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

Feminists: Opinions on...? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So, in the UK we have a Minister for Women, but not one for Men. Is this not an issue feminism wants to align itself to addressing.

    For me the nonresponse to this coincides with mainstream feminism solely seeking to earn "equality for women" which doesn't make sense. Equality is an all or nothing concept. We're either all equal or we're not equal at all.

    It doesn't make sense to me that a group that claims to be working so hard to warrant the authenticity of women and men being equal would be happy with such a gendered political role. The notion of a women's minster is directly indicative that women need some sort of special treatment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Minister for women lol.

    Feminists go from offending men to patronising fellow women at the drop of a hat.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Equality implies a lack of preferential treatment either way. If feminists want true gender equality, that implies that the emotions of males are given every bit as much consideration as that of females, and males shouldn't be expected to just "be strong" or otherwise be at risk of being considered a "pussy", even when that implies receiving empathy and compassion should no longer be a female prerogative, and thus shaming males into being Teflon would no longer be acceptable, even when this would be in the interests of the kind of woman who finds empathy and compassion a burden. If the latter is not a concern, then such "equality" is merely a front for female supremacism.

    Equality also implies that sexism against males be treated no better or worse than sexism against females. A woman claiming "all men are pigs" should not be any more or less acceptable than a man claiming "all women are cows". Jokes about chopping off men's penises, or "man flu", should not be any more or less acceptable than jokes about mutilating women's clitorises, or women on their periods. And so forth. Again, if this is not a concern, the supposed "equality" is not that, but a hypocritical front for female supremacism.

    Furthermore, equality implies not only equal rights, but equal responsibilities. Blame-shifting and absolving oneself of accountability would therefore not be any more acceptable from females than from males.

    Furthermore, equal responsibilities would imply that equal quotas should also apply to the most dangerous and life-threatening jobs which are currently almost exclusively male, and any compulsory military draft to the front line (endangering life and limb) should also be compulsory for females. On lifeboats "women and children first" would also have to go. Since all of these are, by definition, sexist. And not "benevolent" sexism either, just sexism, as it's clear they are to the detriment of males. Real gender equality would thus be passionately concerned about these issues just as much as those which disadvantage women. Otherwise it's clearly not equality which is desired.

    I don't see many feminists gung-ho about that. Not only does it contradict their evidently false notion that females are always the oppressed sex via a patriarchy which is in men's interests to the detriment of women, but the only conclusion I can come to is the logical one, that many of today's feminists are more interested in male-bashing female supremacism than true gender equality, despite their protestations to the contrary.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The model TSR House of Commons, whom I am a member of, does not have a Minister for Women, incidentally. At present the government has been so long agreeing a cabinet it does not even have a Minister for Cricklewood even.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If there was a men's minister, the feminists would be outraged and they would take it to the media for sure. This double standard is a tell tale sign that the ideology of feminism is no longer (if it was ever) for equality between men and women, but more like a mission for female world dominance. ( this is just how i see it as a non feminist female)
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Some feminists do exercise double-standards too much, I must agree
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    tony blair set up the minister for women thing and she combats all forms of inequality, focusing on gender. women suffer more from sexism, thus i guess they called her minister for women. personally i think minister for equality would be a better name considering thats what she really does and that is actually the aim of feminism - equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We have a specifically appointed Minister for Women for a reason.
    Saying we should have a 'Men's Minister' is akin to saying we should have a 'Straight Pride Month' or a 'White History Month'. Yes, you should be proud of your identity, whatever gender, race, sexuality or whatever you are, but the fact is that there are existing socially constructed systems of power imbalances that give certain groups power and status over others. We don't have a minister for men because today's society is still very much a patriarchy. Yes, we've made drastic progress, and women have gained so much more equality, but that doesn't negate the fact that women are still not as valued as men. A woman still can't walk down a street without getting cat-called, some women are still not payed the same amount as men for the same job, a woman is still blamed for her own rape because of the clothes she wears. Women are the social minority in today's society, and having someone represent them in government is the best way to make sure they are being represented and cared for. I want a society in which men and women are equal just as much as anyone, but until that happens I don't see why we shouldn't have someone representing us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also I just want to comment on the differing definitions of a 'feminist'. It seems that most of the people in this thread believe that a feminist is a woman who strives for a female dominated society, and call out men on almost everything they do and labelling it as misogynistic. In my opinion, that is not a feminist. To me, a feminist is anyone, man or woman, who believes that men and women should be equal, and in cases when a woman is truly being undermined, they stick up for them. I am not part of any feminist movement, but by the latter definition I identify as a feminist, and I hope the image of feminists being crazy women with no sense of humour can be eradicated soon.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmergencyBagels)
    tony blair set up the minister for women thing and she combats all forms of inequality, focusing on gender. women suffer more from sexism, thus i guess they called her minister for women. personally i think minister for equality would be a better name considering thats what she really does and that is actually the aim of feminism - equality.
    The title used to be "Minister for Women and Equalities" or something. This new candidate to fill that role (and replace Maria Miller in it voted against gay marriage so that probably wouldn't look too great). Now the role has been separated. We have a minister for women and a minister for equalities.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mozzacolfer)
    Also I just want to comment on the differing definitions of a 'feminist'. It seems that most of the people in this thread believe that a feminist is a woman who strives for a female dominated society, and call out men on almost everything they do and labelling it as misogynistic. In my opinion, that is not a feminist. To me, a feminist is anyone, man or woman, who believes that men and women should be equal, and in cases when a woman is truly being undermined, they stick up for them. I am not part of any feminist movement, but by the latter definition I identify as a feminist, and I hope the image of feminists being crazy women with no sense of humour can be eradicated soon.
    Right... Which is the definition I've used in the original post to demonstrate my dilemma with accepting what mainstream feminism has become.

