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

There is very little need for feminism in the UK Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjpneed)
    I'm all for gender equality. However, it's when feminists start being completely superfluous it just degenerates into pompous whining about phrases so and so said, e.g. 'man up'. Get a grip and focus on bigger issues, it makes me embarrassed that it would even be seriously argued. I read recently about 'gender neutral' public toilets... sometimes political correctness just becomes a joke.
    Actually, one of the big factors keeping women in the home during Victorian and Edwardian times was the fact that there were no public toilets for women. If you can't use the toilet in public, as simple as that function is, then you're limited in your range from home and the length of time you can be away from it. It kept women out of sight and in the home.

    Unfortunately, for various reasons, many trans people have issues with using either designated male or female toilets... issues that range from confidence, self image etc, to full on verbal and physical abuse. The idea behind gender neutral toilets is that it means that a trans person can use the loo with the same confidence and take it for granted as much as non-trans people do. I fail to see why that's "political correctness". It's a functional, practical argument.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jjpneed)
    I'm all for gender equality. However, it's when feminists start being completely superfluous it just degenerates into pompous whining about phrases so and so said, e.g. 'man up'. Get a grip and focus on bigger issues, it makes me embarrassed that it would even be seriously argued. I read recently about 'gender neutral' public toilets... sometimes political correctness just becomes a joke.
    Totally agree with this. I'm all for women wanting equal rights, but some of the methods they use and arguments they put forward are beyond ridiculous. I've had a couple of discussions with my housemate who is a feminist, and she seems to think that discussing 'rape' is her strongest argument for feminism. Tell me this, can women be charged for raping men? Do women know that men can also be rape victims as well? She started telling me that we need to introduce 'rape kits' in order to determine whether a victim was raped or not. As far as I'm aware, these are already about and she seems to think that we choose not to use them, stupid.

    I do agree there is little need for feminism. From what I've read and heard from feminists, they seem to think that most men are rapists, and that we should address it more seriously. They're promoting women to get equal pay, job opportunities, equal everyday treatment. They don't promote anything for men, they still expect men to hold the door open for them, not to punch them ect. They only want to be equal when it suits them, which in itself is not equal. This is why I think feminism is a waste of time, I'm all for equalists, but there seriously is little need for feminism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Actually, one of the big factors keeping women in the home during Victorian and Edwardian times was the fact that there were no public toilets for women. If you can't use the toilet in public, as simple as that function is, then you're limited in your range from home and the length of time you can be away from it. It kept women out of sight and in the home.
    I'd imagine it was because women were in the home, that there were no toilets for women; not the other way around. The main reason women didn't work outside the home, in times gone by, was that work was largely VERY physical, and hence men were more suited to it. The workplace, even fifty years ago, was pretty horrendous a place to be, for the main part, with most jobs being dirty, dangerous, loud, smelly, and soul-destroying, with long hours and hardly any rights. Even the MINORITY of office jobs were incredibly tedious in nature. Being kept out of the workplace then was not a bad thing, to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ronove)
    There is very much a debate on whether wearing any particular type of clothing makes you a more likely target or not. I'm sorry but I just can't go along with the whole 'common sense'/armchair logic of 'I would never rape someone, but those people who do rape do so because the girl was wearing just too sexual an outfit'. We're talking about rapists here, why argue from the angle of 'common sense'?
    It may be hard to say exactly, but it sounds plausible, to me, that there could be a link between the two.

    If there's a line whereby a rapist will either make the move or not make the move, according to how 'sluttily' a girl is dressed, surely that's something of an implication that many men have this kind of boundary, and so in that case, lecturing to men as a whole (which most men are quite insulted by) should make a difference.
    We're talking about rapists, not "many men".

    You can't argue that men aren't 'rapists waiting to happen', just waiting around for the right level of provocation, and then use the normal male psyche to reason out why a rapist chooses to rape in a given circumstance.
    You can, because likely the only (albeit huge) difference is how evil rapists are, as compared to average men.

