It is only sexist when men do it
Scroll to see replies
Original post by TurboCretin
You're right, but you should really have used the definition of 'sexism'.
The quote you used has a glaring caveat, which I've highlighted. This caveat undermines your point.
The quote you used has a glaring caveat, which I've highlighted. This caveat undermines your point.
I don't think it undermines it. Equal rights for women implies equal rights for men.
Original post by JG1233
Because ultimately the man cannot choose?
Its the woman who carries the baby, and so really her choice in the relationship whether they will have kids, so a guy may be asked if he would like children but he can't really answer whether or not he will have children like a mother can.
Its the woman who carries the baby, and so really her choice in the relationship whether they will have kids, so a guy may be asked if he would like children but he can't really answer whether or not he will have children like a mother can.
The point I was making was not about who can carry a child.
If I say "I don't want kids., I want to focus entirely on my career", I have to justify it.
If one of my male peers say "I don't want kids, I want to focus entirely on my career." nobody bats an eyelid.
I find that sexist.
Original post by student613
I don't think it undermines it. Equal rights for women implies equal rights for men.
If it did, why does it not say 'for both genders'?
Gender equality isn't like a see-saw. Eliminating disadvantages for women doesn't mean you've reached gender equality.
(edited 9 years ago)
This often feels like the case.
Original post by TurboCretin
If it did, why does it not say 'for both genders'?
Gender equality isn't like a see-saw. Just because you have helped women in areas where they were previously disadvantaged, doesn't mean you've reached gender equality.
Gender equality isn't like a see-saw. Just because you have helped women in areas where they were previously disadvantaged, doesn't mean you've reached gender equality.
I just meant that by saying equality for women means they're equal to men. whether it said men or women in the original sentence, for me it means exactly the same due to the nature of equality.
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
The point I was making was not about who can carry a child.
If I say "I don't want kids., I want to focus entirely on my career", I have to justify it.
If one of my male peers say "I don't want kids, I want to focus entirely on my career." nobody bats an eyelid.
I find that sexist.
If I say "I don't want kids., I want to focus entirely on my career", I have to justify it.
If one of my male peers say "I don't want kids, I want to focus entirely on my career." nobody bats an eyelid.
I find that sexist.
From my personal experience if a person claims to not want to start a family they will probably have to justify it whatever gender they are. However if reasons like that are why apparently feminism is necessary, it only strengthens my belief on how irrelevant it has become in the UK.
Original post by student613
I just meant that by saying equality for women means they're equal to men. whether it said men or women in the original sentence, for me it means exactly the same due to the nature of equality.
That only makes sense if you assume that, whichever sphere gender inequality exists in, it is always women who are the worse off and therefore that it is possible to achieve gender equality across the board by helping women only.
The other view is that the phrase 'equality for women' actually makes no sense without taking considerable liberties with the English language. I have some sympathy for that view.
Original post by JG1233
From my personal experience if a person claims to not want to start a family they will probably have to justify it whatever gender they are. However if reasons like that are why apparently feminism is necessary, it only strengthens my belief on how irrelevant it has become in the UK.
Wouldnt always agree - my classmate says exactly the same, and the thought of her being a girl never even occurred to any of us - and our uni is 90% male.
Original post by TurboCretin
So having tits gives you less power?
That's interesting.
That's interesting.
Who said anything about power here?
Don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_in_cent.php
My point is no one would look twice at a guy, but when a woman does it it's a huge deal. There are many more examples of such hypocrisy.
Original post by SarcasticMel
Who said anything about power here?
Don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_in_cent.php
My point is no one would look twice at a guy, but when a woman does it it's a huge deal. There are many more examples of such hypocrisy.
Don't assume, it makes an ass out of u and me.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/06/topless_in_cent.php
My point is no one would look twice at a guy, but when a woman does it it's a huge deal. There are many more examples of such hypocrisy.
Erm...you did?
Original post by SarcasticMel
Why don't you go topless somewhere and why don't I and let's compare the reactions we get.
Just because you don't actively feel like having power doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because you don't actively feel like having power doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
^ there?
As assumptions go, I thought that was fairly watertight.
Original post by student613
I just meant that by saying equality for women means they're equal to men. whether it said men or women in the original sentence, for me it means exactly the same due to the nature of equality.
