Turn on thread page Beta

I'm a woman and I'm not a feminist watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPO92)
    One that garners no respect from feminists with equality in mind.
    yet, when people (for e.g. MRA but not limited to them) try to call them out on their BS, they always get attacked with accusations of being a mysoginist, sexist,racist, backward-minded, right-wing, neo-nazi fascist... or worse, get falsely accused of things like sexual assault or harrassment! Why is it then institutions or people in power panders to these people, for example Gregory Alan Elliot who was banned from the internet for "harrassing" (increasingly becoming codeword for disagreeing) with feminists. Why is it that Anita Sarkeesian gets to talk to the UN about policing Twitter if there is no respect for them?
    Why is it that feminist can get people fired from their jobs for calling them a sl** on facebook (I agree its not a nice thing to say, but you just block/ignore them, not potentially ruin their life)
    Why is it that these people can get renowned Nobel Prize laureate (Tim Hunt) forcefully fired and removed by an institution supposed to defend science and not bow down to mob-like witch hunts... all for a silly drunken joke! No university took him out of fear, and now he is moving to Japan.

    Why is it that Universities cowered due to their pressure and now can ban (or "de-platform") people due to wrong-think or "hate speech".

    The fact that these "feminists" you speak of are a fringe powerless group is a myth, they have taken over institutions like universities, media (a lot of mainstream media), politics because people cower to mob-culture.

    Unless by "no respect from feminists with equality in mind", you mean "institutions and politicians will bend over backwards for these people" then I strongly disagree with you I'm afraid.

    PS: I write this afraid that TSR might ban my account, or wose doxx me
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    yet, when people (for e.g. MRA but not limited to them) try to call them out on their BS, they always get attacked with accusations of being a mysoginist, sexist,racist, backward-minded, right-wing, neo-nazi fascist... or worse, get falsely accused of things like sexual assault or harrassment! Why is it then institutions or people in power panders to these people, for example Gregory Alan Elliot who was banned from the internet for "harrassing" (increasingly becoming codeword for disagreeing) with feminists. Why is it that Anita Sarkeesian gets to talk to the UN about policing Twitter if there is no respect for them?
    Why is it that feminist can get people fired from their jobs for calling them a sl** on facebook (I agree its not a nice thing to say, but you just block/ignore them, not potentially ruin their life)
    Why is it that these people can get renowned Nobel Prize laureate (Tim Hunt) forcefully fired and removed by an institution supposed to defend science and not bow down to mob-like witch hunts... all for a silly drunken joke! No university took him out of fear, and now he is moving to Japan.

    Why is it that Universities cowered due to their pressure and now can ban (or "de-platform" people due to wrong-think or "hate speech".

    The fact that these "feminists" you speak of are a fringe powerless group is a myth, they have taken over institutions like universities, media (a lot of mainstream media), politics because people cower to mob-culture.

    Unless by "no respect from feminists with equality in mind", you mean "institutions and politicians will bend over backwards for these people" then I strongly disagree with you I'm afraid.

    PS: I write this afraid that TSR might ban my account, or wose doxx me
    I'm sorry, but I think you fundamentally misinterpret the way the media operates. It reacts to social stimuli on a very low 'consciousness'. What I mean by that is, when the media sees something shocking or controversial, it reacts by giving it more attention than it rightly deserves.

    Radical feminists of which you speak, like every radical or controversial social group in society, have always received the most airtime from the media because it gets a reaction and subsequently sells more papers/ stories/ whatever.

    If you realise that the media is a force that does not primarily aim to inform people, but rather aims to make as much money as possible, by headlining the most fringe/ radical groups activities, then you start to understand why feminism has such a bad name.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emily-brown)
    I'm not a feminist because I'm an egalitarian.

    But I bet some people who read that title suddenly got really angry because they believe I hated myself and was sexist or whatever. But no, I fight for equal rights and it is my choice to "identify" as an egalitarian instead of a feminist.

