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 edithwashere)
    Did you actually read the infograph? I don't know how you want me to rephrase it but saying reverse sexism doesn't exist does not imply that women cannot be sexist against men. That's sexism, not "reverse sexism". I think the infograph is pretty clear and if that's all you take from it you clearly didn't think very far into the ideas covered on the whole thing.
    The point being, that it's rather pointless a distinction to make, being as the end results are still the same. What does it matter, whether it's women or men, being sexist against men? The best use I could ever make of that infograph, is to illustrate that feminism isn't solely the fault of women; something that most anti-feminists acknowledge, anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiss)
    Yeah, I'm a little confused as why it says that too.
    It's a bit of a headache to decipher, but basically it's saying that, because it's classifying "reverse sexism" as INSTITUTIONAL sexism and from women to men, and saying that this means it can't happen, because most powerful people are men. Aside from the fact that a sizeable minority of politicians are female, it seems a pointless distinction, and also assumes that governments have total power.

    It's odd, really; one moment, the feminists say how the fact that the government laws are fair, means nothing, as SOCIETAL attitudes still discriminate against women; the next, governments are so powerful and their influence is so far-reaching, that only sexism from them is relevant, anyway.

    Yet more feminist contradiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, if you look at feminism as a single unifying force with a set-piece agenda, then I could see how you'd think that.

    If you look at it as a movement were a bunch of different kinds of feminists see things in different ways around the same given ideal, then no... 'contradiction' between different groups would be expected - it's a discourse. A discussion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Well, if you look at feminism as a single unifying force with a set-piece agenda, then I could see how you'd think that.

    If you look at it as a movement were a bunch of different kinds of feminists see things in different ways around the same given ideal, then no... 'contradiction' between different groups would be expected - it's a discourse. A discussion.
    If you dismiss the negative sides of feminism, dissociate yourself from famous, extreme feminists, and keep pointing out how all feminists are different; then what right do you have, to justify your viewpoints, on the basis that "feminism has done this for women" or "feminism does this for women"?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    If you dismiss the negative sides of feminism, dissociate yourself from famous, extreme feminists, and keep pointing out how all feminists are different; then what right do you have, to justify your viewpoints, on the basis that "feminism has done this for women" or "feminism does this for women"?
    Please name these "famous extreme feminists", and why again are you focusing on extremist splinter cell groups? If you said that extremist Muslims were representative of the whole of Islam, you'd be called a closed minded idiot. The same thing comes to mind here.

    By definition, feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. If you think that is a bad thing, then your argument that MRAs are necessary must be entirely invalid - unless you think men's rights are okay to be campaigned for but women's rights aren't?

    It is not a competition, it is not about depriving men of their rights. Some MRA and feminist groups do work together, as they see it as an egalitarian issue which we all need to work together to solve. Of course there are horrible feminists out there, but they do not represent the movement any more than extremists in any other social group are acknowledged. Heck, feminists spend enough time debating amongst themselves about what are important issues. We certainly don't all agree with each other and we certainly don't all have the same opinions, but the majority of feminists have good intentions and don't disadvantage men in the slightest. To suggest otherwise is utter rubbish.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Please name these "famous extreme feminists", and why again are you focusing on extremist splinter cell groups? If you said that extremist Muslims were representative of the whole of Islam, you'd be called a closed minded idiot. The same thing comes to mind here.
    I already did a post on this. I am pointing out how you can't argue that it is unfair for FEMINISM to be criticised, when it has done so much good for women, using this as a reason why your views shouldn't be criticised; only to then go and keep pointing out how feminists are all different, when something bad is highlighted, about feminism.

    By definition, feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. If you think that is a bad thing, then your argument that MRAs are necessary must be entirely invalid - unless you think men's rights are okay to be campaigned for but women's rights aren't?
    Definitions mean very little, when ACTIONS suggest otherwise. As I've said, feminists will never ADMIT to advocating anything other than equality, else they'd get no mainstream support. That's why the definition is as it is.

    It is not a competition, it is not about depriving men of their rights. Some MRA and feminist groups do work together, as they see it as an egalitarian issue which we all need to work together to solve. Of course there are horrible feminists out there, but they do not represent the movement any more than extremists in any other social group are acknowledged. Heck, feminists spend enough time debating amongst themselves about what are important issues. We certainly don't all agree with each other and we certainly don't all have the same opinions, but the majority of feminists have good intentions and don't disadvantage men in the slightest. To suggest otherwise is utter rubbish.
    The point being, you do nothing to point out why feminism is even necessary; not even in a thread of so many pages.

