Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The problem with approach of Feminism Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I have seen the typo in the header :facepalm: In my defence it is late


    This is for all the guys out there who know there is something wrong with Feminism but believe in gender equality.

    When I refer to Feminism is mean the approach of Feminism to understanding gender issues. I am not referring to the goals of Feminism. I am defining the approach of Feminism to be that women are the victims of the patriarchy and that women are mentally just capable as men in all respects. I am defining the patriarchy as the notion that men control the world and have designed a society to oppress and control women (notice the conspiracy theory nature of this idea).

    I know that many self proclaimed feminists will say "I do not think that". And I will take you at your word that you are being honest. However when self proclaimed Feminists analyse gender issues they usually fall back on these principles with specifically announcing them when arguing.

    Feminism of this sort is a subset of sociology. Indeed feminism could be seen as the default of approach of sociology to understanding gender issues. This should hardly be surprising given how women and Feminists dominate the discipline.

    I am going to critique the approach of Feminism using the science of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments.

    At its core evolutionary psychology argues that gender identity is instinctive. Whilst Feminism argues that gender identity is derived from social pressure. Feminism would argue that girls are worse at maths than because they are told they are inferior. Evolutionary psychology might argue that boys are better at maths because the skills that are useful in maths are useful for male roles in ancestral environments.


    One universal social phenomena is the gender sympathy gap. Men in all cultures receive less sympathy than women when put in danger or are subject to upset. The paradigm of 'manning up' is consistent across all cultures. The well being of women is more important than the well being of men. Phenomena such as it being unacceptable for a man to hit a woman or men going out to war are examples of this. More subtle modern examples might be the higher levels of spending of female healthcare than male healthcare.

    This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Women are more valuable. One woman is needed to produce one baby at a time. Whilst one man can do the work of many men. For example birth rates went up after the two world wars even when much of the young fertile male population was killed.

    The phenomena of female privilege is explained by Feminists by arguing that the protection women receive is actually oppression from the patriarchy. The Feminists argue that men take away women's freedom. They theorize that men stop women going into war and fights because that would be women being socially dominant, something men cannot accept in the view of Feminists.

    Another example might be how in primitive dangerous societies women are pressured to stay at home and only go out when escorted by a man to protect her. This is viewed by Feminism as the patriarchy oppressing women. However from an evolutionary perspective it is obvious that women are pressured to stay at home because they are more valuable than men. Another example is how women have been the first in the lifeboats when a ship is sinking. This is again an example of men being sacrificed for the benefit of women.

    The evolutionary perspective is that women are protected because they are valuable. The feminist perspective is that protected because men want to control them.


    Female sexuality mainly comes in the form of looks. Male sexuality comes mainly in the form of his ability to protect, provide and his looks. Men care almost solely about the genetic quality of women. Whilst women care about genetic quality and power of men. The power of men is attractive because powerful men are most likely to be able to protect offspring and the woman. This is why being tall, strong, wealthy and influential is sexy in men. Men are objectified in more ways than women but to less of a degree in terms of looks.

    In primitive collectivist societies, such as in the Middle East, female sexuality is suppressed. For example women are not allowed to dress provocatively in public. This Feminists argue is an example of the patriarchy oppressing women and their sexuality.

    This view makes a lot of sense at first. Until you consider that in these primitive societies men are also sexually suppressed. The male physique is covered in unflattering dress (even in a hot country men are fully clothed, this is so that they do not show off their physique). The men often cover large parts of their head just like women. In addition symbols of power and wealth are suppressed. Men who show off their wealth through wearing expensive clothing or wearing expensive jewelry are looked down upon. The society as a whole is suppressed not just women.

    Almost all large primitive collectivist societies sexuality is suppressed to maintain social order. This is because if everybody was having sex all the time there would be a lot of unwanted fatherless children. And unwanted fatherless children are major source of social disruption such as crime (see Freakonomics). In small primitive societies everybody was ****ing each other. However in these societies children were often raised by the community rather than one specific father. And thus sexuality was not suppressed in the same way.

    This view that women's sexuality is oppressed due to the patriarchy is a myth. It is actually due to protecting the interests of the species, collectivist behavior. The modern notion of women and men being allowed to express their sexuality has emerged in an individualistic Western society and with the technology of contraception.

    The tenant that women are just as mentally capable as men in all respects does not make sense from an psychological evolutionary perspective. For example the phenomena of women nagging men makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective.

    Suppose a woman is hungry in an ancestral setting and has a child. She could get food herself. However this is dangerous to herself and may put the child at risk. Or she could recruit a man who is a better at getting food than her due to his physique. It makes sense for the woman to nag and pressure the man to go out and hunt for her and the child.

    Or take the modern setting of a woman attempting to manipulate a man for her own benefit. Many women go to clubs and use men to buy them drinks. This behavior of women using men for their own benefit is built into women (and the notions of chivalry are built into men). "A man defends his home with a spear. A woman defends her home with a man".

    Of course just about all of what sociologists consider to be "social norms" that are created due to pressure from society to conform actually derive from evolutionary psychology. However due to sociology not actually using the scientific method it is pretty much impossible to unequivocally disprove the social norms explanation of phenomena.

    However actual evidence from brain scans and the like is showing that male and female brains are different. Particularly at the instinctive level, the reptilian part of our brain. Things like coordination are much superior in men than women.

    Hopefully you will now be questioning one of the most important principles of Feminism. That the patriarchy exists. And that women are oppressed by it. And that if only the dammed patriarchy did not exist women could do everything that men do just as well (excepts sports ). And that women are not the same as men mentally and thus our differences in gender identity are not solely derived from social pressure.

    So suppose you are not a crazy conspiracy theorist (which is what most Feminists actually are, as the notion of patriarchy is an imagined institution that is oppressing people, just like how the Illuminati is an imagined institution that is oppressing people) but still like the so called goals of Feminism? Well this post is getting too long now but I will deal with that later
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No such thing as gender equality!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tlr

    My opinion:

    There's no such thing as gender equality. But also no gender is better than the other. We're each just better attuned to different things, and it took millions of years to evolve like that. Of course there will be crossovers and exceptions. The thing that ruins it is all the PC government regulatory stuff diluting every sense of gender-related collectivism and the associated concept of identity and inclusion. If a woman wants to do typically manly things or a guy wants to do typically womanly things, that's fine! But it's all just stifled by this legislatively forced public acceptance for something that's actually normal anyway.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I am defining the approach of Feminism to be that women are the victims of the patriarchy and that women are mentally just capable as men in all respects. I am defining the patriarchy as the notion that men control the world and have designed a society to oppress and control women (notice the conspiracy theory nature of this idea).
    Women represent less than 10% of the country rulers of the world.

