Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Anti-feminism and sexism! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    The reason no one is trying to encourage more gingers into academia - for example - is because there is no disparity in the ratio of intelligent gingers and gingers in academia. Ginger people have never been barred from academia. Ginger people have never been told they are of lower intelligence for being ginger. There is, however, a disparity between the numbers of intelligent women/black people/working class people and the numbers of women/black people/working class people in academia.
    So it's about bringing intelligent people people into academia, whether they are male, female, black, white, ginger-haired or anything else, right?
    But that's never how it's talked about. It's about bringing in more members of these arbitrary groupings of people. More women, more women. Not "more intelligent people".

    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Women, blacks and poor people have in the past been banned form higher education and told they are of lower intelligence - they still are told they are of lower intelligence.
    They are though, especially blacks and poor people. We might debate the reasons for this (not here, please), but it remains that they are less intelligent currently.


    (Original post by O-Ren)
    There is also no pay difference between gingers and non-gingers, but there is a pay difference - that cannot be fully explained away by hours worked - between men and women doing the same job.
    I wouldn't mind seeing the stats for this - the only actual numbers I've seen paint quite a different picture. Where have you seen the evidence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    It is a claim from the author, she provided no evidence to back up what she was saying.



    What research? Where is this ******* research then? I couldn't give a **** what some left wing journo says on her blog.

    Also 'Equality and Human Rights Commission' exactly why am I going to take such a partial group seriously?
    ok, there is obviously no arguing with you. I give you an article from the observer - it's hardly the daily mail. their articles are thoroughly researched and well-trusted - and their fact is well separated from their opinion, unlike other papers I might mention. ruth sunderland is not just a 'left wing journo', she rightly has a brilliant reputation as one of the best business journalists (she is editor of the observer business ection), and takes a special interest in womens issues.

    and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a well known group - you may not like what it does, but it carries out real research which you can't argue with!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There are no facts presented in that, only arguments. If Lehmans brothers was called Lehmans sisters it would have been bankrupted a long time ago. I have proven to you that in like for like situations men are paid less than women, so you changed the topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rosamund123)
    ok, there is obviously no arguing with you. I give you an article from the observer - it's hardly the daily mail. their articles are thoroughly researched and well-trusted - and their fact is well separated from their opinion, unlike other papers I might mention. ruth sunderland is not just a 'left wing journo', she rightly has a brilliant reputation as one of the best business journalists (she is editor of the observer business ection), and takes a special interest in womens issues.

    and the Equality and Human Rights Commission is a well known group - you may not like what it does, but it carries out real research which you can't argue with!
    I can't argue with it because you haven't provided it. Like I said feminists can't provide a credible source for their claims, and I've been vindicaited. Ruth Sutherland can claim what she wants in her article, doesn't make it true.

    With most peiople it is dangerous to underestimate their intelligence, with TSR it is dangerous to underestimate their stupidity!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Argued, it's down to sexism. Countless sociologists, economists, and professors, have proven using sound statistical and scientific evidence that the pay gap is caused by a whole myriad of things - and that less than 1% of it is because of any kind of mad conspiracy that men have set up to be universally sexist. This is what I hate about feminism, they see someone making a non-backed up statement based on anecdotal evidence as a fact.
    You know, I'm a bit disturbed that you're trying to argue against one of the most grounded and well-supported notions in British history. Sexism has been KNOWN to exist, there's been evidence supporting it by countless research, you can't deny its presence even in today's society.
    Men go for the hard sciences because that's what's expected of them. My father wanted to study music but he went into Engineering instead because it was considered to be a better degree.
    Women are more likely to take maternity leave because it's expected of them to have children, thus they do- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyway, this argument is going round in circles, so I'm going to leave it here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reflexive)
    yes. why do you attempt to differentiate?
    So - one more chance to clarify, ahah - you would have it that men treat women in the same way that men treat men, and that men treat each other in the same way they treat women? That women treat women just as they treat men, and that they treat men as they treat women?

    Is that essentially how things should be, do you feel?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    But there's a big difference between fantasy and the real thing... Fantasies about rape and group sex are apparently pretty common amongst women, but that doesn't in most cases mean that they actually want to get raped or do group sex in real life!

    I guess i need to re read the article then because i'm pretty sure it said she wanted to have group sex in a msn convo not that she treated it as just a fantasy but that she would like to try it.