    As a sidenote: Why are you a member of the 'women only' group, on here (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/grou...groupid=469).? And I quote: "Women join help us rule over the men!".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    If you dismiss the negative sides of feminism, dissociate yourself from famous, extreme feminists, and keep pointing out how all feminists are different; then what right do you have, to justify your viewpoints, on the basis that "feminism has done this for women" or "feminism does this for women"?
    Just because a bunch of old radfems are now operating on an outdated precept that's harmful to society, and indeed, feminism itself, it doesn't mean that they didn't contribute anything useful to the discourse back in the day... and indeed, sometimes still do. That doesn't mean to say that I'd be seen dead alongside them now though.

    ... and all scientists are different in much the same way... there are competing theories, competing scientists, politics, backstabbing, people using it for god or evil... but science still gave us the internet, and will yet give us more.

    ... as to justifying my viewpoints... I justify them on a combination of research, personal experience, discussion, analysis... etc... but primarily, I justify them to myself and merely share them with others... I don't, for example, need to justify my views to the likes of you or anybody else any more than you need to justify your views.

    On the other hand, if you're going to attack feminism as a single set-piece agenda, I'm going to point out that it's a movement... which by definition is comprised of different people with different thoughts and ideas.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    I already did a post on this. I am pointing out how you can't argue that it is unfair for FEMINISM to be criticised, when it has done so much good for women, using this as a reason why your views shouldn't be criticised; only to then go and keep pointing out how feminists are all different, when something bad is highlighted, about feminism.

    Definitions mean very little, when ACTIONS suggest otherwise. As I've said, feminists will never ADMIT to advocating anything other than equality, else they'd get no mainstream support. That's why the definition is as it is.

    The point being, you do nothing to point out why feminism is even necessary; not even in a thread of so many pages.

    As a sidenote: Why are you a member of the 'women only' group, on here (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/grou...groupid=469).? And I quote: "Women join help us rule over the men!".
    Bit in bold - evidence? Sounds like a biased opinion claim to me rather than fact.

    And as for the women only group, I think I joined it however many years ago when I joined TSR. I had no idea I was still even part of it. Since its description seems to advocate female supremacy, I have left it. I am not in support of female supremacy.

    It sounds stupid but have you tried reading the wiki on feminism? It sums up a lot of feminist ideas pretty concisely, and isn't biased as far as I can see. You don't seem to know much about what feminism really is at all, you're just filled up with opinions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Just because a bunch of old radfems are now operating on an outdated precept that's harmful to society, and indeed, feminism itself, it doesn't mean that they didn't contribute anything useful to the discourse back in the day... and indeed, sometimes still do. That doesn't mean to say that I'd be seen dead alongside them now though.
    Totally missed the point. Fact of the matter is, 'edithwashere' said that it was wrong for feminism to be criticised, because of the good it had done; thus implying that feminism, per se, must be associated with the GOOD that feminism, in whatever form, had done. In other words, she lumped feminism into one category. But when the negatives are pointed out? All of a sudden, feminism ISN'T all in one category. Inconsistent logic, as ever.

    If you don't want me to dwell on the negative aspects of feminism, when debating with you; then don't point out the positives, either, as I won't dwell on them.

    ... as to justifying my viewpoints... I justify them on a combination of research, personal experience, discussion, analysis... etc... but primarily, I justify them to myself and merely share them with others... I don't, for example, need to justify my views to the likes of you or anybody else any more than you need to justify your views.
    Then what are you doing on a DISCUSSION forum, on a thread arguing against feminism?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the op has 70 thumbs up and 70 thumbs down? not sure whether i should disturb this balance

    on another note, i believe this matter is more complex than op acknowledges...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    Have you read anything that feminists have written in this thread? The problem is not law, it's culture and society. If you really think all we're doing is moaning then you clearly have no concept of what feminists are striving to achieve nor the ways in which we do so.
    Hmmm....an earlier post of yours.....one in which you say the problem is not law........only to then post that infograph, suggesting that reverse sexism can't happen, because men are the ones making the laws. So, yes, you HAVE contradicted yourself.