    Note the "conspiracy theory" nature of whites having oppressed blacks, and yet...


    At its core evolutionary psychology argues that gender identity is instinctive. Whilst Feminism argues that gender identity is derived from social pressure. Feminism would argue that girls are worse at maths than because they are told they are inferior. Evolutionary psychology might argue that boys are better at maths because the skills that are useful in maths are useful for male roles in ancestral environments.
    Feminism would argue that it doesn't matter if "boys are better at maths", that shouldn't mean that girls are discouraged and turned towards more "suited" tasks for them. Feminism would argue that girls and boys should not be pushed towards subjects they don't enjoy just because of some "evolutionary advantage".

    One universal social phenomena is the gender sympathy gap. Men in all cultures receive less sympathy than women when put in danger or are subject to upset.
    Men are THEMSELVES a victim of the patriarchy with this - this idea of men having to "man up" comes from the patriarchal idea of men being inherently or "evolutionary" as you are putting it, stronger. But it's funny because men only notice this when it's disadvantageous to themselves.

    The paradigm of 'manning up' is consistent across all cultures. The well being of women is more important than the well being of men. Phenomena such as it being unacceptable for a man to hit a woman or men going out to war are examples of this. More subtle modern examples might be the higher levels of spending of female healthcare than male healthcare.
    So you can see now that this has nothing to do with women being more important - it's simply a consequence of women being seen as weaker and more fragile.

    This makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Women are more valuable. One woman is needed to produce one baby at a time. Whilst one man can do the work of many men. For example birth rates went up after the two world wars even when much of the young fertile male population was killed.
    We are not animals, and the idea of so much of our societal and cultural habits being based off our "evolutionary instincts" is claptrap, just a tip.

    The phenomena of female privilege is explained by Feminists by arguing that the protection women receive is actually oppression from the patriarchy.
    No, we don't. Not protection. Everyone should have protection. Take rape as an example. They should be providing better street lighting. They should be giving us medical help. But a man's idea of "protecting" a woman from rape is to tell her to not go out at night, to not travel alone. This limits her freedom and essentially places her at blame for the attack if she does do those things. Men believe they have the ultimate authority over what will help women. This is why it is often seen as oppression.

    The Feminists argue that men take away women's freedom.
    See above.

    They theorize that men stop women going into war and fights because that would be women being socially dominant, something men cannot accept in the view of Feminists.
    That would be women being socially equal...which, yes, apparently men cannot accept.

    Another example might be how in primitive dangerous societies women are pressured to stay at home and only go out when escorted by a man to protect her. This is viewed by Feminism as the patriarchy oppressing women. However from an evolutionary perspective it is obvious that women are pressured to stay at home because they are more valuable than men. Another example is how women have been the first in the lifeboats when a ship is sinking. This is again an example of men being sacrificed for the benefit of women.

    The evolutionary perspective is that women are protected because they are valuable. The feminist perspective is that protected because men want to control them.
    Again, this is nonsense. What are you ON? Women are kept at home and escorted because they are more valuable?! Tell me, WHY is the culture primitive? BECAUSE IF A WOMAN STEPS OUTSIDE ALONE, SHE WILL BE RAPED AND KILLED. *WONKA MEME* TELL ME AGAIN HOW VALUED WOMEN ARE.

    Female sexuality mainly comes in the form of looks. Male sexuality comes mainly in the form of his ability to protect, provide and his looks. Men care almost solely about the genetic quality of women. Whilst women care about genetic quality and power of men. The power of men is attractive because powerful men are most likely to be able to protect offspring and the woman. This is why being tall, strong, wealthy and influential is sexy in men. Men are objectified in more ways than women but to less of a degree in terms of looks.
    Men are objectified in a superficial way and may be passed over for dating if they are not seen as a catch. However, men are not forced into marriage to palm them off on someone; trafficked to be used as sexual toys for women; be reviled for daring to be unattractive (read a tabloid). All things happenning across the world.

    In primitive collectivist societies, such as in the Middle East, female sexuality is suppressed. For example women are not allowed to dress provocatively in public. This Feminists argue is an example of the patriarchy oppressing women and their sexuality.
    Which it is.

    This view makes a lot of sense at first. Until you consider that in these primitive societies men are also sexually suppressed. The male physique is covered in unflattering dress (even in a hot country men are fully clothed, this is so that they do not show off their physique). The men often cover large parts of their head just like women. In addition symbols of power and wealth are suppressed. Men who show off their wealth through wearing expensive clothing or wearing expensive jewelry are looked down upon. The society as a whole is suppressed not just women.
    Laughable understanding of the culture of the middle east, and there is no such thing as a suppressed without a suppressor, but moving on: the male physique is covered in "unflattering dress"? It's not a matter of it being unflattering. Men wear those clothes to protect them from the heat, do you not know that it's actually better to cover the skin in hot climates? Evidently not. It's a matter of them being seen as human beings and not objects to cover up. Shall we take a look at Kabul in Afghanistan? Let's see how the men have typically dressed up in recent years

    oh ye hm very oppressive, now the women

    ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME
    IF YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT WOMEN BEING DRESSED AS DRAPES SO MEN DON'T HAVE LOOK AT THEM, DRESSED TO COVER AND HIDE THEM, IS SOMEHOW IN ANY WAY EQUAL TO MEN BEING "OBJECTIFIED" BY WEARING A HAT
    **** YOU


    Almost all large primitive collectivist societies sexuality is suppressed to maintain socialorder. This is because if everybody was having sex all the time there would be a lot of unwanted fatherless children. And unwanted fatherless children are major source of social disruption such as crime (see Freakonomics). In small primitive societies everybody was ****ing each other. However in these societies children were often raised by the community rather than one specific father. And thus sexuality was not suppressed in the same way.
    lol this is such nonsense, nobody cares about "unwanted fatherless children" in primitive societies. Yeah, I'm sure that in between all the gunfire, bombings, death from ill health, death from street violence, death from starvation, a fatherless child is a really unusual and pressing social issue.

    This view that women's sexuality is oppressed due to the patriarchy is a myth. It is actually due to protecting the interests of the species, collectivist behavior. The modern notion of women and men being allowed to express their sexuality has emerged in an individualistic Western society and with the technology of contraception.
    Even in western society, women are not allowed to express their sexuality to the extent of men. Men claiming they're acting in women's best interests despite what women are telling them is a long running theme.

