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 Captain Haddock)
    Yes, you're not saying much. MRAs struggle to gain support because most people notice the rampant misogyny in the movement.
    Feminism struggles to gain support, because most people notice the rampant misandry in the movement, meanwhile. You're not doing too much to discredit an entire movement, just by providing a couple of links; no more than someone who points out Germaine Greer/Julie Bindel/Harriet Harman's misandry.

    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.
    If you've said all you can already, I'd say there's quite a lack of substance to your points.

    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.
    As always: because a feminist says it, it MUST be true, hey?

    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.
    It's just you seem to say so little else, to support your viewpoint. When it's the main thing you say in defence, expect it to be scrutinised.

    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.
    You mentioned "male feminists", not "some male feminists". And, no, my post doesn't NECESSARILY imply at least some male feminists are victims of it; and even if it DID, there's a difference between "some" and "many", for example.

    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?
    You suggested that the 80% male parliament was of benefit to men. I asked you for examples of how, and you have failed to answer this. You're saying equality exists in law; in which case, how is the 80% parliament, in itself, favouring men?

    As for my question about black people: can you answer it more directly? Maybe you're suggesting that the fact that black children underperform at school, is a sign of white privilege?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    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.
    Yes but even though they have some bad points they have some very noteworthy points, what about the fact it's not rape when a woman uses her vagina? Or the fact that men almost never get their kids in paternity cases? And pay the sheer majority of child support payments?

    Although I don't like MRA they have very serious issues that they bring up, that desperately need to be addressed, like a big lack of support for male victims of domestic violence, sexual assult, men almost never get their children in court ect.... Unless you think these issues don't matter.


    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    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.
    How exactly does feminism help men? For example, the pay gap they famously quote, when you look at it at face value it looks bad, but when you look at it, job for job, same company same position as its illegal to discriminate on race or gender it's quite silly really all it shows us is women choose job satisfaction over salary, and then there's the fact that men pay the vast, vast majority of alimony payments and child support payments, it probably pretty much closes the pay gap.


    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    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?
    Equality exists in law? What about forced envelopment not counting as rape, female bias in divorce and paternity courts, MGM being legal? That's what you call equality?

    Yes they do, but there is no institutional sexism, considering that women make up 51% of the human race! And if women were oppressed how are they even able to go university, or get a graduate job?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Feminism struggles to gain support, because most people notice the rampant misandry in the movement, meanwhile. You're not doing too much to discredit an entire movement, just by providing a couple of links; no more than someone who points out Germaine Greer/Julie Bindel/Harriet Harman's misandry.
    You complain about how we elect feminists to government and now you're saying feminism lacks support. Which is it?

    How else am I supposed to prove, on the internet, that a movement, which exists solely on the internet, is misogynist in any way other than providing links to what they say?


    If you've said all you can already, I'd say there's quite a lack of substance to your points.
    It wasn't exactly a major point though, was it? It was an appendage to my larger point that, yes, the MRA movement is filled with misogyny.

    As always: because a feminist says it, it MUST be true, hey?
    Huh?

    It's just you seem to say so little else, to support your viewpoint. When it's the main thing you say in defence, expect it to be scrutinised.
    Just because you focus unnecessarily on it it doesn't make it my 'main' anything.

    You mentioned "male feminists", not "some male feminists". And, no, my post doesn't NECESSARILY imply at least some male feminists are victims of it; and even if it DID, there's a difference between "some" and "many", for example.
    'NOT NECESSARILY, per se ablah blah blah' come the **** on. Two can play this ****ty game. I never said 'all male feminists', I simply said 'male feminists' which could be referring to anywhere between 2 and infinity male feminists. Checkmate :rolleyes:

    You suggested that the 80% male parliament was of benefit to men. I asked you for examples of how, and you have failed to answer this. You're saying equality exists in law; in which case, how is the 80% parliament, in itself, favouring men?

    As for my question about black people: can you answer it more directly? Maybe you're suggesting that the fact that black children underperform at school, is a sign of white privilege?
    The fact we have an 80% male parliament is an issue in and of itself. Why is it that white men so disproportionately occupy positions of power, and not just in government?

    Where to go from here? I have a feeling you're trying to bait me into a debate about white privilege and frankly I'm not interested.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)


    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%
    Maybe that's because men are better suited at being politicians ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)

    The fact we have an 80% male parliament is an issue in and of itself. Why is it that white men so disproportionately occupy positions of power, and not just in government?