    But for some reason people still hate on me, tell me to kill myself, call me ugly, sexist, racist, misogynist etc, all of which I most certainly am not. Why am I hated on for being an egalitarian? Isn't it a feminist issue that women are discriminated against for their opinions?

    Feminism does not own "equality". People, like myself, can want equality and not be a feminist I'm afraid.

    Edit: May I highlight the last two sentences above. I want equality but I am not a feminist. Many of you are commenting on this, as it may not make sense to some people. Feminism is not the only ideology to fight for equality. Feminism only happens to be the most mainstream of them all. Many of the ideologies fight for the same things, but all have different aims. I think the definitions make this clear-

    Feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality of the sexes
    Egalitarianism: believing in or based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities

    So yes, you can say I do fight for the same issues as feminism, but I do it under egalitarianism.
    Well, mainly, I was just wondering where the 'AMA' is, in your title.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    OP.

    congratulations on your enlightenment. you have (it may sound like i'm joking, but.. i really am not) taken the red pill and would begin to see the current world and it's affairs (as these matters go) for what it truly, really is.

    i say this, as egalitarinism (forgive my spelling, but you are aware of what i'm alluding to), encompasses the rights and experiences of BOTH sexes; which is what is required in this century, for this age, in the western civilisation. this is because (this is a very short explanation; because quite frankly a simple google search would back up the claims i state in this post), frankly feminists, no matter how much they claim, do not focus on mens' views, feelings, or experiences; because as a movement from their very origin, they weren't designed to. and they Should NOT focus on the mens' narrative, because it isn't in their nature.

    **simple dictionary definition will state that feminisn is designed as: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes." << nowhere does it mention the rights' of men or anything like that.

    time and time again, they have been called out on their ******** (literally type into google/youtube the names: 'lauren southern, christina hoff sommers', and the like; and this statement would be proven beyond the words i can type into this neat little box) and time and time again, they have failed to respond effectively.

    welcome.. to the rest of your life (again, as far as these matters go) :P
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPO92)
    Are you so shocked that the goal posts for an ideology have changed, when society is an organic and fluid design?

    Calling feminism 'rotten' is completely unfair. You only have to dig beneath the dirt of the media's coverage to realise that what 'rotten' feminist behaviour you see is from a small, overly publicised sector of the community. One that garners no respect from feminists with equality in mind.
    This "small, overly publicised sector of the community" has a strong influence in government, private industry, universities, and the media. They're practically running the establishment. We've got feminists pushing legislation to have the legal rights of men eroded. There are feminists on university campuses banning speakers and systematically dismantling free speech rights. There are feminist mobs having people fired or publicly vilified for mildly sexist humor, or for daring to publicly disagree with them. Misleading rape statistics, the unrepresentative wage gap factoid, and fearmongering theories like 'rape culture' are now everywhere, taught in universities, broadcasted throughout the media, and used to justify illiberal policies and obscene double standards, all thanks to today's feminists.

    This 'radical minority' seems to have far too much power and presence, despite allegedly being small and "lacking the respect" of the greater feminist community. Where exactly is the greater feminist community in all this? Where are these more sensible moderates? Because just about every feminist activist, group, or lobby to be seen or heard from believes and perpetuates most of the same ideological B.S. the "radicals" do.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    This "small, overly publicised sector of the community" has a strong influence in government, private industry, universities, and the media. They're practically running the establishment. We've got feminists pushing legislation to have the legal rights of men eroded. There are feminists on university campuses banning speakers and systematically dismantling free speech rights. There are feminist mobs having people fired or publicly vilified for mildly sexist humor, or for daring to publicly disagree with them. Misleading rape statistics, the unrepresentative wage gap factoid, and fearmongering theories like 'rape culture' are now everywhere, taught in universities, broadcasted throughout the media, and used to justify illiberal policies and obscene double standards, all thanks to today's feminists.