    It wouldn't be a harmful suggestion if it did not result in people thinking 'ah, poor girl, but did you see how she was dressed?' or anything even hinting at something like it. Argue from a point which isn't based in evidence all you like, but don't let it affect how people are expected to behave and how victims of crimes are judged.
    Personally, I don't see how it DOES affect how victims of rape are judged. I just don't see evidence of rape victims being blamed because of what they were wearing. Can you show me any newspaper articles, in which a rape victim was blamed on such a basis?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    I'd imagine it was because women were in the home, that there were no toilets for women; not the other way around. The main reason women didn't work outside the home, in times gone by, was that work was largely VERY physical, and hence men were more suited to it. The workplace, even fifty years ago, was pretty horrendous a place to be, for the main part, with most jobs being dirty, dangerous, loud, smelly, and soul-destroying, with long hours and hardly any rights. Even the MINORITY of office jobs were incredibly tedious in nature. Being kept out of the workplace then was not a bad thing, to be honest.
    Actually, it was very much down to that - and thus, why would women *need* public toilets... which given the restrictions implicit in their non-existence, is a problematic attitude in itself. It was also very much to do with the attitude that the woman's place was in supporting the husband and in the home...

    ... but whichever you consider it to be, my argument on this occasion was absolutely nothing to do with modern feminism, and the results are the same. My argument was everything to do with stating that ensuring that trans people can confidently venture out into public life to the fullest extent is not mere "political correctness".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Actually, it was very much down to that - and thus, why would women *need* public toilets...
    Hang on, a minute ago, you claimed one of the biggest factors keeping women in the home was the lack of public toilets for them; now, you seem to be saying the fact there weren't any was symptomatic of the fact that women were in the home.

    It was also very much to do with the attitude that the woman's place was in supporting the husband and in the home...
    But, given how utterly horrendous working conditions, pretty much across the board, were at the time, what is wrong with this? As if the alternative was any better?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Actually when a man goes into working in traditional jobs like a primary school teacher, it's because of feminists that he gets labeled a pedophile, your the problem not egalitarians, by proposing ideas like men created a rape culture which is non-existing, your labelling men in general as sex offenders.

    The slut walk is pointless, blaming a man for committing rape the same way as blaming someone for murder, is right, but blaming men in general for rape? No, you don't exactly see all men standing out on the streets sexually assaulting women like it's a casual thing, it's just abhorrent to say this stuff.

    For example say there was a drug dealer and she was selling heroin and thousands of men became addicted to it, do I blame all women for men because of this or do I blame the women that is selling the heroin? As a rapist like a drug dealer will usually have multiple victims, it's incorrect to assume that for every single drug addict there's a dealer.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Woah, woah, woah. When did I ever mention slutwalks? You brought that one in. I actually find signs held up at the slutwalks saying things like "Men are culutrally encouraged to rape" and "anyone who laughs at rape jokes is a rape sympathiser" to be utterly wrong.

    When rape occures, I blame the rapist, not men in general. You are the one bringing examples of rape into this, I was talking about sexism and sexual harassment in the work place.

    And feminists label male primary school teachers as paedophiles? Ummm... no they don't?

    And historically, there very much was a raple culture, the whole marital rape not being an issue, and women who were raped having to marry their offenders afterwards. You can see examples of that in the Bible. Thankfully this doesn't exist anymore in Western society, so please don't say I'm going around snarking that men are all rapists, that is just not true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    And historically, there very much was a raple culture, the whole marital rape not being an issue, and women who were raped having to marry their offenders afterwards. You can see examples of that in the Bible. Thankfully this doesn't exist anymore in Western society, so please don't say I'm going around snarking that men are all rapists, that is just not true.
    Male rape wasn't recognised by law, until 1994. Does this mean that there was a "rape culture" against men, too?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    I have to say, that is not my experience of the movement. I posted on a men's rights site, albeit as a 'guest', for a time, and my gender was never a problem, neither did the vast majority of people there have extreme views. I don't for one moment think that those two examples are representative of the movement; although I admit to not being too familiar with the sites mentioned. I have spent time, for 'research' purposes, on feminist sites/forums, too; and can honestly say the hatred and bias there was far worse. Even the misogynistic, minority of element of the men's movement, from what I can see, doesn't generally believe in there being laws which favour men. But look at the feminist movement. Hasn't even Harriet Harman (a feminist, with considerable power (how many MRAs have POWER???)) spoken out about closing all women's prisons, to make more space for men's prisons? And as to how drunken consent should class as 'rape', when it's the woman who's drunk, but, of course, not when it's the other way around? Aren't feminists 'pro-choice', yet at the same time think that men should have to pay child support.....how is THAT equal? Hatred isn't too dangerous, in itself; hatred, bias and power, which the feminist movement have, but the men's rights movement doesn't, ARE.