The problem is that "equality for women" doesn't actually make sense as a goal - As you've pointed out on the nature of equality you can't actually fight for equality between the sexes without fighting for the rights of both men and women. In fact the only way the phrase equality for women could make sense to my mind is if you were fighting simply for womens equality to each other.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Let me explain power structures to you
If you shout "you're fired" to your boss, nothing happens to him, because you're not in a position of power over him
If he shouts "you're fired" at you, you lose your job. The same thing was said, yet it had much worse consequences when he said it because he's in a position of power
I don't agree with people being "sexist" to men but you cannot argue it is as damaging as sexism towards females
If you shout "you're fired" to your boss, nothing happens to him, because you're not in a position of power over him
If he shouts "you're fired" at you, you lose your job. The same thing was said, yet it had much worse consequences when he said it because he's in a position of power
I don't agree with people being "sexist" to men but you cannot argue it is as damaging as sexism towards females
That was so irrelevant and also incorrect
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TurboCretin
Erm...you did?
^ there?
As assumptions go, I thought that was fairly watertight.
^ there?
As assumptions go, I thought that was fairly watertight.
That was in no way related to going topless it wasn't even in the same paragraph... are you even for real, stop quoting me if all you do is make up random stuff like this.
Original post by JG1233
Yep, i'm sure the millions of men who were forced to fight and die felt real privileged as they saw the comrades die around them and knew it was almost inevitable they were soon to follow.
That's an appeal to emotion, not an argument.
Yes, positions of power can be risky. Statistically, a serving US President is far more likely to be murdered than an average American, but no-one would consider this proof that the US President is not in fact fare more powerful and privileged than the average American.
It's also worth noting that considering killed soldiers as main victims leaves the difficult question of who the victimisers are; the opposing army are the ones doing the killing, but they're getting killed as well and so according to this logic we have to consider them the victims as well.
There are obvious reasons why women would be less likely to be in the army, they are physically weaker than men being the obvious one. However there are anomalies, there were plenty of physically weak guys who were just presumed to be strong enough to fight (and die) based on their gender. Your examples are fairly pointless, there have been countless armies assembled which you can find yourself its not difficult that were often slave armies, assembled by the 'elite' and were not seen as privileged.
There have not by any stretch of the imagination been 'countless' slave armies. Slave soldiers have existed throughout history, but they are rare, typically make up a very minor part of the army as a whole, and usually end up as very powerful groups who are slaves in name only if even that, e.g. the Ottoman Janissaries.
Original post by SarcasticMel
That was in no way related to going topless it wasn't even in the same paragraph... are you even for real, stop quoting me if all you do is make up random stuff like this.
The guy you quoted said this:
"I certainly don't feel like I have any power over my female peers and, having asked them, neither do they. I can't really think of anything I could do that they would be looked down upon for. In all likelihood, in my sector, they're more likely to be hired to fill quotas seeing as so many technology companies focus on "diversity" nowadays."
You said this:
Original post by SarcasticMel
Why don't you go topless somewhere and why don't I and let's compare the reactions we get.
Just because you don't actively feel like having power doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just because you don't actively feel like having power doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
If the topless comment and the power comment were unrelated points, then I don't understand why you mentioned toplessness at all. The poster you quoted didn't say anything about toplessness, merely power. To write a response making one comment about toplessness and one about power in response to a comment about power suggests that your comment about toplessness is related in some way to power. At least, that's how rational people communicate. Were you just setting him an irrelevant challenge for value-added fun?
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
If I say that I don't want a family, I want a career, it is often women who will reply "Oh, you'll change your mind." or "But why don't you want kids?" or anything else along those lines. They never seem to say that to my male peers who have the same idea as me. That to me is sexism.
If I say that I don't want a family, I want a career, it is often women who will reply "Oh, you'll change your mind." or "But why don't you want kids?" or anything else along those lines. They never seem to say that to my male peers who have the same idea as me. That to me is sexism.
Out of interest, do your male colleagues ever make comments like "You'll change your mind" or "Why don't you want kids"? In my experience, men in the workplace tend to be much more laid back about this kind of thing, and it is the women who are most judgmental about other womens' life choices.
I would, however, agree that men occupy most positions of power, most high offices of honour and profit, and so on. While we have had a female Prime Minister, today we have a cabinet that is 90% male. What allowed Thatcher to become PM was that she transcended her gender (and had to do so); she was so dominant and capable a politician that she was able to overcome the difficulties that inhered in her gender.
We've had mediocre male Prime Ministers, we could not have had a mediocre female Prime Minister; she had to be something special. And this is true of many women in the workplace; they have to be better than the guys to get equal treatment.
I do feel that this is changing though, and the preponderance in positions of power towards the male gender is a hang over from our sexist past rather than a reflection of underlying and ongoing sexist discrimination. I suspect that by the time the current generation of university students gets to the peak of their career, when they are running the country, the proportions will be much closer to 50/50
Original post by MostUncivilised
Out of interest, do your male colleagues ever make comments like "You'll change your mind" or "Why don't you want kids"? In my experience, men in the workplace tend to be much more laid back about this kind of thing, and it is the women who are most judgmental about other womens' life choices.