    This 'radical minority' seems to have far too much power and presence, despite allegedly being small and "lacking the respect" of the greater feminist community. Where exactly is the greater feminist community in all this? Where are these more sensible moderates? Because just about every feminist activist, group, or lobby to be seen or heard from believes and perpetuates most of the same ideological B.S. the "radicals" do.
    If they aren't radical or extremist groups, why on earth would they be in the media? I don't feel the need to publicise my opinions right now, as I'm sure, neither do you. You say they have power and presence, but your very attention to the mediums they use gives them power.

    Why are you so riled up by it? Why does it affect you so much? You say that these radical groups are changing legislation, if so, how? What have they managed to achieve? Most of their campaigns have been laughed out of office.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am not sure if this point has been made already as I havent read all seven pages of this forum. I felt people were focusing on the wrong things. I studied English at Uni and there was a module on feminist studies. The very first thing our male lecturer did was ask us to raise our hand if we considered ourselves feminists. Only ONE person did as everyone else was afraid to associate with this title. Our lecturer then proceeded to explain to us how we were all wrong because if you believe men and women should be equal then that makes you a feminist. No exceptions. This always stuck with me. Where on the spectrum you fall is based on your opinions and beliefs. The fact that you say you are an egalitarian in the original post makes you a feminist. So I am not sure I get your point. You cannot be one without the other.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Catch them young.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "I'm a woman and I'm not a feminist"

    Nice to meet you Emily.

    I'm a man and I'm not an MRA.

    Theres lots of us around. People that don't give in to coercion and social bullying.😊
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In reference to the OP, how you choose to identify yourself is completely your choice. I personally had never heard of egalitarianism before this post and it was interesting to hear about a cause which is based upon equal rights for both sexes. I would like to first start with a disclaimer: I am not arguing that I don't believe men should be as equal as women or vice versa.

    See I have done 'some' reading about the movement 'meninsim' and the majority of their beliefs to promote equal rights for men is fueled by this 'rape culture' someone, somewhere invented.I believe it was a branch of feminism that developed this idea (but I am not sure). Either way, we now have (according to meninsim) a large amount of men terrified that consensual sex is rape. However, their beliefs are backed up with examples such as 'when she comes back to my place; she definitely wants it' or 'when were kissing in bed she is for sure wanting sex' No. no.no. Forcing her to then engage in a sexual act indeed is rape regardless of the fumbling, kissing and sexy eyes across the bedroom. This being said, i firmly believe that 95% of our male population know this! You men are not all rapists! And I trust that you would not force a woman to do things beyond her will or when she cannot consent.

    So why is rape culture significant? Because it was construed to be 'dramatic' and big impact. It certainly is widely talked about across my uni campus. Now I am not disputing whether rape really occurs, because of course it does and it occurs more than we know about (males and females). But I do not believe that anyone who claims rape has not been raped unless you seriously are sick. In my opinion, all menisim has done has used this tiny population which do call rape with no justification, exaggerated how prevalent it is and used it as a tool to beat the feminists with. Equally, feminism constructed this idea based upon a tiny population. My point is, many of these 'issues' are exaggerated for the publicity and attention. It certainly was a good move by feminism; look how were talking about their ideology now!

    Ultimately, I think this game playing is dangerous. Radical feminists are missing the bigger picture and I believe these stunts are done out of frustration. This frustration will always be there; but by advocating things like free bleeding and making out rape culture is applicable to nearly every male who walks this earth instills into onlookers that we/I/ every feminist is insane.
    There is some very real issues. We females are still subject to discrimination in many ways; the gender pay inequality is very real, attitudes towards sexuality expression is 100 years behind perceptions of male sexuality and the list goes on. A couple of years ago, Emma Watson did a fantastic speech at the UN conference which effectively summarized the issues of today.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Good for you
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism by definition is egalitarianism.