    And unfortunately you can't tell whether someone is going to keep it as a fantasy or would like to act it out in the future and as i ahve said innocent till proven guilty and if the jury believes this as evidence enough to give reasonable doubt then they can't convict 5 men to jail when there is reasonable doubt.

    Only she and the men know what really went on everyone else can only speculate and they can't take sides so...

    I actually thought this was going to be the solicitor women who claimed to have been raped but admitted she was too drunk to remember whether she cdonsented or not when she slept with a waiter and the judge ruled it is not his fault if she is too drunk to remember whether she consented(she reportedly had drunk 2 or 3 bottles of wine to herself at this restaurant). In which case i would whole heartedly agree with the decision.


    Again i've gone off topinc :facepalm: i always do this aaaaarrrrgggggg
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion western women are disgraceful and anyone who would marry one is a fool.

    I'am disappointed in all of them.

    A toxic mixture of feminism, sexual liberation and media brainwashing (media is dominated by feminists and homosexuals) and emasculation of men have somehow turned this country from producing perfect ladies like those in victorian times to drunken, violent, promiscious, materialistic ladettes. I can't wait to get myself a proper traditional girl (in brazil, ukraine, asia or wherever)when I finally leave this hell hole!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, real funny til you realise you're earning way less than the sexist pig that is your husband, none of your kids respect you and you're downtrodden and treated like you're stupid. Ha ha ha.

    See, I can agree with someone not being an extreme feminist and going on protest or whatever, but not having enough respect for yourself to want to be seen as equal? Wtf is that all about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    How to make this simple for you? You said there 'aren't any inherently male/female abilities or qualities', I asked you to back this up, what you said proved nothing. I would go into why you are wrong but I don't think you'd really be interested in that.
    Are you seriously suggesting that there ARE some qualities found in all men and no women, or vice versa?

    ARE YOU?!?


    ARE YOU DENYING THAT MEN CAN BE GOOD WITH KIDS AND WOMEN CAN BE AGGRESSIVE. I'M BEING PRETTY AGGRESSIVE RIGHT NOW - THESE CAPITALS WOULD BE SHOUTING IRL.

    I have proved you wrong, by pointing out that women can be aggressive and men can be good with kids. I once punched a guy in the face and called him a c u n t because I was so drunk, lost many frinds for that incident which I am not proud of. It's not that rare sadly either for women to become very aggresive when drunk, even went not drunk tbh.

    I have only not proved you wrong if you are denying this.

    If you are, then you are even more stupid than the now-banned mechazoid who suggested that rape couldn't hurt women because they got raped so regularly in the past they would have evolved for it not to hurt. Damn that was a funny thread til it was closed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    In my opinion western women are disgraceful and anyone who would marry one is a fool.

    I'am disappointed in all of them.

    A toxic mixture of feminism, sexual liberation and media brainwashing (media is dominated by feminists and homosexuals) and emasculation of men have somehow turned this country from producing perfect ladies like those in victorian times to drunken, violent, promiscious, materialistic ladettes. I can't wait to get myself a proper traditional girl (in brazil, ukraine, asia or wherever)when I finally leave this hell whole!
    Lol.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellynubbin)
    Lol.
    Oh damn it now I look illiterate. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    You know, I'm a bit disturbed that you're trying to argue against one of the most grounded and well-supported notions in British history. Sexism has been KNOWN to exist, there's been evidence supporting it by countless research, you can't deny its presence even in today's society.
    Men go for the hard sciences because that's what's expected of them. My father wanted to study music but he went into Engineering instead because it was considered to be a better degree.
    Women are more likely to take maternity leave because it's expected of them to have children, thus they do- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyway, this argument is going round in circles, so I'm going to leave it here.
    O I see, so the whole plethora of scientific information that shows mens and womens brains to be composed differently is wrong is it? I very much doubt that. I don't deny sexism exists, but it exists both ways, and doesn't have the affect on society to the point that you are claiming it does.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I can't argue with it because you haven't provided it. Like I said feminists can't provide a credible source for their claims, and I've been vindicaited. Ruth Sutherland can claim what she wants in her article, doesn't make it true.