    The tenant that women are just as mentally capable as men in all respects does not make sense from an psychological evolutionary perspective. For example the phenomena of women nagging men makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective.
    Women being naggers as some sort of inherent trait...careful, your sexism is showing (not that it wasn't showing throughout the entire post, but)

    Suppose a woman is hungry in an ancestral setting and has a child. She could get food herself. However this is dangerous to herself and may put the child at risk. Or she could recruit a man who is a better at getting food than her due to his physique. It makes sense for the woman to nag and pressure the man to go out and hunt for her and the child.
    More pseudo-evolutionary tosh, yay.

    Or take the modern setting of a woman attempting to manipulate a man for her own benefit. Many women go to clubs and use men to buy them drinks. This behavior of women using men for their own benefit is built into women (and the notions of chivalry are built into men). "A man defends his home with a spear. A woman defends her home with a man".
    Are you ****ing kidding me? How about men SELLING WOMEN in many countries across the world? How about men manipulating women because they ****ing own women? It's just lovely and not sexist at all to claim that women are inherently manipulative and men are inherently caring and protective, good job.

    Of course just about all of what sociologists consider to be "social norms" that are created due to pressure from society to conform actually derive from evolutionary psychology. However due to sociology not actually using the scientific method it is pretty much impossible to unequivocally disprove the social norms explanation of phenomena.
    I'm so glad we have an internet warrior to correct the experts in the field who have studied for years.

    However actual evidence from brain scans and the like is showing that male and female brains are different. Particularly at the instinctive level, the reptilian part of our brain. Things like coordination are much superior in men than women.
    I like how you didn't include an example of women's brain superiority, I wonder why. Oh yes, because you're a raging misogynist.

    Hopefully you will now be questioning one of the most important principles of Feminism. That the patriarchy exists. And that women are oppressed by it. And that if only the dammed patriarchy did not exist women could do everything that men do just as well (excepts sports ). And that women are not the same as men mentally and thus our differences in gender identity are not solely derived from social pressure.
    Men do not get to decide if they are oppressing women, in the same way that whites have no business discussing if something is racist. Of course the oppressors don't give a damn. It's the subdued who should have a voice. Sadly I fear you will be hailed as a hero due to all the misogynists on TSR tired of "buying women drinks" as if the western world is the worldwide example of gender relations, but I live in hope.

    So suppose you are not a crazy conspiracy theorist (which is what most Feminists actually are, as the notion of patriarchy is an imagined institution that is oppressing people, just like how the Illuminati is an imagined institution that is oppressing people) but still like the so called goals of Feminism? Well this post is getting too long now but I will deal with that later
    **** YOU
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Women represent less than 10% of the country rulers of the world.
    So? Voters obviously feel the male candidates can do a better job. I would think a Feminist, a lobbyist of freedom, would agree that the general masses can vote for whoever the hell they want.


    Feminism would argue that it doesn't matter if "boys are better at maths", that shouldn't mean that girls are discouraged and turned towards more "suited" tasks for them. Feminism would argue that girls and boys should not be pushed towards subjects they don't enjoy just because of some "evolutionary advantage".

    It's not that they're discouraged, but someone with any drop of common sense would play to their strengths. If boys are indeed better at maths (not even sure if this is true) then their superior skills would give them significantly more leverage in any field where Mathematical ability is important. Businesses recruit the most productive workers, they don't really care if that's in the form of a man or woman.


    Men are THEMSELVES a victim of the patriarchy with this - this idea of men having to "man up" comes from the patriarchal idea of men being inherently or "evolutionary" as you are putting it, stronger. But it's funny because men only notice this when it's disadvantageous to themselves.
    Physically - we are stronger.


    So you can see now that this has nothing to do with women being more important - it's simply a consequence of women being seen as weaker and more fragile.
    Differences in healthcare spending on men and women would indicate that more women have fallen ill than men, unless you believe that there are separate budgets for men and women and that Healthcare organizations would turn ill men away in favor of a woman.

    As for women going to war - they already do.


    We are not animals, and the idea of so much of our societal and cultural habits being based off our "evolutionary instincts" is claptrap, just a tip.
    Human beings are animals. We're much more civilized than other animals, and intelligent enough to build things that make the tasks and troubles of yesterday easier, but it doesn't stop us being animals. We still have the base desires and needs of animals.


    No, we don't. Not protection. Everyone should have protection. Take rape as an example. They should be providing better street lighting. They should be giving us medical help. But a man's idea of "protecting" a woman from rape is to tell her to not go out at night, to not travel alone. This limits her freedom and essentially places her at blame for the attack if she does do those things. Men believe they have the ultimate authority over what will help women. This is why it is often seen as oppression.
    Anyone who goes out at night alone runs the risk of being mugged/raped/assaulted. **** happens. You can't really blame the victim for someone attacking them, but it's pretty much common sense that your chances of being attacked are less likely if you stay indoors at night.

    As far as I know, there's no curfew that women have to abide by. Ergo, your freedom has not been breached.


    That would be women being socially equal...which, yes, apparently men cannot accept.
    Women are socially equal in the sense that they can vote, apply for the same jobs as men and be educated to the same standard as men.


    Again, this is nonsense. What are you ON? Women are kept at home and escorted because they are more valuable?! Tell me, WHY is the culture primitive? BECAUSE IF A WOMAN STEPS OUTSIDE ALONE, SHE WILL BE RAPED AND KILLED. *WONKA MEME* TELL ME AGAIN HOW VALUED WOMEN ARE.
    Yes. Women are more valuable because they can have children. The survival of our species depended on defending those with this wonderful ability.

    Don't see what rape has to do with this point.


    Men are objectified in a superficial way and may be passed over for dating if they are not seen as a catch. However, men are not forced into marriage to palm them off on someone; trafficked to be used as sexual toys for women; be reviled for daring to be unattractive (read a tabloid). All things happenning across the world.
    It is far beyond the abilities of feminists to influence what happens in war-torn and third world countries. Do you honestly see such things changing as a result of you posting on internet forums and uploading videos to youtube?


    Which it is.
    Social order is poor in the Middle-East. I will agree.


