Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

There is very little need for feminism in the UK Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    What was your experience?
    I've been whistled and shouted at in the street several times and had my backside groped at a party. I nearly got groped in public the other day as well, and would have been if my male friend hadn't been there to stop it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    I've been whistled and shouted at in the street several times and had my backside groped at a party. I nearly got groped in public the other day as well, and would have been if my male friend hadn't been there to stop it.
    That's not sexism, that's sexual harassment.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    There is need for LESS feminism in the UK. TSR is practically unbearable as it is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Feminism had nothing to do with getting women the vote. That was down to the suffragettes, who weren't feminist.
    The suffragettes werent feminists? Hahaha thats hilarious, i think ill put it in my sig.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by febster)
    our whole society is geared up against women, they're poorly represented in the media, and girls from a young age are expected to behave a certain way, wear make up and dresses, like cooking. It's this that we need to change in the UK, not just the laws discriminating against women.
    What laws discriminate against women? I'd really like to hear them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBritishArmy)
    Facts:

    There are no formal barriers to the freedom of women in speech, religion and employment in this country.

    Any employer that unfairly discriminates against women in employment or the provision of services is breaking the law and would be subject to legal action.

    Given that the above statements are true, I don't understand what you are all moaning about.
    So a woman can be a bishop then?
    Play football (or tennis etc) with men?
    Serve combat roles?

    You seem to forget that until last December insurance/annuity rates were gender specific.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    How about the Jimmy Savile Case? Some of his victims were abused 40+ years ago and have only just found justice because the system at the time did not support male or female victims of sexual assault. Is that not relevant because it happened decades ago?

    You can't just write off the past because you don't want to acknowledge it. You don't seem to have a valid point to make whatsoever.
    That's incredibly a fallacious analogy. Unlike Jimmy Seville most feminists I know were only in their short pants in the 90's. Non of them felt the oppression felt by women in the Victorian era, all of them by now have the right to vote and never once had the right not to vote. Saying that women were treated like trash in the Victorian era (although that is arguable) and that is whyyouneed feminism today is just dumb. That's like me saying I have every right to swear and curse at white men who were not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors.

    Unless it is directly affecting you today, there is no dang reason to bring up anything in the past unless it is relevant to the topic at hand.

    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    So was I. And in the UK in 1918, only married women over 30 could vote, with permission of their husbands. Do you not see the discrepancy here?

    On a side note, it was perfectly legal to rape your wife until 1991.

    yeah, feminism isn't necessary at all :rolleyes:
    And firstly referring the votes. Let me say the following. I despise the suffragettes. They committed terrorist acts, they were racist, they were exclusivist, they originally only planned to have upper and middle class women vote and they helped distribute white feathers to men, some younger than 16 to fight in ww1. That aside not EVERY man had the right to vote. The only people who could vote were upper class men. Men had to fight for their vote too. It would also make sense for the man to only be allowed to vote. Not only did they pay taxes, they were also expected to fulfill military obligations should the time come.

    And no one needs feminism. One needn't be a feminist in order to fight for equality. By such logic we require men right activists to fix the law up ( note law which still exists, not one which was changed over 20 years ago) seeing how its impossible by law for a woman to rape a man and the woman not being branded as a rapist. Or the wide acceptance of male genital mutilation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    That's incredibly a fallacious analogy. Unlike Jimmy Seville most feminists I know were only in their short pants in the 90's. Non of them felt the oppression felt by women in the Victorian era, all of them by now have the right to vote and never once had the right not to vote. Saying that women were treated like trash in the Victorian era (although that is arguable) and that is whyyouneed feminism today is just dumb. That's like me saying I have every right to swear and curse at white men who were not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors.

    Unless it is directly affecting you today, there is no dang reason to bring up anything in the past unless it is relevant to the topic at hand.


    And firstly referring the votes. Let me say the following. I despise the suffragettes. They committed terrorist acts, they were racist, they were exclusivist, they originally only planned to have upper and middle class women vote and they helped distribute white feathers to men, some younger than 16 to fight in ww1. That aside not EVERY man had the right to vote. The only people who could vote were upper class men. Men had to fight for their vote too. It would also make sense for the man to only be allowed to vote. Not only did they pay taxes, they were also expected to fulfill military obligations should the time come.

    And no one needs feminism. One needn't be a feminist in order to fight for equality. By such logic we require men right activists to fix the law up ( note law which still exists, not one which was changed over 20 years ago) seeing how its impossible by law for a woman to rape a man and the woman not being branded as a rapist. Or the wide acceptance of male genital mutilation.
    comparing suffragettes to terrorists. seems legit.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So a woman can be a bishop then?
    Play football (or tennis etc) with men?
    Serve combat roles?

    You seem to forget that until last December insurance/annuity rates were gender specific.
    Firstly. Let's start with the easiest. Now then women CAN play tennis, and with men provided they so it unofficially, however that rule is there for a reason. Women and men have different physical abilities, with men who tend to perform better at professional levels than men. That's why the Chinese girl who was faster than most of the men in the Olympics was accused of cheating.