    The fact you made a thread bleating on about, 'blahblahblah, I'm a woman and I oppose feminists' makes me slightly hate you more than typical hardcore feminists because you're now an attention seeking snowflake.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lorniex)
    In reference to the OP, how you choose to identify yourself is completely your choice. I personally had never heard of egalitarianism before this post and it was interesting to hear about a cause which is based upon equal rights for both sexes. I would like to first start with a disclaimer: I am not arguing that I don't believe men should be as equal as women or vice versa.

    See I have done 'some' reading about the movement 'meninsim' and the majority of their beliefs to promote equal rights for men is fueled by this 'rape culture' someone, somewhere invented.I believe it was a branch of feminism that developed this idea (but I am not sure). Either way, we now have (according to meninsim) a large amount of men terrified that consensual sex is rape. However, their beliefs are backed up with examples such as 'when she comes back to my place; she definitely wants it' or 'when were kissing in bed she is for sure wanting sex' No. no.no. Forcing her to then engage in a sexual act indeed is rape regardless of the fumbling, kissing and sexy eyes across the bedroom. This being said, i firmly believe that 95% of our male population know this! You men are not all rapists! And I trust that you would not force a woman to do things beyond her will or when she cannot consent.

    So why is rape culture significant? Because it was construed to be 'dramatic' and big impact. It certainly is widely talked about across my uni campus. Now I am not disputing whether rape really occurs, because of course it does and it occurs more than we know about (males and females). But I do not believe that anyone who claims rape has not been raped unless you seriously are sick. In my opinion, all menisim has done has used this tiny population which do call rape with no justification, exaggerated how prevalent it is and used it as a tool to beat the feminists with. Equally, feminism constructed this idea based upon a tiny population. My point is, many of these 'issues' are exaggerated for the publicity and attention. It certainly was a good move by feminism; look how were talking about their ideology now!

    Ultimately, I think this game playing is dangerous. Radical feminists are missing the bigger picture and I believe these stunts are done out of frustration. This frustration will always be there; but by advocating things like free bleeding and making out rape culture is applicable to nearly every male who walks this earth instills into onlookers that we/I/ every feminist is insane.
    There is some very real issues. We females are still subject to discrimination in many ways; the gender pay inequality is very real, attitudes towards sexuality expression is 100 years behind perceptions of male sexuality and the list goes on. A couple of years ago, Emma Watson did a fantastic speech at the UN conference which effectively summarized the issues of today.
    I thought you had written a fairly insightful piece, although I disagree slightly with what you're saying. The issue isn't so much that all feminists are accusing all men of being rapists, it's that those who belong to the more radical branches have an awful lot of power. As an example, recent changes to the law regarding rape have made it so that the emphasis is now on a man to prove he had consent, rather than the emphasis being on the woman to prove it was rape. We have actually gone so far as to abandon the concept of innocent until proven guilty, entirely as a result of the power of feminist lobbying. Not to mention that the actual wording of what constitutes rape by definition makes it impossible for a woman to commit rape! And then there's all this focus on positive discrimination and workplace quotas; the issue is that the radical feminists are making traction in law, and this shifts the 'mainstream' branch of feminism further and further towards the extreme.

    Like I said, I thought it was an insightful and thoughtful comment. And then you went and said there's a gender pay gap.:facepalm:This is in fact a prime example of feminists - even the mainstream ones - perpetuating nonsense. The figure goes that women earn around 80% of what men earn, which feminists interpret as women get paid 80p for every pound a man earns. This figure comes from the ONS, and the way the ONS arrived at these figures is by adding up all the money men earn and all the money women earn, and comparing them. It takes no account of amount of hours worked, level of education, time employed; in fact, it doesn't even take into account men and women doing different jobs. If you actually account for these factors, then the most pessimistic statistic puts the 'gender pay gap' at around 3%, whereas the most optimistic has it at around 3% in women's favour. And below the age of 35(ish), women are actually paid more than men! So this gender pay gap is an utter fallacy, and this is precisely what I mean about the mainstream feminism becoming more radical. Radical feminists spew this utter nonsense, but it gets taken seriously by governments and corporations which causes the mainstream feminists to take it seriously. This has the effect of shifting the mainstream feminists, and you can see the change feminism has undergone in the past 20 years, it really is palpable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    Feminism by definition is egalitarianism.


