Turn on thread page Beta

Bullying Feminists Is Not The Answer watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    Yes I am. But at the same time we have to recognise that women are still the most disadvantaged in the Western as well as the developing world, and women issues shouldn't become taboo or obsolete.
    If you look at my posts, I am hardly arguing with any of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If you look at my posts, I am hardly arguing with any of that.
    Good. Then we agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    no.

    you just choose to see everything that feminists have done as a personal attack on men, for reasons that are perhaps personal to you as is often the case.
    can you not understand that women standing up for their rights and for equality is much like the way black people and ethnic minority groups have stood up for their rights? if you oppress a certain group for long enough then eventually they will form movements against it.
    imagine your arguments against feminism being applied to the following movements:
    gay rights: but what about heterosexuals?
    black rights: what about whites?
    rights for the disabled: what about the non disabled?
    rights for the mentally ill: what about the not mentally ill?

    can you see how it does not make any sense?

    i think i'll leave it at that for the sake of my own sanity. you are ignorant.
    Let me see if I have this correctly: every group apart from white heterosexual males gets their own radical movement, which they can be presumed to support on account of their birth characteristics which fall neatly into various categories of identity politics.

    Viewed through the prism of Marxism all these groups can be defined as "oppressed", because outcomes are not equal, which makes them "victims" (of the white heterosexual male), and consequently white heterosexual males are expected not only to support this disparate grab bag of causes, but also never ever to advocate for themselves or their own group interests because that would be racist, sexist and homophobic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Let me see if I have this correctly: every group apart from white heterosexual males gets their own radical movement, which they can be presumed to support on account of their birth characteristics which fall neatly into various categories of identity politics.

    Viewed through the prism of Marxism all these groups can be defined as "oppressed", because outcomes are not equal, which makes them "victims" (of the white heterosexual male), and consequently white heterosexual males are expected not only to support this disparate grab bag of causes, but also never ever to advocate for themselves or their own group interests because that would be racist, sexist and homophobic.
    I dont understand. These groups have been the most disadvantaged in society. Please explain to me how white heterosexual middle class men have suffered oppression.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    I dont understand. These groups have been the most disadvantaged in society. Please explain to me how white heterosexual middle class men have suffered oppression.
    Well quite, if you stick with white countries, insist on viewing everything through the prism of Marxism, and seek equality of outcome as your ideal, then you will find it convenient to label all these historically or present-day under-achieving groups as "victims", which will usually put them higher on the "oppression olympics" ladder than your average heterosexual white male. I see you snuck middle class in there this time, do you feel comfortable making these people targets of hatred?

    If you want you can even label every white heterosexual male who chooses not to submit to Marxist doctrine and talk the politically correct language of feminism, diversity, and multiculturalism as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic" and "sexist".

    But what is that going to achieve?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Well quite, if you stick with white countries, insist on viewing everything through the prism of Marxism, and seek equality of outcome as your ideal, then you will find it convenient to label all these historically or present-day under-achieving groups as "victims", which will usually put them higher on the "oppression olympics" ladder than your average heterosexual white male. I see you snuck middle class in there this time, do you feel comfortable making these people targets of hatred?

    If you want you can even label every white heterosexual male who chooses not to submit to Marxist doctrine and talk the politically correct language of feminism, diversity, and multiculturalism as "racist", "misogynistic", "homophobic" and "sexist".

    But what is that going to achieve?
    when did i say anything about marxism? its you who brought it up.
    targets of hatred? no. it's simply recognising which groups have been oppressed.
    its not equality of outcome, it's equality of opportunity. which many people for various reasons and disadvantages they face in society still don't have.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    So feminists like to take these issues and pretend they don't happen to men
    - Rape
    - Violent crime
    - Constant manipulation of statistics involving employment
    - The #yesallwomen campaign was in response to a shooting where more men were killed than women. But with their propaganda they made it look as though no men died.
    - The #bringbackourgirls was in response to schoolgirls being kidnapped, when in the same country boys are routinely kidnapped and either killed or turned into child soldiers.
    - Feminists like to manipulate information to reinforce the idea that women are victims and men are not.