    Look - I don't care what the formalised mantras of your belief are. If the followers of that belief practise something different I think it's more representative to use that empirical foundation to make conclusions rather that a speculative dictionary-led theoretical approach.

    If, say, a religion said in its divinely inspired book "stealing is prohibited" yet 30% of its followers were thieves I'd take the view that such practises are more acceptable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CocoaPowder)
    If there was a men's minister, the feminists would be outraged and they would take it to the media for sure. This double standard is a tell tale sign that the ideology of feminism is no longer (if it was ever) for equality between men and women, but more like a mission for female world dominance. ( this is just how i see it as a non feminist female)
    My college has a 'men's rep' and a 'women's rep', and it makes perfect sense, as there are certain gender specific issues. I'm not sure feminists would be outraged about that - they may be outraged if there was a men's one and not a women's one, but personally I think you're wrong on this particular issue.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I actually agree with op to an extent. I think the time has come for in the UK to replace feminism with gender equality. Just focus on making things fair regarding both genders.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octohedral)
    My college has a 'men's rep' and a 'women's rep', and it makes perfect sense, as there are certain gender specific issues. I'm not sure feminists would be outraged about that - they may be outraged if there was a men's one and not a women's one, but personally I think you're wrong on this particular issue.
    Lucky you.
    I recall a while ago, in a Uni, a group of lads tried to start up a mens group with a mens rep.
    The feminists in the well estabished womens group went ape ****, using shaming language etc to make them look a bunch of pricks
    I remember reading it and thinking about all the times I have head feminists sayi it is about true equality not female supremacy or special treatment.
    Just anacdotal Im afraid as I donthave a link. :-(
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't we drop this delusional idea of feminism and take up humanitarianism, we are all human after all.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1396204215583.jpg 
Views:	1033 
Size:	139.3 KB 
ID:	278509
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Why don't we drop this delusional idea of feminism and take up humanitarianism, we are all human after all. (image)
    I can't help but completely agree. for example, "feminism" is an awful word for equal from the very beginning because it is about females and not everybody, hence the name "fem"inism. if you thought that men had more problems than women and you desired to make men more equal, you wouldn't call yourself a "feminist", you'd call yourself, by this logic, a "masculinist/menist" - but really, either of these terms has an emphasis of one gender over another, and for equality to be meaningful and not trivial it should put equal emphasis on both genders or at least individuals as a group without a gender - so it would be either "humanist/humanitarian"/"egalitarian" or "legal individualist" (in the equality-based manner of speaking)

    but alas (or alad :lol:) women equality-advocates (some genuine, some misandrists) continue to use to term "feminist" and thus I want nothing to do with them until they change their name to actually adopt equality and not gender preferentialism
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    There's a minister for women because women have been and still are under disadvantages in daily life, which men do not have.

    It's the same concept as why you don't get lightning bolts and blue shells in Mario Kart if you're in first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mequa)
    Equality implies a lack of preferential treatment either way. If feminists want true gender equality, that implies that the emotions of males are given every bit as much consideration as that of females, and males shouldn't be expected to just "be strong" or otherwise be at risk of being considered a "pussy", even when that implies receiving empathy and compassion should no longer be a female prerogative, and thus shaming males into being Teflon would no longer be acceptable, even when this would be in the interests of the kind of woman who finds empathy and compassion a burden. If the latter is not a concern, then such "equality" is merely a front for female supremacism.