    As for the idea of female suffrage being bad, well, I did come across one guy (one of the more extreme ones), who argued that women shouldn't have the vote, because it caused politicians to pander to women, and bias against men. As much as I obviously disagree with the idea of women not having the vote, I find it hard to disagree with the latter point. The vast majority of politicians pander to feminism; most female MPs seem to BE feminists. Seems to contradict the idea of our society being sexist against women, to be honest. Harriet Harman has stated that divorce rates increasing is a good thing, that it's not necessarily the case that fatherhood is a good thing, and that, if she were prime minister, that there wouldn't be enough airports in the country, to accommodate all the men who would want to leave. And she was the DEPUTY LEADER of the ruling party, at the time. Would any country that was as bad as feminists claim, elect into power a party with such a person as deputy?

    That sounds like a ploy, by feminists, to encourage men to support them. Most male feminists I've come across, are either gay, and are attracted to the links between feminism and homosexuality; or are about seven-stone, and shun masculinity because they feel like outcasts. Not to say that there's anything wrong with not adhering to stereotypes, but there's no need to join an extreme movement, either. Personally, I can think of few things less attractive, than a male feminist.
    Well ymmv but these are mainstream MRA sources I'm quoting and there are plenty of other examples, such as the notorious avoiceformen article that encouraged men on jury duty to vote not guilty in all rape cases no matter what the evidence. There's a reason MRAs are derided by the vast majority of people and struggle to gain support. I also find it funny you seem to think male feminists are the victim of some insidious ploy and yet deny the obvious undercurrents of misogyny in the MRA movement because a few of them weren't horrible to you. Also I really don't know what point you're trying to make by stereotyping male feminists like that, that whole thing seemed pretty unnecessary. Besides, shouldn't 7-stone males who feel emasculated by society be one of the key groups looked out for by MRAs? Like seriously, I don't even know. There's so little consistency among them, you might hear them bemoan 'alpha-maleism' and in the same breath tell a male they need to 'man up' and call their manhood into question. I've seen as much on this very forum. Anyway let's not forget MRAs have their own unattractive stereotypes. Fat, greasy, zero female contact. You get the picture.

    I really don't think MRAs need power when politics is so male dominated anyway and our entire economic and political system primarily benefits rich white males as it is. Your whole 'but we have feminists in government!' argument is pretty ridiculous, like saying 'Obama was elected! Racism is over!' Feminists in government doesn't show feminism isn't needed, it just shows it's making a difference, i.e. working.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Hang on, a minute ago, you claimed one of the biggest factors keeping women in the home was the lack of public toilets for them; now, you seem to be saying the fact there weren't any was symptomatic of the fact that women were in the home.
    Yes, And? Both are true - they feed into each other. This looks to me like argument for the sake of argument/



    But, given how utterly horrendous working conditions, pretty much across the board, were at the time, what is wrong with this? As if the alternative was any better?
    The alternative WAS better, and wasn't all about work. It started with Selfridge's in London, extending into West End Musicals as a social commentary and political force. It was the birth of the department store in the UK incidentally - a store that was created with women in mind first and foremost, and the first of it's kind here.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Well ymmv but these are mainstream MRA sources I'm quoting and there are plenty of other examples, such as the notorious avoiceformen article that encouraged men on jury duty to vote not guilty in all rape cases no matter what the evidence. There's a reason MRAs are derided by the vast majority of people and struggle to gain support. I also find it funny you seem to think male feminists are the victim of some insidious ploy and yet deny the obvious undercurrents of misogyny in the MRA movement because a few of them weren't horrible to you. Also I really don't know what point you're trying to make by stereotyping male feminists like that, that whole thing seemed pretty unnecessary. Besides, shouldn't 7-stone males who feel emasculated by society be one of the key groups looked out for by MRAs? Like seriously, I don't even know. There's so little consistency among them, you might hear them bemoan 'alpha-maleism' and in the same breath tell a male they need to 'man up' and call their manhood into question. I've seen as much on this very forum. Anyway let's not forget MRAs have their own unattractive stereotypes. Fat, greasy, zero female contact. You get the picture.