    EDIT: And another quote:

    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I have never met a feminist who is calling for the state to answer our problems, so please stop acting like the state plays any part in feminism. It really doesn't.
    Yet, despite earlier claiming that the state has nothing to do with it, and that the problems aren't the laws, you agree with something that is classifying "reverse sexism" as INSTITUTIONAL sexism and from women to men, and saying that this means it can't happen, because most powerful people are men; as if this is highly relevant a point, and as if governments have total power. Sorry, but a contradiction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by truffle_girl)
    Totally missed the point. Fact of the matter is, 'edithwashere' said that it was wrong for feminism to be criticised, because of the good it had done; thus implying that feminism, per se, must be associated with the GOOD that feminism, in whatever form, had done. In other words, she lumped feminism into one category. But when the negatives are pointed out? All of a sudden, feminism ISN'T all in one category. Inconsistent logic, as ever.

    If you don't want me to dwell on the negative aspects of feminism, when debating with you; then don't point out the positives, either, as I won't dwell on them.
    Erm... what are YOU doing trying to argue against me on the basis of something somebody else said... I haven't said that !that it was wrong for feminism to be criticised, because of the good it had done", and nor would I do so... so arguing with me based on that is just a little bit illogical, no?

    Then what are you doing on a DISCUSSION forum, on a thread arguing against feminism?
    Having a discussion, clearly. You?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism has gone over the top in the UK. I mean Yorkie bars are now not allowed to say "not for girls" on their wrappers!! Just one example of how modern women are trying to emulate their predecessors (ie the suffragettes) and just taking unimportant matters seriously that no one else in society cares about because they aren't sexiest!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elusia)
    Erm... what are YOU doing trying to argue against me on the basis of something somebody else said... I haven't said that !that it was wrong for feminism to be criticised, because of the good it had done", and nor would I do so... so arguing with me based on that is just a little bit illogical, no?
    YOU replied to my post, aimed at edithwashere, disagreeing with me, effectively. I then replied to you, using an argument that attacked what she had said; something you had effectively allied yourself with, by replying on her behalf. You then replied to me, and then me you, and so on....you NOW come on, and claim I'm illogical for doing so, implying you don't agree with her? Why chip in on her behalf, then?

    Having a discussion, clearly. You?
    Let me change the word: a DEBATE forum.......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its pointless in modern UK.

    Essentially most prominent feminist writers are essentially arguing that they don't like it when things in society make them feel a certain way, think 'why should I have to feel like this', ascribe it to their sex, and call their revolt feminism.

    The distinction between this and feminism of the past or feminism in third world countries was that the feelings of dislike were legitimate. Women should be able to drive cars! Women should be able to vote! Women should be able to get elected at sit in parliament! Women should be able to use contraception! Women should have the same rights as men!

    However, you do not have the right to punish someone who wolf whistles at you or holds a shop door open! You do not have the right to hear 'gender neutral' phrases all the time! You do not have the right to be treated as if your are neither a man nor a woman!

    Essentially everyday interactions in life that make them feel a bit down they, in every way they can, make it about their gender and about sexism. A glib remark about people's economic background might make someone feel sad, a glib remark about people's gender is sexist and awful and should be stopped! A group of hooded youths leering at a guy and maybe shouting 'oi' walking down the street may be a bit intimidating and just part of life, but a wolf whistle at a female means sexual harassment and male oppression!

    The circumstances that UK feminists respond to (mainly when talking about things in the UK) aren't legitimate basically. Even ones that may appear so aren't actually about feminism, and are probably best interpreted through other theoretical prisms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    Well again, if i were to walk up to a random woman right now and start giving her oral without her consent, it is rape, so if the drunk person didn't consent it then a drunk blowjob is still rape. If you consider drunk (one drunk one sober) sex rape, then a drunken blowjob is still rape. That's why i'm using american statistics because force envelopment is still rape imo
    Not everyone understands that the CDC definition treats men who receive oral sex while under the influence of alcohol as victims of 'forced to penetrate'. As this definition will be alien to the vast majority of British readers, it is important for readers of this thread to understand the definition you are relying on when you quote CDC statistics, particularly as your definition is inconsistent with current UK law. I wonder how many men would agree with your definition as applied to the drunken blowjob example - I have found none so far in my circle of acquaintances (you are 0/14).