    Where to go from here? I have a feeling you're trying to bait me into a debate about white privilege and frankly I'm not interested.
    Men also disproportionately occupy cells in prison.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Men also disproportionately occupy cells in prison.
    And disproportionatly lose their kids in divorce and paternity courts....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    And disproportionatly lose their kids in divorce and paternity courts....

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    And disproportionately sleep rough/commit suicide/die young/are unemployed/leave school with nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    And disproportionately sleep rough/commit suicide/die young/are unemployed/leave school with nothing.
    Yes, but as feminsts will say, it's because men are lazy and stupid and are only after one thing, it's only when women are not doing well it's due to discrimination. Like in Sweden for example 90% of people getting A* or whatever their equivalent is are females, apparently the answer when men are doing vastly worse than women in education is because women are naturally harder workers instead of the real answer being a heavily gender geared education, if it was the other way around, women would hate it and would say that it's due to sexism, for 66% of all people going to university to be female, it's quite an obvious sign of gender geared education.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Yes, but as feminsts will say, it's because men are lazy and stupid and are only after one thing, it's only when women are not doing well it's due to discrimination. Like in Sweden for example 90% of people getting A* or whatever their equivalent is are females, apparently the answer when men are doing vastly worse than women in education is because women are naturally harder workers instead of the real answer being a heavily gender geared education, if it was the other way around, women would hate it and would say that it's due to sexism, for 66% of all people going to university to be female, it's quite an obvious sign of gender geared education.
    Women get higher grades = they're harder workers
    Politicians are mainly men = patriarchal, discriminatory society
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    You complain about how we elect feminists to government and now you're saying feminism lacks support. Which is it?
    It doesn't struggle to gain support, overall, but it is a factor which puts some people off supporting it.

    How else am I supposed to prove, on the internet, that a movement, which exists solely on the internet, is misogynist in any way other than providing links to what they say?
    Providing more links and excerpts? Proving that such misogynistic elements outweigh the non-misogynistic parts? You're the one making an assertion; the onus is on YOU to prove it.

    Huh?
    I was referring to the way in which you seem to deem it enough to state, "in this case it doesn't apply"; and was suggesting this to be a common feministic trait (i.e. making claims, without proper evidence).

    Just because you focus unnecessarily on it it doesn't make it my 'main' anything.
    I don't see you saying much else.

    'NOT NECESSARILY, per se ablah blah blah' come the **** on. Two can play this ****ty game. I never said 'all male feminists', I simply said 'male feminists' which could be referring to anywhere between 2 and infinity male feminists. Checkmate :rolleyes:
    So, the next time someone talks negatively about "women" or "blacks", it won't matter, as they're potentially only referring to as few as two of either, right? Either way, you deemed it necessary to follow up on my "ploy" statement; so please don't then make out that it's ME being pedantic.

    The fact we have an 80% male parliament is an issue in and of itself. Why is it that white men so disproportionately occupy positions of power, and not just in government?
    You're moving the goalposts. You suggested that the fact that so many men were in power, was disadvantageous to women, IN AND OF ITSELF; now, you're examining the issue of how this is the case, to begin with....which is a separate issue. To answer your question: because women choose more of a family/career-balance, and because male-female I.Q.s are distributed differently, leading to more genius men, and more retarded men. If there are more men at the top of this scale, more men are likely to be at the top of their game; in the same way fewer women will be at the bottom.

    In keeping with this, may I also ask you the following two questions: why do men so disproportionately occupy the LOWEST positions of society (such as being homeless, dying younger, being without qualifications and being unemployed)? And why do you ignore this side of things? Why focus only on certain areas of the equation? Could it be that certain facts simply support your AGENDA, and others don't?

    Where to go from here? I have a feeling you're trying to bait me into a debate about white privilege and frankly I'm not interested.
    Don't mention it, if you can't handle it when someone challenges you to actually DEFEND AND SUBSTANTIATE your viewpoints.

    Like most feminists, your stance seems to be, "this is the way things are, because I say so, and if you question me, you're just baiting".

    BEYOND arrogance, to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Yes, but as feminsts will say, it's because men are lazy and stupid and are only after one thing, it's only when women are not doing well it's due to discrimination. Like in Sweden for example 90% of people getting A* or whatever their equivalent is are females, apparently the answer when men are doing vastly worse than women in education is because women are naturally harder workers instead of the real answer being a heavily gender geared education, if it was the other way around, women would hate it and would say that it's due to sexism, for 66% of all people going to university to be female, it's quite an obvious sign of gender geared education.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Women get higher grades = they're harder workers
    Politicians are mainly men = patriarchal, discriminatory society
    Exactly. This is why feminism is so transparent. It's the 'selective reasoning'. When there's a wage gap, articles are posted, and merely pointing out its existence is enough to illustrate sexism against women; no scientific analysis necessary.

