fought back against their oppressors one day; now it's our turn to fight back against ours.
    :lolwut: are you serious?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    No, I would agree. But when you only voice interest in one side of the argument (in this case appearing only to care about men's rights)
    I'm sorry you cannot be serious!

    Is that just an argument you make to shut a debate down? It seems like it, considering you saw the whole debate I had with jreid.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I'm sorry you cannot be serious!

    Is that just an argument you make to shut a debate down? It seems like it, considering you saw the whole debate I had with jreid.
    Nope. It's just that jreid has commented on pretty much all the feminism threads recently, and his comments about forced envelopment, men's divorce rights and male circumcision come up over and over again. It's pretty annoying trying to have the same debate on the same issues with somebody over and over again, particularly when in previous threads he's shown no interest in women's rights problems whatsoever, preferring only to talk about these men's issues. So yeah, in a way I'm trying to shut the argument down, because it's going round in circles and this is like the fourth or fifth time I've had this exact debate with jreid. It's really quite boring the fifth time around.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Sorry, I have to jump in here - I'm very passionate about the Tudor period. Edward had higher authority over Mary and Elizabeth based on his gender alone. Yes, Mary and Elizabeth were declared illegitimate, but if Katherine of Aragon (Mary's mother) had also borne Elizabeth and Edward, Edward would have still inherited the crown based on the Right of Ascension - men inherited over women. So even before he became King, he had authority over his sisters
    Right of ascension? I'm not aware of any such legal construct in English law. Presumably you mean the law of succession?

    And no, he did not have authority over his sisters before he became king. A better example would be a family who is non-royal; what rights would a brother have over his sister? The answer is none.

    So, yes class comes into it, but also gender - the point about Elizabeth is moot, before she became Queen she had relativeley no authority
    Why should she have authority before she was queen?

    And in relative terms (compared to the average English person), she had considerable power. She had very considerable authority over the men and women of her household prior to becoming queen. They were legally bonded to her and required to follow her commands, and she had the right to use corporal punishment on them.

    A better example would be to look at Henry's queens, who had nothing without him.
    Why would Henry's wives have power? You're confusing a Queen Regnant with a Queen Consort.

    Similarly, Prince Philip is not the King of England. He is the Prince Consort.

    Presumably then you think a First Lady or Prime Minister's wife should have some right to power simply because of who she's married to? Isn't that an even more regressive gender view?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chappers-94)
    :lolwut: are you serious?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Your mind has clearly been brainwashed by modern feminism
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    Your mind has clearly been brainwashed by modern feminism
    Whilst yours has been brainwashed by misogyny :rolleyes:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Ace)
    Your mind has clearly been brainwashed by modern feminism
    Yup, what evil stuff, those damn women how dare they make up 1/5 seats in parliament and about 10% of positions for world leaders. Society is still mildly patriarchal. Luckily for humans we aren't biologically that way.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.