    The fact you made a thread bleating on about, 'blahblahblah, I'm a woman and I oppose feminists' makes me slightly hate you more than typical hardcore feminists because you're now an attention seeking snowflake.
    What, like the women who support Bernie Sanders according to Gloria Steinem?

    She said if you support Bernie over Hillary, you are just doing to impress guys. Is that true? or is she lying out of her arse (like many feminists). Considering your username, I am interested by what you think about Gloria and all those "Shillary supporting feminists".

    Plus, I don't know if you realise the unbelievable amount of sexism and bigotry you show here... Are women now incapable of thinking by themselves and forming their own opinion different to yours? or have you just reduced women down to just "attention seeking snowflakes"... I find that sexist, misogynists and disgusting and you should be de-platformed...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    I thought you had written a fairly insightful piece, although I disagree slightly with what you're saying. The issue isn't so much that all feminists are accusing all men of being rapists, it's that those who belong to the more radical branches have an awful lot of power. As an example, recent changes to the law regarding rape have made it so that the emphasis is now on a man to prove he had consent, rather than the emphasis being on the woman to prove it was rape. We have actually gone so far as to abandon the concept of innocent until proven guilty, entirely as a result of the power of feminist lobbying. Not to mention that the actual wording of what constitutes rape by definition makes it impossible for a woman to commit rape! And then there's all this focus on positive discrimination and workplace quotas; the issue is that the radical feminists are making traction in law, and this shifts the 'mainstream' branch of feminism further and further towards the extreme.

    Like I said, I thought it was an insightful and thoughtful comment. And then you went and said there's a gender pay gap.:facepalm:This is in fact a prime example of feminists - even the mainstream ones - perpetuating nonsense. The figure goes that women earn around 80% of what men earn, which feminists interpret as women get paid 80p for every pound a man earns. This figure comes from the ONS, and the way the ONS arrived at these figures is by adding up all the money men earn and all the money women earn, and comparing them. It takes no account of amount of hours worked, level of education, time employed; in fact, it doesn't even take into account men and women doing different jobs. If you actually account for these factors, then the most pessimistic statistic puts the 'gender pay gap' at around 3%, whereas the most optimistic has it at around 3% in women's favour. And below the age of 35(ish), women are actually paid more than men! So this gender pay gap is an utter fallacy, and this is precisely what I mean about the mainstream feminism becoming more radical. Radical feminists spew this utter nonsense, but it gets taken seriously by governments and corporations which causes the mainstream feminists to take it seriously. This has the effect of shifting the mainstream feminists, and you can see the change feminism has undergone in the past 20 years, it really is palpable.
    Hi thank you for your comment; even if it was slightly sarcastic. I cannot agree with your comments about rape to the extent we have 'threw out' the idea of innocent until proven guilty. This does appear outlandish although I have little knowledge about the law. I am aware to some extent of the laws that you mention but I believe it was implemented to help women who may appear to be consenting but are not i.e. extremely intoxicated women who get into bed with someone and just fall asleep and are subject to sexual acts. Indeed, the law would be useful in proving the rape. I can see how this law could also be difficult for men, consent is sometimes very subtle but again, whichever way you look at it (women proving rape or men proving their innocence) the rape case would be considered in light of all evidence; not one parties. Certainly, if a woman brought forward a strong case of rape but the poor guy was actually in a completely different place at the time it happened, it doesnt matter how much DNA/motive etc, the guy wouldn't be guilty because his own defense proves his innocence