    Regarding your personal opinion of what constitutes rape, we should be careful to distinguish between (A) victims who withhold consent and (B) victims who are considered in law to be unable to give consent due to being drunk or high (NB, there is no distinction between slightly drunk, drunk, very drunk or unconscious - they all count as 'forced to penetrate'). Case (A) is unquestionably rape, but case (B) is treated differently in the UK and USA (CDC). You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I think it will take many years before drunken blowjobs will be accepted as female-on-male rapes by UK public opinion, or by UK law, or indeed by the victims themselves. And until the attitudes of potential UK victims (ie, men in danger of receiving drunken blowjobs) do change, attempts to put drunken blowjobs on a par with male-on-female sexual assaults will continue to generate anger, disbelief and ridicule.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Not everyone understands that the CDC definition treats men who receive oral sex while under the influence of alcohol as victims of 'forced to penetrate'. As this definition will be alien to the vast majority of British readers, it is important for readers of this thread to understand the definition you are relying on when you quote CDC statistics, particularly as your definition is inconsistent with current UK law. I wonder how many men would agree with your definition as applied to the drunken blowjob example - I have found none so far in my circle of acquaintances (you are 0/14).

    Regarding your personal opinion of what constitutes rape, we should be careful to distinguish between (A) victims who withhold consent and (B) victims who are considered in law to be unable to give consent due to being drunk or high (NB, there is no distinction between slightly drunk, drunk, very drunk or unconscious - they all count as 'forced to penetrate'). Case (A) is unquestionably rape, but case (B) is treated differently in the UK and USA (CDC). You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I think it will take many years before drunken blowjobs will be accepted as female-on-male rapes by UK public opinion, or by UK law, or indeed by the victims themselves. And until the attitudes of potential UK victims (ie, men in danger of receiving drunken blowjobs) do change, attempts to put drunken blowjobs on a par with male-on-female sexual assaults will continue to generate anger, disbelief and ridicule.
    You can't be serious.... You should know exactly what the source meant. It's not talking about tipsy blow-jobs it's talking about having sex with a man who is barely able to speak or is unconscious or against his will. The moronic one sided irony is if it was a man doing it to a woman man you would be labelling him a disgusting rapist happily but when the law is under men and women.... Oh, boy do you sing to another anthem.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Not everyone understands that the CDC definition treats men who receive oral sex while under the influence of alcohol as victims of 'forced to penetrate'. As this definition will be alien to the vast majority of British readers, it is important for readers of this thread to understand the definition you are relying on when you quote CDC statistics, particularly as your definition is inconsistent with current UK law. I wonder how many men would agree with your definition as applied to the drunken blowjob example - I have found none so far in my circle of acquaintances (you are 0/14).

    Regarding your personal opinion of what constitutes rape, we should be careful to distinguish between (A) victims who withhold consent and (B) victims who are considered in law to be unable to give consent due to being drunk or high (NB, there is no distinction between slightly drunk, drunk, very drunk or unconscious - they all count as 'forced to penetrate'). Case (A) is unquestionably rape, but case (B) is treated differently in the UK and USA (CDC). You are entitled to your opinion of course, but I think it will take many years before drunken blowjobs will be accepted as female-on-male rapes by UK public opinion, or by UK law, or indeed by the victims themselves. And until the attitudes of potential UK victims (ie, men in danger of receiving drunken blowjobs) do change, attempts to put drunken blowjobs on a par with male-on-female sexual assaults will continue to generate anger, disbelief and ridicule.
    Your point of me using us stats to prove uk stats would be valid. However I mustve not been clear enough. What I was trying to suggest that if we were in the uk to use the cdc's definition then the number of raped men would be higher. My issue of course is feminist women using these skewed stats(which lack evelopment) as a means to show that women are the sheer majority of tape victims.

    But back on where I was, again. I don't know about you, however if I were to right now to give oral sex to a drunk girl (slightly tipsy) I would be labelled as a rapist, or a scumbag who takes advantage of people.

    And again, I'm not speaking for you however I saw comments on someones Facebook page where he was talking about being absolutely hammered and was yammering on about how a girl sucked him off. He was praised for that happening, and he didn't mind. However you not minding it or not, if you were hammered and a girl gave you a bj, by some definitions you were raped.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    As the thread has continued to descend into personal attacks and spammy arguments, it is being closed for the time being.
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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.