    I really don't think MRAs need power when politics is so male dominated anyway and our entire economic and political system primarily benefits rich white males as it is. Your whole 'but we have feminists in government!' argument is pretty ridiculous, like saying 'Obama was elected! Racism is over!' Feminists in government doesn't show feminism isn't needed, it just shows it's making a difference, i.e. working.
    Claiming people in favour of Male Rights are misogynists is just like claiming feminists are misandrists. While a minority in each movement probably are, the majority are very unlikely to hate the other gender.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    Well ymmv but these are mainstream MRA sources I'm quoting and there are plenty of other examples, such as the notorious avoiceformen article that encouraged men on jury duty to vote not guilty in all rape cases no matter what the evidence.
    So, it looks like that site's run by an extremist? Does that really mean the whole movement is bad? Like there aren't extreme feminists, too?

    There's a reason MRAs are derided by the vast majority of people and struggle to gain support.
    The suffragettes faced the same problem, once upon a time. A lack of support doesn't necessarily mean a lack of moral substance. That's like saying, also, that because feminism was derided, back in the day, that it was wrong.

    I also find it funny you seem to think male feminists are the victim of some insidious ploy
    I've never said anything of the sort.

    and yet deny the obvious undercurrents of misogyny in the MRA movement because a few of them weren't horrible to you.
    ALL the ones I came across, were NICE to me, on a large site. Might not be the whole movement, but then, neither is that site you keep mentioning.

    Also I really don't know what point you're trying to make by stereotyping male feminists like that, that whole thing seemed pretty unnecessary.
    You made an observation about male feminists, yourself; as did I.

    Besides, shouldn't 7-stone males who feel emasculated by society be one of the key groups looked out for by MRAs?
    Yes. And maybe they are?

    Like seriously, I don't even know. There's so little consistency among them
    Sounds like feminism, to me.

    I really don't think MRAs need power when politics is so male dominated anyway
    Doesn't necessarily make it benefit men. Are you denying that politicians appease feminism?

    and our entire economic and political system primarily benefits rich white males as it is.
    What? Because most rich people are white and male, you say the system benefits them? Equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily equal equality. Oriental children do better at school. Does this mean that the education system favours them? GIRLS do better at school. Does this mean the education system favours them?

    Your whole 'but we have feminists in government!' argument is pretty ridiculous, like saying 'Obama was elected! Racism is over!' Feminists in government doesn't show feminism isn't needed, it just shows it's making a difference, i.e. working.
    It shows that the political system is unlikely to favour men; after all, feminists in government - of which there are PLENTY - are unlikely to bias in favour of men, aren't they? And, no, it doesn't mean that racism is OVER, that Obama is president; only that it isn't, overall, a racist country; as the high number of feminists in government, illustrate that Britain isn't, overall, sexist against women.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    The alternative WAS better, and wasn't all about work. It started with Selfridge's in London, extending into West End Musicals as a social commentary and political force. It was the birth of the department store in the UK incidentally - a store that was created with women in mind first and foremost, and the first of it's kind here.
    Er, okay......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Er, okay......
    For the first time, Women were able to have independent lives away from home, where society catered specifically to their enjoyment. This development helped lay the foundations for the suffragette movement coming later... and eventually, the vote. I'd say that was better.

    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    I really don't think MRAs need power when politics is so male dominated anyway and our entire economic and political system primarily benefits rich white males as it is. Your whole 'but we have feminists in government!' argument is pretty ridiculous, like saying 'Obama was elected! Racism is over!' Feminists in government doesn't show feminism isn't needed, it just shows it's making a difference, i.e. working.
    I just wanted to add some numbers to that...

    4 women, 22 positions. - cabinet


    5 women, 32 positions. -Cabinet + attending cabinet


    122 ministerial positions: 23 occupied by women ... some of whom occupy more than one position (thus, fewer women than ministerial positions occupied by women)


    47 female Tory MPs out of 303 conservative seats.


    146 MPs female MP's in parliament. 650 seats total

    Approximate proportion of women in population: 50%
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    For the first time, Women were able to have independent lives away from home, where society catered specifically to their enjoyment. This development helped lay the foundations for the suffragette movement coming later... and eventually, the vote. I'd say that was better.



    I just wanted to add some numbers to that...