    Secondly, potentially I used the wrong phrase; I dont mean to say that women are paid less for the same job (although I imagine this does occasionally happen). My point is that females generally have lower paid jobs/positions of less power. This is very true. I read somewhere that only 1 in 10 NHS consultants are females. I agree fewer women do study medicine. I agree women tend to take more time out of work due to family commitments. But these statistics are changing, we are encouraging more females into science (and successfully) and we dont have children the way we used to. Many institutions need to catch up with the female revolution. This is just one example but generally, the female revolution and empowerment to 'get out of the kitchen' is not days/weeks old, its potentially at least 40 years old. We are not equally represented within major institutions and yet females generally do do better within education than men. Recent statistics (to my knowledge) demonstrate that females are out performing men in typical 'male centered' disciplines at GCSE, A-level and potentially Undergraduate; and this trend has been prevalent (to some extent) for some years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lorniex)
    Hi thank you for your comment; even if it was slightly sarcastic. I cannot agree with your comments about rape to the extent we have 'threw out' the idea of innocent until proven guilty. This does appear outlandish although I have little knowledge about the law. I am aware to some extent of the laws that you mention but I believe it was implemented to help women who may appear to be consenting but are not i.e. extremely intoxicated women who get into bed with someone and just fall asleep and are subject to sexual acts. Indeed, the law would be useful in proving the rape. I can see how this law could also be difficult for men, consent is sometimes very subtle but again, whichever way you look at it (women proving rape or men proving their innocence) the rape case would be considered in light of all evidence; not one parties. Certainly, if a woman brought forward a strong case of rape but the poor guy was actually in a completely different place at the time it happened, it doesnt matter how much DNA/motive etc, the guy wouldn't be guilty because his own defense proves his innocence

    Secondly, potentially I used the wrong phrase; I dont mean to say that women are paid less for the same job (although I imagine this does occasionally happen). My point is that females generally have lower paid jobs/positions of less power. This is very true. I read somewhere that only 1 in 10 NHS consultants are females. I agree fewer women do study medicine. I agree women tend to take more time out of work due to family commitments. But these statistics are changing, we are encouraging more females into science (and successfully) and we dont have children the way we used to. Many institutions need to catch up with the female revolution. This is just one example but generally, the female revolution and empowerment to 'get out of the kitchen' is not days/weeks old, its potentially at least 40 years old. We are not equally represented within major institutions and yet females generally do do better within education than men. Recent statistics (to my knowledge) demonstrate that females are out performing men in typical 'male centered' disciplines at GCSE, A-level and potentially Undergraduate; and this trend has been prevalent (to some extent) for some years.
    That specific law I believe was introduced for the reasons you stated. But irrespective of that, the law does contravene the principle of innocent until proven guilty, because it spells out that the onus is on the man to prove a crime wasn't committed. And practically speaking, how on earth am I meant to prove consent after the fact? It also takes no consideration of the scenario where both parties are incredibly drunk, but only one of them regrets the act after the fact. When the proponent of the bill was on BBC news, she admitted that if someone got very drunk, consented to sex whilst drunk and then regretted it the next morning, she would have a case for accusing the man of raping her, which to me seems outrageous. It is a poorly thought through law with a whole host of issues that I can think of, and I certainly ain't a legal expert. The only reason this law was passed is because of the lobbying of feminist groups; any other law with so many blatant ambiguities would have been thrown out. Yet no politician could say something like that, else they'd be labelled a sexist.

    I mean, remember when that politician (can't quite remember who) was on the radio and said there are different degrees of rape? He faced a huge backlash and was branded all manner of horrible things, and I can't for the life of me work out why. It is fairly self-evident that a crime like consensual, statutory rape is not so heinous as a violent sexual assault. And yet the poor bloke was crucified for saying something that seems pretty obvious.

    Now that is a fair point, although just so you're aware it's a very different one to the 'gender pay gap', which is the claim women are paid less than men for the same work. It is certainly true that men dominate certain professions and women others, and that those that men dominate tend to be very high power professions. I suppose the question is, do you think this is because they are somehow discriminated against or that simply there are less women than men interested in these career paths? I tend to believe the latter.