    With most peiople it is dangerous to underestimate their intelligence, with TSR it is dangerous to underestimate their stupidity!
    LIES, another classic example of how women are seen as irrational and subjective beings. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by God of War)
    Oh damn it now I look illiterate. :rolleyes:
    Just as well I didn't agree with what you said or that silly mistake may have ruined it :p:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    At my university and at the others I applied for there are consistently more women than men. This is reflected at a national level, there are more women going to university than men. How do you conclude from that that women are being kept out of academia?

    However I'm doing an engineering course which is probably 80+% men, and it just so happens to be a degree that offeres very high paying jobs, so that's a part of the pay gap problem right there :p:
    *slow claps* another user with s h i t critical reading skills.

    Where did I suggest they were being kept out?

    They are almost certainly not being kept out - perhaps there are a few extreme racists/sexists who might choose a male over a female, or a white over a black person - but I'm sure it's not widespread. Point is, women are far less confident than men of the smae intelligence. Same with black people, same with people from council estates. We are raised with this idea that high achievement is not for us. Some of us - like me - experience this from our parents. Most don't, most pick it up sub consiously. For example, it was proved that if you tell a group of people they (their demographic) do worse on IQ tests, they then do worse on IQ tests (than they would have done if they weren't told it). And like I said earlier, imposter syndrome is more common in women than men.

    Oh, and you also didn't notice I said 'same job'

    Double fail
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    Are you seriously suggesting that there ARE some qualities found in all men and no women, or vice versa?

    ARE YOU?!?

    ARE YOU DENYING THAT MEN CAN BE GOOD WITH KIDS AND WOMEN CAN BE AGGRESSIVE. I'M BEING PRETTY AGGRESSIVE RIGHT NOW - THESE CAPITALS WOULD BE SHOUTING IRL.

    I have proved you wrong, by pointing out that women can be aggressive and men can be good with kids. I once punched a guy in the face and called him a c u n t because I was so drunk, lost many frinds for that incident which I am not proud of. It's not that rare sadly either for women to become very aggresive when drunk, even went not drunk tbh.

    I have only not proved you wrong if you are denying this.

    If you are, then you are even more stupid than the now-banned mechazoid who suggested that rape couldn't hurt women because they got raped so regularly in the past they would have evolved for it not to hurt. Damn that was a funny thread til it was closed.
    Doesn't matter if there are no traits which are exclusively male or female, genders aren't immutable charateristics. Your point would only make sense if you could ridgidly define people into ethier gender, when even by genitals you couldn't do such a thing.

    That estrogen **** must really wreak your brain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellynubbin)
    Yeah, real funny til you realise you're earning way less than the sexist pig that is your husband, none of your kids respect you and you're downtrodden and treated like you're stupid. Ha ha ha.

    See, I can agree with someone not being an extreme feminist and going on protest or whatever, but not having enough respect for yourself to want to be seen as equal? Wtf is that all about.
    You do realise that you basically are either seen as equal or superior in society already?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I can't argue with it because you haven't provided it. Like I said feminists can't provide a credible source for their claims, and I've been vindicaited. Ruth Sutherland can claim what she wants in her article, doesn't make it true.

    With most peiople it is dangerous to underestimate their intelligence, with TSR it is dangerous to underestimate their stupidity!

    how is the Equality and Human Rights Commission not a credible source?! do you just not trust anything anyone says to you, if you don't agree with it?!

    *ignores the rest of your insulting post* :rolleyes:
    *ignores (deliberate?) misspelling of ruth sunderland's name*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    You know, I'm a bit disturbed that you're trying to argue against one of the most grounded and well-supported notions in British history. Sexism has been KNOWN to exist, there's been evidence supporting it by countless research, you can't deny its presence even in today's society.
    Men go for the hard sciences because that's what's expected of them. My father wanted to study music but he went into Engineering instead because it was considered to be a better degree.
    Women are more likely to take maternity leave because it's expected of them to have children, thus they do- it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Anyway, this argument is going round in circles, so I'm going to leave it here.

    It is a better degree but if he was forced into it because of gender inequality then he is a weak willed bafoon.

    And i think people take maternity leave after they've got themselves knocked up, they could choose not to have children but unfortunately for feminists the survival of the human race depends upon people having children and women are the ones who bare them, it is not a self fulfilling prophecy because of social pressure it is a given because of ******* nature. how can you not see that?

    There are so many examples you could have used but you picked the most flawed.

    By the way out of curiosity are you a man or a woman?
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.