    I dont know my bible as much as i shpould so I can't comment on the women bishops.

    And the same reason 'physical differences' could also be another reason as to a lack of women in combat roles in the army. For instance the entry test for men are more strenuous than women. but I don't really see why they shouldn't join other than that.but back on topic, a woman can still join the armed forces and do a non combatant role, which are equally important as the combatant roles.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    Firstly. Let's start with the easiest. Now then women CAN play tennis, and with men provided they so it unofficially, however that rule is there for a reason. Women and men have different physical abilities, with men who tend to perform better at professional levels than men. That's why the Chinese girl who was faster than most of the men in the Olympics was accused of cheating.

    I dont know my bible as much as i shpould so I can't comment on the women bishops.

    And the same reason 'physical differences' could also be another reason as to a lack of women in combat roles in the army. For instance the entry test for men are more strenuous than women. but I don't really see why they shouldn't join other than that.but back on topic, a woman can still join the armed forces and do a non combatant role, which are equally important as the combatant roles.
    On combat roles, if they can perform the same as the standard required for a man then why not allow them? If no women reach the level then fine, but at least they wouldn't be ruled out from the start.

    Similarly if a woman wants to enter a mens competition and (by what you say) lose, then why not? You can still have a women only competition.

    The blade runner got to be in the normal olympics and that was more dubious (as he had blades and a possible mechanical advantage) than letting women compete against men.

    The point is, why have the rules, from what you say its to 'protect women from being sad at losing'. Doesn't seem like a great argument to me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    On combat roles, if they can perform the same as the standard required for a man then why not allow them? If no women reach the level then fine, but at least they wouldn't be ruled out from the start.

    Similarly if a woman wants to enter a mens competition and (by what you say) lose, then why not? You can still have a women only competition.

    The blade runner got to be in the normal olympics and that was more dubious (as he had blades and a possible mechanical advantage) than letting women compete against men.

    The point is, why have the rules, from what you say its to 'protect women from being sad at losing'. Doesn't seem like a great argument to me.
    I agree with you on combat roles but disagree when it comes to sports. Set up a mixed competition where both men and women are able to enter if there's a demand to see them compete against one another (e.g. there's a mixed form of lacrosse, as well as a mens form and a womens form). I don't see why men should have to give up their competition, into a mixed format, whilst women are able to keep theirs.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prandtl)
    I agree with you on combat roles but disagree when it comes to sports. Set up a mixed competition where both men and women are able to enter if there's a demand to see them compete against one another (e.g. there's a mixed form of lacrosse, as well as a mens form and a womens form). I don't see why men should have to give up their competition, into a mixed format, whilst women are able to keep theirs.
    Keep a mens competition too and see what happens then. I'd be up for watching Williams v Murray thats all I'm saying
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    On combat roles, if they can perform the same as the standard required for a man then why not allow them? If no women reach the level then fine, but at least they wouldn't be ruled out from the start.

    Similarly if a woman wants to enter a mens competition and (by what you say) lose, then why not? You can still have a women only competition.

    The blade runner got to be in the normal olympics and that was more dubious (as he had blades and a possible mechanical advantage) than letting women compete against men.

    The point is, why have the rules, from what you say its to 'protect women from being sad at losing'. Doesn't seem like a great argument to me.
    Er. Because it would be donned as exclusive (albiet less exclusive than it is now). Fact of the matter is that if men can theoretically on average do 30 push ups and women can do 20, having 30 for women would be especially unfair as although a woman doing twenty isn't as much as a man doing 30 she would still be useful.

    And if now that I think of it, there was Olympics doubles for men and women. But let's pretend that doesn't exist. Assuming it was singles the man would always have the advantage, making it unfair to the women. If this wasn't professional that would be one thing but (rambling here ) but here's a hypothetical example.

    A pro man at his peak is playing a pro woman at her peak. From the on start the man would have an advantage because not only can he hit the balls back harder and faster no sexual, and have more endurance, the woman would be at a disayvantage from. Day one. Now then back to the question. What you would really want is in tennis a mixed event. One male, one woman to balance it out.


    And also,

    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Er, why does this matter? The question wasn't, "who is more likely to MUG or MURDER?" It was, "who is more likely to be mugged or murdered?". So typical, for a feminist to move the goalposts, when confronted with a bit of logical opposition. Just because men are more likely to murder or mug, doesn't mean that men, per se, deserve to be mugged or murdered any more than do women, per se. Black people are more likely to mug, than are white; does this mean you think black victims of these crimes deserve less support???



    No, women are not vastly the victims of violence.
    Just gonna drop this here http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/crimin...s/fulltext.pdf


    (Original post by justsmith)
    Not just ‘a lot’. Have these people ever seen any sort of crime statistics? It’s fairly easy to find some. I just googled the website of my Home Office, which is the official government source for these things. I opened the first document about crime statistics that I could find, and had a nice scroll down to where they break things up by gender. What does it say?