    Laughable understanding of the culture of the middle east, and there is no such thing as a suppressed without a suppressor, but moving on: the male physique is covered in "unflattering dress"? It's not a matter of it being unflattering. Men wear those clothes to protect them from the heat, do you not know that it's actually better to cover the skin in hot climates? Evidently not. It's a matter of them being seen as human beings and not objects to cover up. Shall we take a look at Kabul in Afghanistan? Let's see how the men have typically dressed up in recent years

    oh ye hm very oppressive, now the women

    ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME
    IF YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT WOMEN BEING DRESSED AS DRAPES SO MEN DON'T HAVE LOOK AT THEM, DRESSED TO COVER AND HIDE THEM, IS SOMEHOW IN ANY WAY EQUAL TO MEN BEING "OBJECTIFIED" BY WEARING A HAT
    **** YOU
    Tbf, the guy is covered up, which is all CL said. And if it's better to cover up due to problems from the heat, then why are you complaining about women being covered up?


    lol this is such nonsense, nobody cares about "unwanted fatherless children" in primitive societies. Yeah, I'm sure that in between all the gunfire, bombings, death from ill health, death from street violence, death from starvation, a fatherless child is a really unusual and pressing social issue.
    Not really sure what you're getting at with this.


    Even in western society, women are not allowed to express their sexuality to the extent of men. Men claiming they're acting in women's best interests despite what women are telling them is a long running theme.
    In what way do men have more freedom to express their sexuality?


    Tbf why even bother telling men what your best interests are? Doesn't that sort of go against women doing whatever the hell they please? Why do you need to "tell men" what your "best interests" are?


    Women being naggers as some sort of inherent trait...careful, your sexism is showing (not that it wasn't showing throughout the entire post, but)
    Was only a matter of time before this card was played. :rolleyes:


    More pseudo-evolutionary tosh, yay.
    Mature.


    Are you ****ing kidding me? How about men SELLING WOMEN in many countries across the world? How about men manipulating women because they ****ing own women? It's just lovely and not sexist at all to claim that women are inherently manipulative and men are inherently caring and protective, good job.
    As previously stated, the selling of women in countries with poor social order is beyond yours and other feminists' control. There's nothing you can do. The poorer a society is, the more like the Wild West it is. I don't see how debating moral and principle can change anything.


    The word "manipulative" has negative connotations and I've noticed you've used this to your advantage to try and make the point look more sexist than it actually is.

    FYI, I suggest you don't read Sperm Wars.


    I'm so glad we have an internet warrior to correct the experts in the field who have studied for years.
    What have these experts come up with, exactly, that favors your argument? Is there some indication within their research that suggests that women in Western society are somehow more "worse off" than men?

    If you do favor sociology over evolutionary psychology then I'd be interested in seeing some of it.


    I like how you didn't include an example of women's brain superiority, I wonder why. Oh yes, because you're a raging misogynist.
    How is a woman's superior, exactly?


    Men do not get to decide if they are oppressing women, in the same way that whites have no business discussing if something is racist. Of course the oppressors don't give a damn. It's the subdued who should have a voice. Sadly I fear you will be hailed as a hero due to all the misogynists on TSR tired of "buying women drinks" as if the western world is the worldwide example of gender relations, but I live in hope.
    How are you subdued?


    **** YOU
    Mature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If we're going to get philosophical about gender, then we need to look at what gender is. Evolutionary psychologists results are entirely based on how us as a society perceive gender which is no good because the way we perceive sexuality is through heavy influence of around 5000 years of oppression, religious practice and prejudice. It becomes something we can only theorize because of our immediate influence.

    Using phrases like (and I quote 'Stuart_aitkin') "Typically womanly things" or "Typically manly things" is a huge issue because if we're going to talk about the "approach" of feminism and you're really going to question it then we need to talk about the fundamentals of gender. The fundamentals of gender however are entirely man-made in terms of "typically feminine/masculine things". I have studied evolutionary and gender psychology and am fully aware of experiments surrounding these approaches.

    100 years ago boy's were called girls and were dressed in pink, that was considered typically 'Masculine' but things change. It is what we perceive as correct sexuality which is the problem.

    Also, I don't think you know or are very up to date with feminist issues or beliefs (albeit we all vary greatly, there are fundamentals to be agreed upon). And have almost adapted your argument to shame 3rd wave feminists and not taken into consideration that times have inevitably changed as have feminist arguments.

    Just thought you should know you contradicted yourself here:

    Another example might be how in primitive dangerous societies women are pressured to stay at home and only go out when escorted by a man to protect her. This is viewed by Feminism as the patriarchy oppressing women. However from an evolutionary perspective it is obvious that women are pressured to stay at home because they are more valuable than men. Another example is how women have been the first in the lifeboats when a ship is sinking. This is again an example of men being sacrificed for the benefit of women.
    WITH

    However actual evidence from brain scans and the like is showing that male and female brains are different. Particularly at the instinctive level, the reptilian part of our brain. Things like coordination are much superior in men than women.
    If there is evidence that coordination is much superior in men than women (which I accept if you can back it up with a reference to the study as I am a scientist) then why shouldn't women get into the boat first? We are generally physically weaker which is an evolutionary trait (remember all that evolutionary "science" that you used to back up your point?).

    For example the phenomena of women nagging men makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective.
    Did you just really use the phrase "Phenomena of women nagging men"? Where did you get that from? A sermon at the church of masculinism and female repression? Because there's a bit of a god complex going on.


    Just for future reference because I think you need to update your views on feminism:

    As a feminist I have a few fundamental beliefs

    - We are all different, in race, religion, gender etc but should all be entitled to equal opportunities.
    - The female body is nothing to be offended by and therefore in any culture a women should be able to show the same as a man (this includes entirely topless)
    - I do not and will not use words like "Slut" because I don't believe anybody should be shamed for their sexual activity
    - I do not "hate men", I have many male friends who I adore for different reasons who I often talk to about feminism which they enjoy with an open mind. Some of the best feminists I know are men.
    - I am not militant
    - Rape and rape culture (which includes use of the word "Slut") is rife and the 3% conviction rape for rapists is a travesty
    - Everyone's pay should be equal (in terms of gender and race, obviously not experience and qualifications)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Classical Liberal)
    In primitive collectivist societies, such as in the Middle East, female sexuality is suppressed. For example women are not allowed to dress provocatively in public. This Feminists argue is an example of the patriarchy oppressing women and their sexuality.

    This view makes a lot of sense at first. Until you consider that in these primitive societies men are also sexually suppressed. The male physique is covered in unflattering dress (even in a hot country men are fully clothed, this is so that they do not show off their physique). The men often cover large parts of their head just like women.
    This is unbelievably stupid and wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    100 years ago boy's were called girls and were dressed in pink, that was considered typically 'Masculine' but things change. It is what we perceive as correct sexuality which is the problem.
    What?