    4 women, 22 positions. - cabinet


    5 women, 32 positions. -Cabinet + attending cabinet


    122 ministerial positions: 23 occupied by women ... some of whom occupy more than one position (thus, fewer women than ministerial positions occupied by women)


    47 female Tory MPs out of 303 conservative seats.


    146 MPs female MP's in parliament. 650 seats total

    Approximate proportion of women in population: 50%
    Still doesn't necessarily equal DISCRIMINATION, or an economic system which favours men. Could be affected by numerous factors (as with the 'wage gap', discussed earlier in the thread). More than 50% of voters are female. How much power DO the MPs REALLY have?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Woah, woah, woah. When did I ever mention slutwalks? You brought that one in. I actually find signs held up at the slutwalks saying things like "Men are culutrally encouraged to rape" and "anyone who laughs at rape jokes is a rape sympathiser" to be utterly wrong.
    Men are culturally encouraged to rape? Are they on crack? I have heard a couple of rape jokes too, I don't like them, but I'd at least recognize that most people telling the jokes are not going to find rape acceptable! If we truly were living in a rape culture the men committing rape would get fined not ten years in prison!


    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    When rape occures, I blame the rapist, not men in general. You are the one bringing examples of rape into this, I was talking about sexism and sexual harassment in the work place.
    sexual harassment? Well I'd probably say that could be an issue for some women, but most men aren't that stupid, and it's illegal and women have legal protection under the law over this, as for sexism? Don't even go there, I've heard women say stuff very sexist, like men are only good for one thing, and men are useless, ect.


    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    And feminists label male primary school teachers as paedophiles? Ummm... no they don't?
    You do realize that about 1/3 of all primary schools don't even have one male teacher? Because feminists label men as rapey sex offenders, quite a bit of prejudice men face in this sector of work.... Thanks to your movement yes they do, they really really do.

    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    And historically, there very much was a raple culture, the whole marital rape not being an issue, and women who were raped having to marry their offenders afterwards. You can see examples of that in the Bible. Thankfully this doesn't exist anymore in Western society, so please don't say I'm going around snarking that men are all rapists, that is just not true.
    What on earth does the Bible have to do with modern western society? Yes the Bible was messed up, filled with stories of infanticide, murder, rape, war, and honor killings, that's because it was written in a time when society wasn't at the same stage it is at now, a bronze age book isn't relevant to this society's cultural customs and legal system. Your talking about a time when depression and schizophrenia was thought to be a demon in someone's body, a time when people believed that the earth was flat.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Still doesn't necessarily equal DISCRIMINATION, or an economic system which favours men. Could be affected by numerous factors (as with the 'wage gap', discussed earlier in the thread). More than 50% of voters are female. How much power DO the MPs REALLY have?
    I just gave some relevant numbers pursuant to a point, and made no further comment on them. Again - seems like arguing for the sake of arguing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    So, it looks like that site's run by an extremist? Does that really mean the whole movement is bad? Like there aren't extreme feminists, too?
    No. That's the whole point. Avoiceformen is the centre of MRA journalism. It's the closest thing they have to a mainstream outlet.

    The suffragettes faced the same problem, once upon a time. A lack of support doesn't necessarily mean a lack of moral substance. That's like saying, also, that because feminism was derided, back in the day, that it was wrong.
    No, not necessarily, but this is one of those cases where it does. You're not really saying much here.

    I've never said anything of the sort.
    What? You literally did though. I mentioned male feminists and you said it sounds like a 'ploy by feminists'. Like, that is literally what you said. Right there. Where I quoted your post. That you wrote. Where you called it a 'feminist ploy'. Which is what you said. In your post. That I was quoting.



    Doesn't necessarily make it benefit men. Are you denying that politicians appease feminism?



    What? Because most rich people are white and male, you say the system benefits them? Equality of opportunity doesn't necessarily equal equality. Oriental children do better at school. Does this mean that the education system favours them? GIRLS do better at school. Does this mean the education system favours them?



