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

There is very little need for feminism in the UK Watch

    Offline

    3
    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.
    Those things happen to guys too. These are just disrespectful people, both men and women.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Haha, love that. It's sad but true, if you dare to say anything about feminism you're screamed down as a man-hating radical. I'm pretty sure the same thing doesn't happen when people talk about racism or homophobia. Nobody is saying "but white people/straight people suffer discrimination" because they know that's not the point.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    Probably would after a few pints once the "banter" with the lads has started :rolleyes:

    Seriously though, that's an awful argument, they do it because they are sexually attracted to you, why would you then say "they wouldn't do that to a man" if they are presumably, not gay?

    I honestly think some people just want a reason to be offended. I think it's tacky to whistle at women in the street as well, I wouldn't do it because you just look like a loser/lout, but I just take it at face value like I imagine most reasonable people would. Why does there have to be some underlying explanation as to how it's sexist? Some women like being whistled at, it's a compliment. Seriously get a grip.

    As for touching you, well that happens to men too by the way. I can give you three examples of where I've been inappropriately touched by a woman in public.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    x
    Love how you've realised you're wrong and so started to ignore people's replies to you. Typical feminist behaviour tbh. You don't even have the dignity to admit you were wrong. What's especially hilarious though, as well as ironic, is that you actually come off as more sexist then everyone that has harassed you.

    Ciao.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragonfly07)
    I think some of those statistics come from the shelter and others don't. Look for the original post where I quoted it, there were many sources there.
    Odd, a few moments previous to this response of yours, the figures ALL came from the shelters. You don't seem too sure, of the figures you hold dear. Perhaps you need to actually be familiar with how 'statistics' are arrived at, before swearing by them as fact?
    Offline

    0
    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 bad, but it's not an example of sexism. Why not? Because they don't do it because they see women as inferior; they do it because they FANCY women. It isn't a fair comparison. For it to be a fair comparison, the people doing it would have to be bi-sexual, but deem it to be okay to okay to do these things to women, but not to men. Rape is another example. A hideous crime, which should carry the harshest penalties, but using the fact that most victims are women, as an example of sexism against women, is almost like saying that the fact that male circumcision happens only to males, is an example of sexism against men. It happens to women almost by default, because of sexuality and biology.

    It doesn't make such issues any less SERIOUS, but you seem to be misunderstanding the reasons behind them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So a woman can be a bishop then?
    The bible explicitly forbids this. That may make the bible sexist, but you can hardly complain, then, that they aren't allowed. Don't like it? Then shun religion, like most young people do. And, let's be honest, how many women does this affect negatively? How many women (or men) have aspirations to become bishops?

    Play football (or tennis etc) with men?
    Given that men can't play with women, either, where's the sexism?

    Serve combat roles?
    It's a tricky one. Technically potentially unfair, but, again, doesn't affect many women. Also, some have argued that having men and women fight together on the front line would hamper effectiveness, as male soldiers might wish to protect female fellow soldiers etc etc. Given how important defence is, I don't think this is an issue which should be pursued.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm just going to leave this here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I'm just going to leave this here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522
    More stats?

    You can prove anything when statistics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wilfred Little)
    More stats?

    You can prove anything when statistics.
    :confused:

    So my point isn't valid? All I'm doing is giving proof, from an article published today, that the pay gap is very real. It's sad knowing I won't earn as much as a man just because I'm a woman. It's just another reason why there IS need for feminism in the UK.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I'm just going to leave this here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21698522
    This doesn't say that it's due to discrimination. It could be due to women being less career focused (choosing to remain in a lower position, rather than giving up certain luxuries and/or take risks to gain higher positions). It could be due to women being a little behind men due to maternity leave (if you take a year out, clearly you're going to be a year behind other employees). It could be a reflection of pay rises due to working harder - full-time male employees work longer hours than full-time female employees, for example. It could be the types of industries that are worked in, or the size of the campnies worked for, or such.

    To show a gender pay gap by discrimination and not choice, you'll need to demonstrate that women earn less when on the same roles, ability and working hours.

    As a side-note, for young childless women, the gender pay gap is reversed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    :confused:

    So my point isn't valid? All I'm doing is giving proof, from an article published today, that the pay gap is very real. It's sad knowing I won't earn as much as a man just because I'm a woman. It's just another reason why there IS need for feminism in the UK.
    I've asked this before so I'll ask it again -- if it was real then why don't companies just employ women on the cheap? Why would they waste money paying men higher wages if they could get a woman to do it cheaper?

    There are far too many variables to just look at that at face value and take it as fact. 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape you know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Currently, 95% of child custody cases are awarded to the woman. The women who say its because the children need their mother more - the same ones who say more women go to uni because they are less disruptive etc - are using the same type of thinking as when being told men earn more because they do a better job than women....


    Currently, the country is sexist. Both towards men and women, but in different areas. In order to truly make progress in eliminating sexism, first we have to get rid of the concept of feminism - which by its name means privilege towards females - EQUALITY is what we should aim for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBritishArmy)
    You want to eliminate families? Are you on crack?
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    Do you know what "nuclear" and "patriarchal" means?

    Think the user above gave the same response I would.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Safiya122)
    Think the user above gave the same response I would.
    Why is there something incorrect about the mother wanting to look after the children, is it in your eyes demeaning to her? Is it wrong for the mother to look after the child more? And why shouldn't a man be allowed to be the primary breadwinner in the family? Is it sexist?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Why is there something incorrect about the mother wanting to look after the children, is it in your eyes demeaning to her? Is it wrong for the mother to look after the child more? And why shouldn't a man be allowed to be the primary breadwinner in the family? Is it sexist?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ... So you don't know what a nuclear family is either. Good contribution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    ... So you don't know what a nuclear family is either. Good contribution.
    Nuclear 2 parents 2 children. As in I believe the alpha particle? And there's something in this structure of family that's wrong...how exactly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHappy_J)
    What is it with all these anti feminist threads? Has there suddenly been an influx in bitter men whove had bad breakups or something?
    Yeh. Don't address the points that are made, just perform a (baseless) character assassination on the people who make then.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Nuclear 2 parents 2 children. As in I believe the alpha particle? And there's something in this structure of family that's wrong...how exactly?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Two adults and their children. Where is the implication that the mother takes care of the children and the father is the primary earner in that?

    In response to your question, though, of course it's not sexist to have one person earning more than another and the lower earner being the one to take time out from work to look after the children (if they decide that one of them should), it's just common sense, unless the higher earner would prefer to be the one to look after the children and they're happy to rely on the lower income. What point do you think you're refuting by asking the question?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    Yeh. Don't address the points that are made, just perform a (baseless) character assassination on the people who make then.
    What's with the increase in feminists? Has there suddenly been an increase in fat, ugly lesbians who've had their arses pinched by ugly men or something?
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

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.