    When women do better? Women are.....just doing better. I've heard feminists say, "look at how women earn less, despite doing better at school". You could just as easily say, "look at how boys do worse at school, despite going on to earn more".

    If you're going to employ a certain logic (i.e. that 'equality' and 'equality of opportunity' are the same, and hence, if a group is doing worse than another, it's down to discrimination), then you've got to apply it evenly; something feminism fails miserably in doing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Women get higher grades = they're harder workers
    Politicians are mainly men = patriarchal, discriminatory society
    Yes, that sounds just like feminism, it's funny that they even pretend to like men in my opinion, they should just fess up and admit they hate man.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Exactly. This is why feminism is so transparent. It's the 'selective reasoning'. When there's a wage gap, articles are posted, and merely pointing out its existence is enough to illustrate sexism against women; no scientific analysis necessary.

    When women do better? Women are.....just doing better. I've heard feminists say, "look at how women earn less, despite doing better at school". You could just as easily say, "look at how boys do worse at school, despite going on to earn more".

    If you're going to employ a certain logic (i.e. that 'equality' and 'equality of opportunity' are the same, and hence, if a group is doing worse than another, it's down to discrimination), then you've got to apply it evenly; something feminism fails miserably in doing.
    I aggree, if feminism really did care about men then they'd be working on areas that men are disadvantaged in too, in other words that means areas that affect men badly too. But they don't and won't, because they don't care about men, they never have its quite abhorrent to say men are these chauvinistic pigs that only care about sex, irony of a feminist calling us sexist by highlighting a male stereotype really.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    It doesn't struggle to gain support, overall, but it is a factor which puts some people off supporting it.



    Providing more links and excerpts? Proving that such misogynistic elements outweigh the non-misogynistic parts? You're the one making an assertion; the onus is on YOU to prove it.
    So.. Links. Right.

    So, the next time someone talks negatively about "women" or "blacks", it won't matter, as they're potentially only referring to as few as two of either, right? Either way, you deemed it necessary to follow up on my "ploy" statement; so please don't then make out that it's ME being pedantic.
    So you got my point that arguing semantics is a tiresome way to go about a debate? Good.

    Yes I felt the need to follow up on your ploy statement. It was a stupid point, which you probably realise given your attempts to wiggle out of it with fidgety pedantic nonsense. A ploy. Really now.


    You're moving the goalposts. You suggested that the fact that so many men were in power, was disadvantageous to women, IN AND OF ITSELF; now, you're examining the issue of how this is the case, to begin with....which is a separate issue. To answer your question: because women choose more of a family/career-balance, and because male-female I.Q.s are distributed differently, leading to more genius men, and more retarded men. If there are more men at the top of this scale, more men are likely to be at the top of their game; in the same way fewer women will be at the bottom.
    Are you seriously suggesting that the reason more men are in power is because of minute differences in average IQ? Is this really the level of discourse we're debating at?

    Why are men and women pushed into performing certain roles?


    In keeping with this, may I also ask you the following two questions: why do men so disproportionately occupy the LOWEST positions of society (such as being homeless, dying younger, being without qualifications and being unemployed)? And why do you ignore this side of things? Why focus only on certain areas of the equation? Could it be that certain facts simply support your AGENDA, and others don't?
    What do you mean ignoring? I can be a member of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society but that doesn't mean I don't care about the plight of the Snow Leopard. Movements don't need to be all-inclusive nor do you have to only pick one.

    Men are more likely to be pushed/pressured into positions which result in those things while women are excluded from them. Simply put it's because of the same gender roles that feminists want to get rid of. But it isn't gender based oppression; it isn't because women occupy a more powerful position in our society and have historically oppressed men. It's more internalised. The men at the top exploit the men at the bottom. That makes it more of a class issue to me, something most feminists, being a generally left wing movement, are very much in tune with.


    Don't mention it, if you can't handle it when someone challenges you to actually DEFEND AND SUBSTANTIATE your viewpoints.

    Like most feminists, your stance seems to be, "this is the way things are, because I say so, and if you question me, you're just baiting".