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Also, I don't think you know or are very up to date with feminist issues or beliefs (albeit we all vary greatly, there are fundamentals to be agreed upon). And have almost adapted your argument to shame 3rd wave feminists and not taken into consideration that times have inevitably changed as have feminist arguments.
    I'd love to hear some of these arguments. And I mean I would like to hear real arguments, not just incessant rambling and endless rationalizations as to why this or that is sexist.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Just for future reference because I think you need to update your views on feminism:

    As a feminist I have a few fundamental beliefs

    - We are all different, in race, religion, gender etc but should all be entitled to equal opportunities.
    Please elaborate on how we aren't.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - The female body is nothing to be offended by and therefore in any culture a women should be able to show the same as a man (this includes entirely topless)
    As far as I know there's no law against flashing the flesh.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - I do not and will not use words like "Slut" because I don't believe anybody should be shamed for their sexual activity
    Slut is a word used mainly by women against other women. "Sisters in this together" may sound good on paper but in the real world it doesn't happen.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - I do not "hate men", I have many male friends who I adore for different reasons who I often talk to about feminism which they enjoy with an open mind. Some of the best feminists I know are men.
    Some of your best friends are male. Classic. Lmao.
    Just so you know, men being feminists does not validate your position in any way whatsoever.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - I am not militant
    I deem it's in there somewhere.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - Rape and rape culture (which includes use of the word "Slut") is rife and the 3% conviction rape for rapists is a travesty
    Only 10% of rapes are even reported to the authorities. The other 7% of rapists are obviously competent enough to evade conviction. What laws do you propose get revamped and what would the new laws look like, if you had it your way? I'm guessing you want that less evidence be required for conviction?

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    - Everyone's pay should be equal (in terms of gender and race, obviously not experience and qualifications)
    Starting to sound like a commie now.

    People should be paid according to how productive they are. Levelling salaries between men and women just for the sake of being equal doesn't make any sense and such proposals are a crap stain on the y-fronts of capitalism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Point 1.

    100 years ago, little boys were referred to as girls and dressed in pink as it was deemed "masculine". So what I'm saying is if we're talking about the very basics of evolutionary psychology we need to think about the changes in what is considered 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

    Point 2.

    Okay, I have educated myself well on feminism. What would you like to know and I'll debate to the best of my ability.

    Point 3.

    I presume you mean "how we aren't entitled to equal opportunities".

    Lets start with how women in saudi arabia aren't allowed to drive shall we? Pay between male and females still isn't equal also, and in 2013 there are still countries which don't allow women the vote. Also, have you not heard of the fight for equality in marriage and the many many countries that won't allow gay people to marry?

    Point 4.

    Have you not heard of "indecent exposure"? This classes as a woman walking around on a hot day topless.

    Point 5.

    That statement about women using 'slut' and other derogatary terms on other women has absolutely no scientific backing. Is there a statistic about people who use the word slut? No. Don't pluck things out of thin air. Also, I lead by example and therefore will never condemn someone because of their sexual activity and the people I choose to surround myself seldom do either, so actually my "sisterhood" environment is going pretty well for me!

    Point 6.

    I won't even try to validate myself while you use the ridiculous, archaic idea that feminists hate men. I absolutely do not 'hate men'. Just bigots of all sexes and nationalities. (Also, did you just use 'lmao'?)

    Point 7.

    If you think i'm militant, please use the quote in which it comes across because if I have come across that way I apologise because far-right 'feminism' isn't feminism in my view.

    Point 8.

    No, not less evidence at all. What a terrible thing to be deemed as a rapist when you aren't. (I really dislike that you presumed that about me.) I propose more open talk about rape and sexual abuse in order for women to feel they can come forward when it has happened to them. The fact only 10% is reported speaks for itself.
    Then I believe the interrogation of rape victims needs to be re-evalued, if a woman is thought to be intoxicated or even dressed in what is supposed to be a provocative manner she will be condemned. Women have killed themselves after rape trials because (and I quote) they "feel they have been raped again".

    Point 9.

    What's wrong with a "Commie", I am a socialist, I have no problem with being called a "commie" despite its offensive connatations.
    Thanks for that beautiful analogy. Of course men and women should be equal in pay! If they have the same experience, why shouldn't they be?


    Your arguments aren't very well backed up, please come up with something better next time.

    I totally respect people have different views and I hope, more than anything, I can change your mind on a few things and maybe you can change mine but your going to have to do a better job
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Point 1.

    100 years ago, little boys were referred to as girls and dressed in pink as it was deemed "masculine". So what I'm saying is if we're talking about the very basics of evolutionary psychology we need to think about the changes in what is considered 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

    This is a new one on me. Source?

    Point 2.

    Okay, I have educated myself well on feminism. What would you like to know and I'll debate to the best of my ability.

    It's just that all feminists really do is complain and never seem to list any goals or what kind of action they would even take against their "oppression". They're also very poor at proving such oppression even exists, and often have to draw on examples from the Middle-East and other oppressed regions to make a solid point, which is a little like borrowing from a much wider issue, tbh.

    Point 3.

    I presume you mean "how we aren't entitled to equal opportunities".

    Lets start with how women in saudi arabia aren't allowed to drive shall we? Pay between male and females still isn't equal also, and in 2013 there are still countries which don't allow women the vote. Also, have you not heard of the fight for equality in marriage and the many many countries that won't allow gay people to marry?

    See above.

    Point 4.

    Have you not heard of "indecent exposure"? This classes as a woman walking around on a hot day topless.

    Indecent exposure can be used to prosecute men also. This isn't an equality issue.

    Point 5.

    That statement about women using 'slut' and other derogatary terms on other women has absolutely no scientific backing. Is there a statistic about people who use the word slut? No. Don't pluck things out of thin air. Also, I lead by example and therefore will never condemn someone because of their sexual activity and the people I choose to surround myself seldom do either, so actually my "sisterhood" environment is going pretty well for me!

    Well if there's no evidence on who uses the word slut, how are you going to tell me it's men who are the culprits? Or are you going to tell me that it doesn't matter who uses it, but the fact that it's even used?

    Point 6.

    I won't even try to validate myself while you use the ridiculous, archaic idea that feminists hate men. I absolutely do not 'hate men'. Just bigots of all sexes and nationalities. (Also, did you just use 'lmao'?)

    I don't hate feminists per se. I'm just wary that alot of people flock to such issues and discussions because they serve as a great opportunity to get onto a moral high horse. That and they like to complain about things. Don't you be one of those people.

    Point 7.