    It shows that the political system is unlikely to favour men; after all, feminists in government - of which there are PLENTY - are unlikely to bias in favour of men, aren't they? And, no, it doesn't mean that racism is OVER, that Obama is president; only that it isn't, overall, a racist country; as the high number of feminists in government, illustrate that Britain isn't, overall, sexist against women.
    Yes our ~80% male parliament is unlikely to benefit men because there are some feminists in the mix. Christ. I'm sorry but equality of opportunity doesn't exist in the real world. It only exists in lawbooks. It's like you realise white males are the main beneficiaries of our economic and political system but fail to question how and why this came to be and continues to happen. Are you really that blindfolded to history and sociology?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    No. That's the whole point. Avoiceformen is the centre of MRA journalism. It's the closest thing they have to a mainstream outlet.
    I'll have to take your word for it. I'll point out that some of the most famous feminists, such as Germaine Greer, have said pretty hideous things about men; don't suppose this will bother you, though.

    No, not necessarily, but this is one of those cases where it does. You're not really saying much here.
    I'M not saying much?! When all you can say is: "but this is one of the cases where it does". You seemed to use the logic that a lack of support meant a lack of substance; I pointed out that this wasn't necessarily the case, highlighting your own hypocrisy, being as you would obviously claim feminism was necessary, especially in the past, and that it didn't have much support, back then. Your only further support of your own claim, is then the ten words I quote above. Hilarious.

    What? You literally did though. I mentioned male feminists and you said it sounds like a 'ploy by feminists'. Like, that is literally what you said. Right there. Where I quoted your post. That you wrote. Where you called it a 'feminist ploy'. Which is what you said. In your post. That I was quoting.
    I said that suggesting feminism was good for men, sounded like a feminist ploy; that is NOT the same as suggesting that male feminists, PER SE, are victims of a feminist ploy. I haven't even said that any men necessarily bought into it; therefore, I am not even necessarily saying that ANY male feminists are necessarily victims of this ploy, despite its existence; let alone male feminists, per se. Seriously, you're going to have to do better than this.

    Yes our ~80% male parliament is unlikely to benefit men because there are some feminists in the mix. Christ. I'm sorry but equality of opportunity doesn't exist in the real world. It only exists in lawbooks. It's like you realise white males are the main beneficiaries of our economic and political system but fail to question how and why this came to be and continues to happen. Are you really that blindfolded to history and sociology?
    So, which laws are anti-female? Politicians make the laws, no? Yet you then admit equality exists in lawbooks? So, how is the gender-imbalance in politics, biasing against women?

    Oh, and please answer me a question: how does our society bias against, say, black people? Being as you mention "white", also?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    I'll have to take your word for it. I'll point out that some of the most famous feminists, such as Germaine Greer, have said pretty hideous things about men; don't suppose this will bother you, though.



    I'M not saying much?! When all you can say is: "but this is one of the cases where it does". You seemed to use the logic that a lack of support meant a lack of substance; I pointed out that this wasn't necessarily the case, highlighting your own hypocrisy, being as you would obviously claim feminism was necessary, especially in the past, and that it didn't have much support, back then. Your only further support of your own claim, is then the ten words I quote above. Hilarious.
    Yes, you're not saying much. MRAs struggle to gain support because most people notice the rampant misogyny in the movement. This is a True Thing, that I have Observed. The reason I'm not saying much is because I've said all I can already. I don't really have a response to you saying 'a lack of support doesn't necessarily mean a lack of moral substance' because in this case it simply doesn't apply. Besides which there's a difference between saying 'a lack of support means a lack of moral substance' and saying 'this movement lacks support because of a lack of moral substance'. It is a thing that happens, y'know. Look at the EDL.



    I said that suggesting feminism was good for men, sounded like a feminist ploy; that is NOT the same as suggesting that male feminists, PER SE, are victims of a feminist ploy. I haven't even said that any men necessarily bought into it; therefore, I am not even necessarily saying that ANY male feminists are necessarily victims of this ploy, despite its existence; let alone male feminists, per se. Seriously, you're going to have to do better than this.
    This is just... What? You really don't see how your post strongly implied that at least some males become feminists because of this ploy that you think exists? And wouldn't that make them a victim of said ploy? After all somebody on the receiving end of a ploy is necessarily the victim of that ploy, right? This 'per se' **** is such a cop out.

    So, which laws are anti-female? Politicians make the laws, no? Yet you then admit equality exists in lawbooks? So, how is the gender-imbalance in politics, biasing against women?

    Oh, and please answer me a question: how does our society bias against, say, black people? Being as you mention "white", also?
    But, that's what I'm saying? Equality exists in law but not in society, which is why feminism is still relevant.

    Do the words 'institutional racism' mean anything to you?
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

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.