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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jellynubbin)
    Sorry if you interpreted any of my posts and thought that I said it was a one way system. That wasn't my intention, I just believe some aspects of feminism are self-respect. I believe in equality for men and women.
    Me too, I believe sex shouldn't even come into the argument when it comes to jobs etc, it should all be about qualifications.
    What I don't agree with is people like harriet harman trying to socially engineer the market so that firms are forced to hire women over men, because of the perception of inequality.
    I would hold it against feminists less if they proved themselves as wanting equality by campaigning even a little on any of the issues in which men are discriminated against.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Easily debateble. And they are underspressure to justify their own exsistence.
    you just don't want to take into consideration anything that contradicts your ideas. How stupid. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    you just don't want to take into consideration anything that contradicts your ideas. How stupid.
    This coming from the person who won't even read sources that contradict his narrow view of the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    you just don't want to take into consideration anything that contradicts your ideas. How stupid. :rolleyes:
    It doesn't contradict my ideas. I said that feminists couldn't provide a credible source for their arguments, feminists couldn't provide a credible (or any for that matter) statistical source for their arguments.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    It doesn't contradict my ideas. I said that feminists couldn't provide a credible source for their arguments, feminists couldn't provide a credible (or any for that matter) statistical source for their arguments.
    yes, and the moment someone disproves your naive claim that femninists can't provide credible sources, you automatically discredit them. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    This coming from the person who won't even read sources that contradict his narrow view of the world.
    Ditto.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    yes, and the moment someone disproves your naive claim that femninists can't provide credible sources, you automatically discredit them. :rolleyes:
    If you'd actually provided any credible sources we might be able to see if this was true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    I've seen far more picture-and-caption 'jokes' on TSR which are sexist towards women than there are against men - in fact I don't think I've seen any that are sexist towards men. A lot of people here seem to treat sexism against women as one big joke - and I think this is becoming increasingly popular in general society as well.

    EDIT: Picture-captions like the one posted above! :rolleyes:
    I actually can't believe you fail to see the irony in them.

    They are taking the piss out of sexism and how sexist people used to be it is good that people don't take those attitudes serilously otherwise women would be in trouble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, I hate them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    If you'd actually provided any credible sources we might be able to see if this was true.
    That's like saying that research carried out by pharmaceutical companies isn't reliable because they act on their own interests. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    That's like saying that research carried out by pharmaceutical companies isn't reliable because they act on their own interests. :rolleyes:
    Scientific research (including pharmaceutical) is of a completely different type to this type of sociological research. and scientific research isn't credible untill it is published in a review journal, untill it is approved of by the scientific community.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    That's like saying that research carried out by pharmaceutical companies isn't reliable because they act on their own interests. :rolleyes:
    .... How?
    I pointed out that you have yet to cite any sources that weren't subsequently discredited.
    I didn't accuse you of a conflict of interest...

    Also not that many pharma companies do their own research, it's mostly contracted out, and the results and conditions are very tightly inspected. They have no interest in pushing out unsafe drugs - nothing kills sales like an adverse event lawsuit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    In that case men should spend less time at work and more time with their families, to balance it out.

    And I do know how the economy works, thank you very much.
    Well, there is another factor. If women work more, the fertility rate have a tendency to drop. However, if the fertility rate keeps up, sure women should work more and men less. One of the reasons for dicorce is because the man is never home. However, I don't feel it's my business if men work a lot or women don't. It's a personal issue.

    I don't really think you know that much about economics. Because your analysis for what would allow discrimination was quite poor. First you assumed companies care about the economy, more than their profits and secondly rising the wages for women won't cause a lot of unemployment, although it could cause some frictional unemployment, because people are too picky or labour unions who prevent people from beeing fired.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    It's funny cus some people find it offensive. Jokes about men don't work cus we don't care.
    TShadow383 seems like a notable exception then. And if you don't care, why do so many men moan about adverts which paint them in a bad light, despite them being intended in a lighthearted manner?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libtolu)
    I actually can't believe you fail to see the irony in them.

    They are taking the piss out of sexism and how sexist people used to be it is good that people don't take those attitudes serilously otherwise women would be in trouble.
    Indeed. You really think that every guy who posts that sort of thing on TSR is being completely ironic? There's tons of them, you see them popping up all the time, and judging from some of these guys' posts I have every reason to believe that a decent proportion of them are not being half an ironic as you seem to think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ciawhobat)
    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".
    No, that's just how you've misunderstood it. Yes people want more women in academia, but not because they just happen to want more women, they want them because at the moment if a woman and a man are of the same intelligence, the man is more likely to go on to academia. This is obviously a bad thing because it means talent is being wasted.

    (Original post by ciawhobat)
    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.
    On average, yes. But if you drum it into them that they are less intelligent then you get a situation where a black guy from a council estate is less likely to apply for university than a white middle class guy of the same intelligence, because of how the council estate guy perceives himself. He thinks an academic future is not for the likes of him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    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.
    So you admit that I was right all along. The thing we were arguing about - that there are no traits present in only one gender - is true and I am right.

    I am embarassed for you right now.

    Oh, and resorting to saying oestrogen is wrecking my brain? That's the last resort of someone who's realised they've lost, and is lashing out to make themselves feel better. It's also deliciously ironic that you spelled oestrogen wrong.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1167009&page=7

    If you want to see the real sexists, this thread is a good start.
    Why feminists refuse to pick fights against religious groups that actively discriminate against women to a bewildering extent is beyond me:

    This is an argument from this thread, in which I was arguing against islamic dogma that preaches against women and homosexuals.

    “And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with 80 stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors.” (Qur’an, 24:4)

    Launching a charge against "chaste women"?
    You mean launching a charge against a woman for refusing sex.
    It happens.

    Not to mention the forced marriages, honour killings etc etc etc.
    Are feminist organisations too afraid to confront the issue?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by O-Ren)
    So you admit that I was right all along. The thing we were arguing about - that there are no traits present in only one gender - is true and I am right.
    What a pointless thing to even be debating.


    (Original post by O-Ren)
    It's also deliciously ironic that you spelled oestrogen wrong.

    estrogen is valid, it's the standard spelling in U.S. English and so is a way of spelling it that gets used a lot worldwide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lol

    yeah i do like some sexist jokes aswell.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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

    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.