    If you think i'm militant, please use the quote in which it comes across because if I have come across that way I apologise because far-right 'feminism' isn't feminism in my view.

    I implied that I would give it time, lmao.

    Point 8.

    No, not less evidence at all. What a terrible thing to be deemed as a rapist when you aren't. (I really dislike that you presumed that about me.) I propose more open talk about rape and sexual abuse in order for women to feel they can come forward when it has happened to them. The fact only 10% is reported speaks for itself.
    Then I believe the interrogation of rape victims needs to be re-evalued, if a woman is thought to be intoxicated or even dressed in what is supposed to be a provocative manner she will be condemned. Women have killed themselves after rape trials because (and I quote) they "feel they have been raped again".

    What do you mean she would be condemned? That, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't count as rape if she has been intoxicated or is dressed a certain way?

    Also, it's not clear what you mean by "more open talk about rape".

    Point 9.

    What's wrong with a "Commie", I am a socialist, I have no problem with being called a "commie" despite its offensive connatations.
    Thanks for that beautiful analogy. Of course men and women should be equal in pay! If they have the same experience, why shouldn't they be?

    No they shouldn't be equal in pay on principle. There are so many variables in deciding how much someone should earn that your idea is not feasible.

    And just so you know, if there's a job for X salary, both men and women can apply for it. :rolleyes:



    Your arguments aren't very well backed up, please come up with something better next time.

    I totally respect people have different views and I hope, more than anything, I can change your mind on a few things and maybe you can change mine but your going to have to do a better job

    Nope. You're the feminist. It's your movement. It's your problem. You're the one who wants to see change. It's the neutrals you have to convince, and you're doing a really poor job.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Point 2.

    It's just that all feminists really do is complain and never seem to list any goals or what kind of action they would even take against their "oppression". They're also very poor at proving such oppression even exists, and often have to draw on examples from the Middle-East and other oppressed regions to make a solid point, which is a little like borrowing from a much wider issue, tbh.

    You're contradicting yourself. Two posts ago I listed a lot of my basic desires as a feminist and then you asked me to explain myself on a lot of them which I did.
    It's absurd to call sexism in the middle east a "part of a bigger issue" just because I called you out on something. It's all part of the feminism I follow, not the militant feminism you seem to have created in your mind and obviously doesn't exist. I have plenty of examples from the UK, American and the western world some of which I have listed. Here's another few for good measure, I’ve also included their source so you can check them:

    9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.
    Let me stress that I am in no way saying that rape is not equally horrific when it happens to men, just that it happens to women 9 times more.

    Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

    7% of girls in grades 5-8 and 12% of girls in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused.
    In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse.
    · Of these, 75% were girls.
    · Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.

    Victims of sexual assault are:

    3 times more likely to suffer from depression.
    6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
    13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.
    26 times more likely to abuse drugs.
    4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

    - All above from http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ssault-victims

    22 million women in the United States have been raped in their lifetime. 63.84% of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. (National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010)

    Men perpetrate the majority of violent acts against women (DeLahunta 1997).

    Rape victims often experience anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, depression, alienation, sexual dysfunction, and aggression. They often distrust others and replay the assault in their minds, and they are at increased risk of future victimization (DeLahunta 1997).

    Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

    A University of Pennsylvania research study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to low-income, inner-city Philadelphia women between the ages of 15 to 44 - more common than automobile accidents, mugging and rapes combined. In this study domestic violence included injuries caused by street crime.

    Globally, at least one in three women and girls is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. (UN Commission on the Status of Women, 2/28/00)

    Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner – a figure that far exceeds victimization rates for other types of violence affecting youth. (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.or...ter/detail/754)

    In 2013 the UN’s global theme is Time for action to end violence against women. Women are 51% of the population but only 22% of MPs; 23% of judges and 31% of local councillors.


    Have I backed up my argument enough for you.

    No?

    Here’s an account of a girl who committed suicide after her rape trial:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-court.html


    Saying all "feminists seem to do is complain" is just frustrating, I don't know what to say to you because I've validated all the point's you've asked me to and it still doesn't seem to be good enough.


    Actually, Indecent exposure is an equality issue, because men can walk around entirely topless and women can't.

    Once again, your putting words in my mouth, men aren't "the culprits", but you came up with a ridiculous, unfounded argument by assuming it was just women who use it (with no facts to back it up, again). Plenty of people use the word "slut" male or female, but either it needs to be eradicated or reclaimed, much like the how ethnic minorities reclaimed "******".


    "Don't you be one of those people." You haven't presented me with one single statistic or fact that can back up your argument and I've provided you with more than a few. You seem to be the one with no real argument. You’ve just left me entirely blank and a little frustrated with the mediocre "argument" you've put forward as to why "feminists just complain". For god sake just come up with a few worth-while points.



    What do you mean she would be condemned? That, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't count as rape if she has been intoxicated or is dressed a certain way?

    Also, it's not clear what you mean by "more open talk about rape".

    By "more open talk about rape" I propose more open conversations through radio, blogs, television, YouTube and better sex education in school's about how rape happens to 1 in 4 women (yes, there's another horrifying statistic). How to deal with rape, who to talk to and counselling to recover from the devastating effects of rape need to be covered more.

    When I say "she would be condemned" I mean just what you said, in the eyes of the law if they can lay any blame on the woman, the rapist will not be convicted. (See daily mail article.)


    No they shouldn't be equal in pay on principle. There are so many variables in deciding how much someone should earn that your idea is not feasible.

    Again, you've misconstrued what I said (quite clearly might I add) that of course pay depends on education, experience etc. But I know people who I've spoken to many times about equal pay, and I'm fully aware that people in their offices would be frequently turned down the job if they were of "baby carrying age" over women who had children and men (who can only get 2 weeks paternity leave - which before you say I hate men again, is something I've signed countless petitions over because it's unfair for men to have such little time off at such a period in their lives), and also given lesser salaries.

    And just so you know, if there's a job for X salary, both men and women can apply for it. :rolleyes:

    Because I wasn't fully aware of this?


    Your arguments aren't very well backed up, please come up with something better next time.

    Sorry, have I not provided enough statistics and facts for you? Because you haven't come up with anything factual.


    Nope. You're the feminist. It's your movement. It's your problem. You're the one who wants to see change. It's the neutrals you have to convince, and you're doing a really poor job.

    You’re not a neutral haha, you're quite clearly a misogynist. Your other post about fat, Asian girls on another thread – Nice.