    This was a documentary done in Norway. Norway is apparently the most gender equal nation in the world, and yet they exhibit the same divide in professions that the genders choose as we see in most every country. It's an interesting video if you're interested in this stuff. As a tl;dr, they looked at two studies which seem to strongly suggest that women have different interests to men.

    The first one was a survey of the professions women followed in different countries. It looked at (I think) 53 countries of varying levels of gender equality. And it found that the number of women following these 'male dominated' career paths actually went down as societies become more equal, which rather suggests that when given the choice, women do make different decisions to men.

    The second one was a study on two week old babies, before any social conditioning could take place. They put them on the floor surrounded by different toys, then left the room so they couldn't influence the babies. The study found that female babies were much more likely to play with toys with faces, dolls and the like, whereas male babies were more likely to play with cars and building blocks. What's more, this same trend is observed in the male and female babies of animal species that they've done this same study with. Now whilst I agree that there is probably some aspect of societal expectations at play too, I think that there is pretty compelling evidence that there is a fundamental, biological difference in what interests men and women.

    As for the differences in males and females in education, I think it's slightly more complex. As I understand it (I don't have a source for this so could be wrong), women on average perform better than men, but also men tend to be more represented in the extremes. You tend to find lots more men than women in the top 1% but also lots more men than women, in the bottom 1%, which also goes some way to explaining the differences yo alluded to.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Feel Tha Bern)
    Feminism by definition is egalitarianism.
    No it isnt. Egalitarianism is a position where one believes all people are equal. Feminism is a movement aimed at establishing political, economic and social rights, representation and freedom for women. There is a difference, in that most egalitarians will be feminists, in that they actively support the movement. But feminism will not always be egalitarian, as it is only specific to women.

    (Original post by SmithTeach)
    Our lecturer then proceeded to explain to us how we were all wrong because if you believe men and women should be equal then that makes you a feminist. No exceptions.
    I hate this hijacking of the term if you believe in equality of the genders, you will most likely be feminist (in that you actively support increasing the representation of women), but you will also be an MRA.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    That specific law I believe was introduced for the reasons you stated. But irrespective of that, the law does contravene the principle of innocent until proven guilty, because it spells out that the onus is on the man to prove a crime wasn't committed. And practically speaking, how on earth am I meant to prove consent after the fact? It also takes no consideration of the scenario where both parties are incredibly drunk, but only one of them regrets the act after the fact. When the proponent of the bill was on BBC news, she admitted that if someone got very drunk, consented to sex whilst drunk and then regretted it the next morning, she would have a case for accusing the man of raping her, which to me seems outrageous. It is a poorly thought through law with a whole host of issues that I can think of, and I certainly ain't a legal expert. The only reason this law was passed is because of the lobbying of feminist groups; any other law with so many blatant ambiguities would have been thrown out. Yet no politician could say something like that, else they'd be labelled a sexist.

    I mean, remember when that politician (can't quite remember who) was on the radio and said there are different degrees of rape? He faced a huge backlash and was branded all manner of horrible things, and I can't for the life of me work out why. It is fairly self-evident that a crime like consensual, statutory rape is not so heinous as a violent sexual assault. And yet the poor bloke was crucified for saying something that seems pretty obvious.
    If this law truly does ignore the idea of innocent until proven guilty, then why has it not been challenged through higher courts/systems? Surely such a law fundamentally disputes the whole legal systems foundations. I'm not going to argue that it does or it doesn't, however laws aren't just passed loosely and i'm certain a lot of debate will have surrounded such a law from a number of bodies, not just feminsim. Equally, that suggests that the vast majority of people who do pass these laws are also on the feminism bandwagon so to speak, and the chances of this I believe are very low for a multitude of reasons including just sheer chance. I don't really know a lot about how our laws are passed so i'm not knowledgeable enough to really debate this.