    4.2% of men are victims of violent crime, compared to 1.8% of women. That’s statistically significant, by the way. Violent criminals are much more likely to target men. That’s a fact, and it has been one since these things were recorded. The criminals start to care less the older you get though (0.2% to 0.1% of 75+ men and women, 0.7% to 0.6% when you’re 65-74), and so when we look at the statistics for young people (16-24) the difference is even clearer. 13.3% of young men have been the victims of violent crime, compared to just 4.3% of young women.

    Of course, we’re talking about stranger violence here. Domestic violence, and violence as a result of theft, are recorded as much more gender-neutral. So let’s take those out of the equation, and only look at the column called ‘Stranger’ in the violent crime table. What a surprise: 2.2% of men have been violently attacked by a stranger, compared to 0.6% of women. If you rounded up 100 women, not even a whole one would have been the victim of violent crime. So don’t give us the whole ‘all women need to be scared of stranger violence’ speech. It has no factual basis whatsoever.

    What is worse though, is that you used that myth to erase men. Not only have you said that stranger violence against women is incredibly common (official records say otherwise), but you’ve explicitly said that men don’t have to worry about it. Seriously? The average man’s risk of a stranger attacking him is 3-4 times greater than that of an average women, so you are spouting nonsense. Looking in the 16-24 row again, 6.5% of young men have been attacked by strangers, and 1.3% of young women have. That’s exactly 5 times more men. You were saying?

    Stranger violence is not something that only women have to be scared of, and actually women are pretty privileged in being relatively safe from it. Get any other notion out of your head. As far as I can see, being a young male is actually the biggest risk factor. Your rate also increases, by the way, if you are white and able-bodied. 1.4% of white people are victims of stranger violence, with the next highest rates being 1.3% of mixed race people and 1.2% of black people. Asians, Chinese, and other are tied on 0.7%. 1.1% of people with a long-standing illness or disability were attacked, compared to 1.4% of people without one. I suspect gender and sexual identities will be a massive factor but, of those recorded, that 6.5% is unparalleled. Maybe, before suggesting that men don’t face the problem of stranger violence, you should check that the facts don’t show the complete opposite. Men are the victims of 79% of stranger violence. Now, with that in mind, read that quote again.

    The survey did show that women over-estimated the rate of crime more than men did, and that they tended to be more afraid of being the victim, even when in truth they made up the minority of cases. 18% of women worry about violent crime, compared to just 7% of men. That’s a problem. But going around, making speeches about how only women need to worry about violence? That’s making the problem worse for everyone.

    For the record, I know men who have been seriously hurt in a random attack by a stranger, I’ve been verbally harassed just walking around, I feel fear when I’m out walking alone, and I have always done the key-knuckle thing. You have absolutely no ide
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    The sexism lies in them thinking they have the right to harass me because of my gender.
    Did they specifically state that they thought they had the right to harass you because of your gender? If not, how do you know?

    Seems like you're doing what many people do in real life and on everyday sexism, and falsely label cases of sexual harassment/assault as sexism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Converse)
    Did they specifically state that they thought they had the right to harass you because of your gender? If not, how do you know?

    Seems like you're doing what many people do in real life and on everyday sexism, and falsely label cases of sexual harassment/assault as sexism.
    I know because the hatred and lack of respect of women fosters these kinds of actions. And even if it isn't exactly "sexism", that doesn't make it feel any less humiliating and demeaning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    I know because the hatred and lack of respect of women fosters these kinds of actions.
    So you know at all then. You're assuming that it must have been.

    And even if it isn't exactly "sexism", that doesn't make it feel any less humiliating and demeaning.
    I never said it did.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So a woman can be a bishop then?
    Play football (or tennis etc) with men?
    Serve combat roles?

    You seem to forget that until last December insurance/annuity rates were gender specific.
    1. It's religion what the **** do you expect?

    2. Men are physically superior, women would get battered.

    3. Same as 2. If 50 men and 50 women had a fight who would win? Women already pass lesser tests than men in the military, no need to drag the blokes down too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    Why else would they wolf whistle me or grab my backside?
    Because they're sex pests/perverts/generally disrespectful people?

    These people most likely wouldn't do it to a man.
    They more than likely do it to people they're attracted to, and as they are likely only attracted to women, that's the only people they'll end up doing it to.

    And for all you know they do it to men all the time. What you and a lot of people on ES are doing are saying an event that isn't sexist by nature, must be sexist if it is a man doing it to a woman.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    Why else would they wolf whistle me or grab my backside? These people most likely wouldn't do it to a man.
    Oh come off it. If they'd done something more socially polite and, say, asked you if you wanted to go get a coffee, which I also doubt they would have done to a man, that's sexual discrimination by your definition.

    Not to condone sexual harassment, but it's a very different issue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Serve combat roles?
    In the US, yes, so possibly in the UK soon.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.