    (Original post by Dark Horse)
    Definitely yes. As long as they aren't fat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)

    You're contradicting yourself. Two posts ago I listed a lot of my basic desires as a feminist and then you asked me to explain myself on a lot of them which I did.
    It's absurd to call sexism in the middle east a "part of a bigger issue" just because I called you out on something. It's all part of the feminism I follow, not the militant feminism you seem to have created in your mind and obviously doesn't exist. I have plenty of examples from the UK, American and the western world some of which I have listed. Here's another few for good measure, I’ve also included their source so you can check them:
    Rape and sexual abuse are big enough issues in and of themselves. Although I can see your need to drag them into the whole feminism debate to pad out your post and to add credence to yet another duff attempt to gather sympathy to your course.

    Don't get me wrong, it's a social issue, but not a gender equality issue. Using the distress of countless rape and sexual abuse victims as a political football is a little low, tbh.


    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003. In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.
    Let me stress that I am in no way saying that rape is not equally horrific when it happens to men, just that it happens to women 9 times more.

    Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.

    7% of girls in grades 5-8 and 12% of girls in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused.
    In 1995, local child protection service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse.
    · Of these, 75% were girls.
    · Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.

    Victims of sexual assault are:

    3 times more likely to suffer from depression.
    6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
    13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.
    26 times more likely to abuse drugs.
    4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.

    - All above from http://www.rainn.org/get-information...ssault-victims

    22 million women in the United States have been raped in their lifetime. 63.84% of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date. (National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2010)

    Men perpetrate the majority of violent acts against women (DeLahunta 1997).

    Rape victims often experience anxiety, guilt, nervousness, phobias, substance abuse, sleep disturbances, depression, alienation, sexual dysfunction, and aggression. They often distrust others and replay the assault in their minds, and they are at increased risk of future victimization (DeLahunta 1997).

    Somewhere in America a woman is battered, usually by her intimate partner, every 15 seconds. (UN Study On The Status of Women, Year 2000)

    A University of Pennsylvania research study found that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to low-income, inner-city Philadelphia women between the ages of 15 to 44 - more common than automobile accidents, mugging and rapes combined. In this study domestic violence included injuries caused by street crime.

    Globally, at least one in three women and girls is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime. (UN Commission on the Status of Women, 2/28/00)

    Approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional or verbal abuse from a dating partner – a figure that far exceeds victimization rates for other types of violence affecting youth. (http://www.futureswithoutviolence.or...ter/detail/754)

    Have I backed up my argument enough for you.
    No you haven't. You have merely returned from a copy and pasting spree and brought back stats on rape and sexual abuse. Regarding that, see above.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    In 2013 the UN’s global theme is Time for action to end violence against women. Women are 51% of the population but only 22% of MPs; 23% of judges and 31% of local councillors.
    Sorry but how are those statistics indications of *violence* to women?

    Also, do you have any data regarding the ratio of men to women that actually applied/ran for those positions?

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Here’s an account of a girl who committed suicide after her rape trial:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...eal-court.html
    Borrowing from the rape thing again? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Saying all "feminists seem to do is complain" is just frustrating, I don't know what to say to you because I've validated all the point's you've asked me to and it still doesn't seem to be good enough.
    Your arguments are not good enough, tbh.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Actually, Indecent exposure is an equality issue, because men can walk around entirely topless and women can't.
    Actually the law on nudity in the UK is quite vague. See this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8235959.stm

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Once again, your putting words in my mouth, men aren't "the culprits", but you came up with a ridiculous, unfounded argument by assuming it was just women who use it (with no facts to back it up, again). Plenty of people use the word "slut" male or female, but either it needs to be eradicated or reclaimed, much like the how ethnic minorities reclaimed "******".
    Slut is just a word, and there's many synonyms. Would be interesting to know how a word being used is oppressive to women?

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    "Don't you be one of those people." You haven't presented me with one single statistic or fact that can back up your argument and I've provided you with more than a few. You seem to be the one with no real argument. You’ve just left me entirely blank and a little frustrated with the mediocre "argument" you've put forward as to why "feminists just complain". For god sake just come up with a few worth-while points.
    Erm, it's actually you who needs to do the talking. It's almost like you're asking me to prove that women aren't oppressed, rather than you needing to prove that you are oppressed. Don't expect people to pander to your cause without solid evidence that you even have one.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    By "more open talk about rape" I propose more open conversations through radio, blogs, television, YouTube and better sex education in school's about how rape happens to 1 in 4 women (yes, there's another horrifying statistic). How to deal with rape, who to talk to and counselling to recover from the devastating effects of rape need to be covered more.
    Personally, I wouldn't bother. Talk is cheap. There's courses in self defence that can be taken, which would go alot further in preventing attacks than whining on blogs and youtube videos. Although even learning a self defence system such as Krav Maga wouldn't do alot to prevent gang rape.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    When I say "she would be condemned" I mean just what you said, in the eyes of the law if they can lay any blame on the woman, the rapist will not be convicted. (See daily mail article.)
    Do you actually have any background in law that can prove this? I personally wouldn't trust a newspaper on matters like this, tbh.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Again, you've misconstrued what I said (quite clearly might I add) that of course pay depends on education, experience etc. But I know people who I've spoken to many times about equal pay, and I'm fully aware that people in their offices would be frequently turned down the job if they were of "baby carrying age" over women who had children and men (who can only get 2 weeks paternity leave - which before you say I hate men again, is something I've signed countless petitions over because it's unfair for men to have such little time off at such a period in their lives), and also given lesser salaries.
    People being turned down because they're baby carrying age? That's a pretty wide age range. Do you have any proof of this?

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    And just so you know, if there's a job for X salary, both men and women can apply for it. :rolleyes:

    Because I wasn't fully aware of this?
    The opportunity to earn that wage was there for both men and women. You can't really complain about unequal pay when the opportunity was there for both.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Sorry, have I not provided enough statistics and facts for you? Because you haven't come up with anything of interest.
    The only stats you've given are those of rape and sexual abuse. Nothing else. Please stop borrowing from real and serious social issues to justify your own position.

    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    Nope. You're the feminist. It's your movement. It's your problem. You're the one who wants to see change. It's the neutrals you have to convince, and you're doing a really poor job.

    You’re not a neutral haha, you're quite clearly a misogynist. Your other post about fat, Asian girls on another thread – Nice.
    Wasn't that the thread where someone asked if Asian girls were attractive, and I said yes if they weren't fat?