    BEYOND arrogance, to be honest.
    Why would I want to get into a debate about white privilege in the middle of a feminism thread? Start a new thread if that's what you want to talk about.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    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! Posted from TSR Mobile
    So I guess you totally ignored the part where I essentially agreed with you, by stating that I thought such signs were ridiculous?

    (Original post by jreid1994)
    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. Posted from TSR Mobile
    Simply visit a site like everydaysexism and you'll see that sexual harassment in the workplace is actually quite common, and people are expected to accept it. And women who say things like that about men are being sexist - I acknowledged that earlier, and said they were as bad as men being sexist about women. Are you actually reading anything I put, or are you just determined to find fault with everything I say?


    (Original post by jreid1994)
    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. Posted from TSR Mobile
    Statistics please? And since when have feminists declared all male primary school teachers to be paedophiles? Have you ever actually read any feminist literature, or do you find it enough to blame them for everything?

    (Original post by jreid1994)
    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
    It's relevant because I used it as an example of yes, back then, everyday culture meant women were very disadvantaged, and whilst things have improved greatly for women in Western society, A) I don't think women and men are yet as equal as they could be (I don't know if they'll ever be 100% equal) and B) they haven't imrpoved for women in other cultures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    So I guess you totally ignored the part where I essentially agreed with you, by stating that I thought such signs were ridiculous?
    Okay that's fair but considering signs like that are commonplace in slut walks, it's quite a clear sign they actually believe that.


    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Simply visit a site like everydaysexism and you'll see that sexual harassment in the workplace is actually quite common, and people are expected to accept it. And women who say things like that about men are being sexist - I acknowledged that earlier, and said they were as bad as men being sexist about women. Are you actually reading anything I put, or are you just determined to find fault with everything I say?
    The absolute ironic nature of a sight Like everyday sexism, is it's ONLY for women.

    It's hilarious if you think about it really, a sight that is anti sexism that excludes men from talking!

    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    Statistics please? And since when have feminists declared all male primary school teachers to be paedophiles? Have you ever actually read any feminist literature, or do you find it enough to blame them for everything?
    Well since they pretty much deny the fact that female pedophiles exist, and as for the statistics: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14748273 it's 1/4 not 1/3, but it's probably because of the fact that women are untrusting of men I think I can definitely thank feminism for that

    I have read feminist literate, I really don't appreciate it's social and political angle, it reminds me of Marxism in all honesty, and I do find that it blames men for all worldly problems. It's quite misandric and uses the word patriarchy without completely explaining it, patriarchal gender roles weren't just forcing women into a certain family role but men too.

    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    It's relevant because I used it as an example of yes, back then, everyday culture meant women were very disadvantaged, and whilst things have improved greatly for women in Western society, A) I don't think women and men are yet as equal as they could be (I don't know if they'll ever be 100% equal) and B) they haven't imrpoved for women in other cultures.

    When you say equal, you do realize there will never be 100% equality because men and women aren't exactly the same water and bread aren't equal most things aren't equal but what you mean in reality is instead of equal but equally respected (which women pretty much are really to be fair).

    And the bible has horrible things about women and men, in almost every part of the book, it's homophobic, allows slavery, murder in the name of "god", has examples of infanticide, happily talks about castration, and in war chapters, it basically goes: murder all the males and rape all the females and pillage the city in the name of the civilization that won the battle, women had it bad but don't think that men had this amazing life either.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    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
    If they want to be then go ahead but if a mother is being oppressed to being the housewife and childcarer and having this expressive role because of society then no i don't think it's ok.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I like how the feminists have all gone mysteriously quiet after some of the fantastic posts showing that sexism works both ways on this page of the thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    I like how the feminists have all gone mysteriously quiet after some of the fantastic posts showing that sexism works both ways on this page of the thread
    Haha, I know it's too funny really, for every chauvinist there's a misandric person too! The ones that make me laugh the most has to be male feminists, it's like they have no self respect!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Safiya122)
    If they want to be then go ahead but if a mother is being oppressed to being the housewife and childcarer and having this expressive role because of society then no i don't think it's ok.
    What? Because of society? Now a Mother usually works too, but part time so are you on drugs? It's because of paternal instincts, if you haven't realized once a woman has a baby her child comes first and her career comes second, if you disagree with that you shouldn't even try having children. Working sixty hours a week is okay until you have a family, if you want them to even be close to semi functional, feminist parents are probably the worst!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
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.