    Equality also implies that sexism against males be treated no better or worse than sexism against females. A woman claiming "all men are pigs" should not be any more or less acceptable than a man claiming "all women are cows". Jokes about chopping off men's penises, or "man flu", should not be any more or less acceptable than jokes about mutilating women's clitorises, or women on their periods. And so forth. Again, if this is not a concern, the supposed "equality" is not that, but a hypocritical front for female supremacism.

    Furthermore, equality implies not only equal rights, but equal responsibilities. Blame-shifting and absolving oneself of accountability would therefore not be any more acceptable from females than from males.

    Furthermore, equal responsibilities would imply that equal quotas should also apply to the most dangerous and life-threatening jobs which are currently almost exclusively male, and any compulsory military draft to the front line (endangering life and limb) should also be compulsory for females. On lifeboats "women and children first" would also have to go. Since all of these are, by definition, sexist. And not "benevolent" sexism either, just sexism, as it's clear they are to the detriment of males. Real gender equality would thus be passionately concerned about these issues just as much as those which disadvantage women. Otherwise it's clearly not equality which is desired.

    I don't see many feminists gung-ho about that. Not only does it contradict their evidently false notion that females are always the oppressed sex via a patriarchy which is in men's interests to the detriment of women, but the only conclusion I can come to is the logical one, that many of today's feminists are more interested in male-bashing female supremacism than true gender equality, despite their protestations to the contrary.

    I agree with every single one of your points and I am a feminist. The feminists I know also agree with every single one of your points. I do not want 'special treatment' because of my gender; traditionally it is because women were assumed to be weak, needy creatures who needed extra help and protection (like your examples and indeed many others such as men paying on dates, women having doors held open for them etc) It's rubbish. Of course I don't support it.

    Thank you for painting an accurate picture of feminism.



    In response to the OP; perhaps there should be a minister for men, I wouldn't be opposed to it if there was one. However, whilst there are clearly issues affecting both men and women, a greater number of those issues affect women to a greater detriment. Maybe there should be a minister for men, I don't know, but certainly I believe the need is greater to have a woman's minister.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sunny_Smiles)
    I can't help but completely agree. for example, "feminism" is an awful word for equal from the very beginning because it is about females and not everybody, hence the name "fem"inism. if you thought that men had more problems than women and you desired to make men more equal, you wouldn't call yourself a "feminist", you'd call yourself, by this logic, a "masculinist/menist" - but really, either of these terms has an emphasis of one gender over another, and for equality to be meaningful and not trivial it should put equal emphasis on both genders or at least individuals as a group without a gender - so it would be either "humanist/humanitarian"/"egalitarian" or "legal individualist" (in the equality-based manner of speaking)

    but alas (or alad :lol:) women equality-advocates (some genuine, some misandrists) continue to use to term "feminist" and thus I want nothing to do with them until they change their name to actually adopt equality and not gender preferentialism

    Oh dear, so wrong. I'm sorry but by that logic;

    The "huMAN" race only contains men
    "woMAN" and "woMEN" are all about men
    to be a "huMANist" you're only concerned about men

    Feminism is obviously concerned with issues affecting women but being a feminist does not mean that you aren't also concerned about those affecting men. Many ideologies in feminism tie in with men's equality too.

    Parts of Masculinism tie in with different parts of feminism.

    Feminism is a term with an awful lot of stigma attached to it. I feel like a parrot on TSR because I constantly have to repeat the same things; feminists do not want preferential treatment for women. Any that say they do aren't feminists.

    You can be a humanist and a feminist at the same time. If you feel feminism isn't for you, that's fine, but don't dismiss it on the basis of a NAME.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Wild Youth)
    Oh dear, so wrong. I'm sorry but by that logic;

    The "huMAN" race only contains men
    "woMAN" and "woMEN" are all about men
    to be a "huMANist" you're only concerned about men

    Feminism is obviously concerned with issues affecting women but being a feminist does not mean that you aren't also concerned about those affecting men. Many ideologies in feminism tie in with men's equality too.

    Parts of Masculinism tie in with different parts of feminism.

    Feminism is a term with an awful lot of stigma attached to it. I feel like a parrot on TSR because I constantly have to repeat the same things; feminists do not want preferential treatment for women. Any that say they do aren't feminists.

    You can be a humanist and a feminist at the same time. If you feel feminism isn't for you, that's fine, but don't dismiss it on the basis of a NAME.
    Would it be easier to just drop feminism (considering it has become such a "dirty" word) and use humanism, as that is the goal of feminists. To have equal rights for all?
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.