    Exactly
    jeez. did they ever find the girls at the end?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bottled)
    jeez. did they ever find the girls at the end?
    no I don't think so (I never followed the rest of the story though so I might be wrong). But they just made a big deal about it and thats it I think. David Cameron and Obama weren't willing to send troops in or anything. They just talked about it a bit because it was trending and it gives them brownie points to acknowledge it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    it's called eradicating the enforcement of gender roles and, as emma said, letting men and women both be more real, strong and complete, without one gender or the other feeling weak.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Do you accept the proposition that men and women are fundamentally different on a biological, neuropsychological level?

    If not, then do you believe that in a world without gender roles men and women would be represented exactly 50/50 in prison? And equally violent?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    this was just a long-winded way of saying boohoo men aren't getting all the attention for once and i feel personally victimised. admit that you don't care about women's rights.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol wow. So someone points out a flaw with feminism and it's apparently attention seeking? This is the problem with feminism, there isn't any equality at all and if the outcome doesn't benefit the women then the problem doesn't exist. How ignorant of you
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    Good. Then we agree.
    If so that's great, but I would like to clarify whether we do. The issue I was raising was never about who (between men and women) is worse off as a class. The issue I was raising was about feminism as a movement, an whether it caters to men and women or only to women.

    To take the issue back to its origin in this thread - a post ChickenMadness made:

    Look at the summary on the front page of the [feminist] website. Every single campaign reinforces their ideology that women are the only victims of crime and discrimination.

    Why just women and girls? Why not men and boys too? Why not everyone?
    You replied:

    (Original post by sherlockfan)
    Thats like saying why back people? Why not white people too? :rolleyes: because that would be ignoring fundamental issues, the fact that some groups experience more disadvantage than others.
    By saying the above, you seemed to be saying that feminism fights only for women and girls, and should only be expected to. Yet, now you're saying that it fights for both. I'm confused as to how you reconcile the posts you made around p.3 with those you made around p.7. Can you clarify this?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    If so that's great, but I would like to clarify whether we do. The issue I was raising was never about who (between men and women) is worse off as a class. The issue I was raising was about feminism as a movement, an whether it caters to men and women or only to women.

    To take the issue back to its origin in this thread - a post ChickenMadness made:



    You replied:



    By saying the above, you seemed to be saying that feminism fights only for women and girls, and should only be expected to. Yet, now you're saying that it fights for both. I'm confused as to how you reconcile the posts you made around p.3 with those you made around p.7. Can you clarify this?
    i was making that analogy to point out how stupid his argument was. because nowadays it still seems to be ok to campaign against racial inequality, and no one will dispute that racism still exists, but anyone who does the same for gender inequality is instantly shot down.
    im saying that feminism in the past has fought mainly for the rights of women (and rightly so) but now it has been expanded to include men's issues too. but in doing so we can't ignore the prejudice that still exists against women around the world, for the fear that a few men might be offended.
    is that hard to understand?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Sherlock says

    but now it has been expanded to include men's issues too

    Care to give a few examples?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Glad people have picked up where I left off. Feminism is anti-progressive. It's setting us back into the 50s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Glad people have picked up where I left off. Feminism is anti-progressive. It's setting us back into the 50s.
    What a ridiculous assertion. How is it setting us back into the 50s?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apitchfork)
    What a ridiculous assertion. How is it setting us back into the 50s?
    it's creating these gender wars and inequality. By trying to put women way above men.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    it's creating these gender wars and inequality. By trying to put women way above men.
    How are they trying to put women above men? In what manner is this being effected? Do you have any examples of this? Again, you're just making empty assertions that no one can engage with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by apitchfork)
    How are they trying to put women above men? In what manner is this being effected? Do you have any examples of this? Again, you're just making empty assertions that no one can engage with.
    yes actually if you go look at page 1-7. I'm just bored of debating now.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    yes actually if you go look at page 1-7. I'm just bored of debating now.
    i wouldn't read pages 1-7, they're all a load of crap.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,718

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.