I would, however, agree that men occupy most positions of power, most high offices of honour and profit, and so on. While we have had a female Prime Minister, today we have a cabinet that is 90% male. What allowed Thatcher to become PM was that she transcended her gender (and had to do so); she was so dominant and capable a politician that she was able to overcome the difficulties that inhered in her gender.
We've had mediocre male Prime Ministers, we could not have had a mediocre female Prime Minister; she had to be something special. And this is true of many women in the workplace; they have to be better than the guys to get equal treatment.
I do feel that this is changing though, and the preponderance in positions of power towards the male gender is a hang over from our sexist past rather than a reflection of underlying and ongoing sexist discrimination. I suspect that by the time the current generation of university students gets to the peak of their career, when they are running the country, the proportions will be much closer to 50/50
I would, however, agree that men occupy most positions of power, most high offices of honour and profit, and so on. While we have had a female Prime Minister, today we have a cabinet that is 90% male. What allowed Thatcher to become PM was that she transcended her gender (and had to do so); she was so dominant and capable a politician that she was able to overcome the difficulties that inhered in her gender.
We've had mediocre male Prime Ministers, we could not have had a mediocre female Prime Minister; she had to be something special. And this is true of many women in the workplace; they have to be better than the guys to get equal treatment.
I do feel that this is changing though, and the preponderance in positions of power towards the male gender is a hang over from our sexist past rather than a reflection of underlying and ongoing sexist discrimination. I suspect that by the time the current generation of university students gets to the peak of their career, when they are running the country, the proportions will be much closer to 50/50
Yeah, as I said I've experienced sexism from both genders. It is mostly women who will ask me to justify my choices when they're deemed 'unconventional'.
I certainly hope that you are right in your assumption that there will be a more equal split in the future but nothing will change until people's attitudes (male and female) catch up with the times.
Original post by Tyrion_Lannister
Let me explain power structures to you
If you shout "you're fired" to your boss, nothing happens to him, because you're not in a position of power over him
If he shouts "you're fired" at you, you lose your job. The same thing was said, yet it had much worse consequences when he said it because he's in a position of power
I don't agree with people being "sexist" to men but you cannot argue it is as damaging as sexism towards females
If you shout "you're fired" to your boss, nothing happens to him, because you're not in a position of power over him
If he shouts "you're fired" at you, you lose your job. The same thing was said, yet it had much worse consequences when he said it because he's in a position of power
I don't agree with people being "sexist" to men but you cannot argue it is as damaging as sexism towards females
Load of cobblers.
Original post by ChelseaYvonne
Yeah, as I said I've experienced sexism from both genders. It is mostly women who will ask me to justify my choices when they're deemed 'unconventional'.
I certainly hope that you are right in your assumption that there will be a more equal split in the future but nothing will change until people's attitudes (male and female) catch up with the times.
I certainly hope that you are right in your assumption that there will be a more equal split in the future but nothing will change until people's attitudes (male and female) catch up with the times.
I think people's attitudes have already changed. When my Mum was 18, women weren't allowed into the main bar of a pub (I don't know if that was also the case here in the UK, but it was in Australia). When my Mum was 18, there were few women in the professions and senior levels of the civil service (where she works now... it would have been impossible for her to do the job she does now if she had been born 30 years earlier). At that time, there was a 25% cap on the number of women allowed to enrol in British universities.
In addition to the fundamental legal reforms that have legislated equal pay, the abolition of sex discrimination, there has also been a sea-change in public attitudes to the role of women. The casual sexism of the past has reduced considerably, and for the most part people keep misogynistic attitudes to themselves as far as the workplace is concerned. Women no longer have to be constantly fighting merely to hold their ground in their chosen career or calling. The sexism and disadvantage that remains is not illusory, it exists, but it is mostly covert. People know that you cannot be overtly sexist (or racist, or homophobic) in public life or at work, reflecting the formal, legal disapproval of the state and of society at large. That represents an enormous shift from where we were three/four decades ago
If you can't handle me when my favourite sports team loses, you don't deserve me when they win.
I have to pay when we go out for dinner but you don't have to cook it when we're home?
Why do I have to be 6'2 with a good paying job but you're 4'11 living off your parents?
How come when a girl dislikes short guys it's just her preference, but when I dislike fat girls I'm shallow?
How DARE you tell me to wear a condom? You do NOT control my body.
We as men shouldn't be punished for showing our emotions:
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