    See thing is - I don't find fat girls attractive. That doesn't make me a misogynist, lmao. And don't you think it rather shows how ridiculous your position is when you go digging through my past posts for something that would make me look sexist? Lmao.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I have never seen a single attractive feminist in my entire life

    Funny, its never the hot girls (aka the ones most likely to be raped) who rant on about some "rape culture" bull****, its always the fat land whales who no man would ever go within 10 metres of

    lol, feminists
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bertstare)
    I have never seen a single attractive feminist in my entire life

    Funny, its never the hot girls (aka the ones most likely to be raped) who rant on about some "rape culture" bull****, its always the fat land whales who no man would ever go within 10 metres of

    lol, feminists
    Have you ever even spoke to a girl?

    Spew your vileness elsewhere when you actually understand women and gender relationships.

    Rape as a physical and psychological act is far more complex than your ill fitted notion. It's about power, domination, and degrading someone completely by giving them no control over their own body. If you're the kind of guy who thinks men rape because they see a pretty woman and want her you either have no regard for the seriousness of rape, or your a total idiot. Or both. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

    Ask yourself why you hate women.

    Lots of love, a "fat land whale" feminist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP, I see your point but I think you're a little wrong.

    Patriarchy isn't a conspiracy theory. Tupac still being alive is a conspiracy theory. The core of a conspiracy theory is that it has to be, well, complete *******s. Yet patriarchy is something that has been alive for thousands of years, and it doesn't just affect women, but men too.

    I'd consider myself a feminist, and yet I love to be protected! It is instinctive and natural true, and women and men are geared differently in order to protect the species. But ask yourself this, if women are controlled wholly by their gender, why do they want equality so much? Why do they want jobs and careers? There's a whole other dimension to us, not just our lady bits. Just as there is a whole other dimension to a guy, not one where he is controlled entirely by his own penis. At the end of the day we just want respect above all else, and freedom.

    Lastly, and only because I practically did a WHOLE module on it last year, gender studies and feminism are two different things. They are connected of course, but not mutually inclusive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Insert patriarchy to every mention of the word illuminati in a conspiracy theorist site and you have yourself modern feminism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On that note I'll be leaving this thread!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesdayfriday)
    On that note I'll be leaving this thread!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chaoshi)
    Women represent less than 10% of the country rulers of the world.

    Note the "conspiracy theory" nature of whites having oppressed blacks, and yet...




    Feminism would argue that it doesn't matter if "boys are better at maths", that shouldn't mean that girls are discouraged and turned towards more "suited" tasks for them. Feminism would argue that girls and boys should not be pushed towards subjects they don't enjoy just because of some "evolutionary advantage".



    Men are THEMSELVES a victim of the patriarchy with this - this idea of men having to "man up" comes from the patriarchal idea of men being inherently or "evolutionary" as you are putting it, stronger. But it's funny because men only notice this when it's disadvantageous to themselves.



    So you can see now that this has nothing to do with women being more important - it's simply a consequence of women being seen as weaker and more fragile.



    We are not animals, and the idea of so much of our societal and cultural habits being based off our "evolutionary instincts" is claptrap, just a tip.



    No, we don't. Not protection. Everyone should have protection. Take rape as an example. They should be providing better street lighting. They should be giving us medical help. But a man's idea of "protecting" a woman from rape is to tell her to not go out at night, to not travel alone. This limits her freedom and essentially places her at blame for the attack if she does do those things. Men believe they have the ultimate authority over what will help women. This is why it is often seen as oppression.



    See above.



    That would be women being socially equal...which, yes, apparently men cannot accept.



    Again, this is nonsense. What are you ON? Women are kept at home and escorted because they are more valuable?! Tell me, WHY is the culture primitive? BECAUSE IF A WOMAN STEPS OUTSIDE ALONE, SHE WILL BE RAPED AND KILLED. *WONKA MEME* TELL ME AGAIN HOW VALUED WOMEN ARE.



    Men are objectified in a superficial way and may be passed over for dating if they are not seen as a catch. However, men are not forced into marriage to palm them off on someone; trafficked to be used as sexual toys for women; be reviled for daring to be unattractive (read a tabloid). All things happenning across the world.



    Which it is.



    Laughable understanding of the culture of the middle east, and there is no such thing as a suppressed without a suppressor, but moving on: the male physique is covered in "unflattering dress"? It's not a matter of it being unflattering. Men wear those clothes to protect them from the heat, do you not know that it's actually better to cover the skin in hot climates? Evidently not. It's a matter of them being seen as human beings and not objects to cover up. Shall we take a look at Kabul in Afghanistan? Let's see how the men have typically dressed up in recent years



    lol this is such nonsense, nobody cares about "unwanted fatherless children" in primitive societies. Yeah, I'm sure that in between all the gunfire, bombings, death from ill health, death from street violence, death from starvation, a fatherless child is a really unusual and pressing social issue.



    Even in western society, women are not allowed to express their sexuality to the extent of men. Men claiming they're acting in women's best interests despite what women are telling them is a long running theme.



    Women being naggers as some sort of inherent trait...careful, your sexism is showing (not that it wasn't showing throughout the entire post, but)



    More pseudo-evolutionary tosh, yay.



    Are you ****ing kidding me? How about men SELLING WOMEN in many countries across the world? How about men manipulating women because they ****ing own women? It's just lovely and not sexist at all to claim that women are inherently manipulative and men are inherently caring and protective, good job.



    I'm so glad we have an internet warrior to correct the experts in the field who have studied for years.



    I like how you didn't include an example of women's brain superiority, I wonder why. Oh yes, because you're a raging misogynist.



    Men do not get to decide if they are oppressing women, in the same way that whites have no business discussing if something is racist. Of course the oppressors don't give a damn. It's the subdued who should have a voice. Sadly I fear you will be hailed as a hero due to all the misogynists on TSR tired of "buying women drinks" as if the western world is the worldwide example of gender relations, but I live in hope.


    **** YOU
    Its interesting that you used the blacks and the whites example, because it exemplifies how many different ways someone could see oppression in the world. Plenty of people would look at the examples of oppression you give and argue very convincingly 'although there is oppression going on there, feminism or gender is not the way or the best means to explain it'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    Its interesting that you used the blacks and the whites example, because it exemplifies how many different ways someone could see oppression in the world. Plenty of people would look at the examples of oppression you give and argue very convincingly 'although there is oppression going on there, feminism or gender is not the way or the best means to explain it'.
    If I was black I would be very pissed off their some feminists comparing the oppression black people faced compared to women.

    Women ever used as slaves and shipped across the world? Nope
    Women ever sent to the front line for pointless wars? Nope
    Women living in the poorest areas and the worst education? Nope
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.