    The second point about the radio presenter. I do vaguely remember this and I was outraged. Rape is rape. The law is the law. If you knowingly have sex with a minor then you are committing statutory rape. Do i think its harsh, yes in a very small number of scenarios where young people have partners who are 16 and their 15. However, I don't know if this has ever actually been a real issue. I'm sure we all know people who had boyfriends who were a year or so older than them when we around this age?. I make myself clear, i'm not talking about young people who are forced against their will in an extreme or abusive scenario. I am purely referring to rape on the grounds that one party could not consent because of their age in such a situation like this where the parties are maybe months apart in age. So yes, there is different types of rapes by law, but in the eyes of the law its still rape. I think except in this one very uncommon scenario that I mentioned, I do believe every other scenario is just as bad as each other.

    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    Now that is a fair point, although just so you're aware it's a very different one to the 'gender pay gap', which is the claim women are paid less than men for the same work. It is certainly true that men dominate certain professions and women others, and that those that men dominate tend to be very high power professions. I suppose the question is, do you think this is because they are somehow discriminated against or that simply there are less women than men interested in these career paths? I tend to believe the latter.



    This was a documentary done in Norway. Norway is apparently the most gender equal nation in the world, and yet they exhibit the same divide in professions that the genders choose as we see in most every country. It's an interesting video if you're interested in this stuff. As a tl;dr, they looked at two studies which seem to strongly suggest that women have different interests to men.
    I believe it is both. I believe that the people hiring or potentially promoting women into higher powered status are prejudice. Maybe to some extent it is understandable. We have the ability to be mothers who usually have to take time out for family which is not particularly desirable financially or effective. Women are generally less competitive; clearly undesirable in particular professions. But we are changing and have been for a long time and yet these prejudices are still attached. They are applicable today, but the modern woman is less restricted and I personally believe that if a few more women reached the top of the chain it would encourage more women to strive and be accepted as equal competitors to males; particularly in male dominated professions. Sadly, this is a very difficult thing to change because many of the hirer and firers are males so the chances of us ever reaching any sort of equality at the top tiers in employment seems very slim unless we campaign for much tighter and enforced legislation. Certainly, the current legislation that states that a particular percentage of workers must be females in large companies is certainly encouraging.

    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    The first one was a survey of the professions women followed in different countries. It looked at (I think) 53 countries of varying levels of gender equality. And it found that the number of women following these 'male dominated' career paths actually went down as societies become more equal, which rather suggests that when given the choice, women do make different decisions to men.

    The second one was a study on two week old babies, before any social conditioning could take place. They put them on the floor surrounded by different toys, then left the room so they couldn't influence the babies. The study found that female babies were much more likely to play with toys with faces, dolls and the like, whereas male babies were more likely to play with cars and building blocks. What's more, this same trend is observed in the male and female babies of animal species that they've done this same study with. Now whilst I agree that there is probably some aspect of societal expectations at play too, I think that there is pretty compelling evidence that there is a fundamental, biological difference in what interests men and women.

    As for the differences in males and females in education, I think it's slightly more complex. As I understand it (I don't have a source for this so could be wrong), women on average perform better than men, but also men tend to be more represented in the extremes. You tend to find lots more men than women in the top 1% but also lots more men than women, in the bottom 1%, which also goes some way to explaining the differences yo alluded to.
    I agree women tend to prefer particular professions over others and vice versa. I don't know whether it's biologically motivated but potentially yes. I believe personality traits play a role. Typical female traits such as higher emotional intelligence, nurturing etc would certainly lend better than assertiveness and competitiveness in care work for example. I believe that because we undervalue caring professions as a society which happens to be what the majority of females are suited to, women do fall into the lower paid brackets. However, this is very typical and general. A good proportion of women score well on male typical traits just the same as many men score well on female typical traits. Equally, a good proportion of men are also employed within female typical professions. However, even my own argument is flawed because the decision to take a job can also be informed by education requirements, family commitments, travel, salary etc etc. So i would argue that it is a result of the inequality regarding the distribution of power between the sexes as opposed to any fundamental biological or psychological trait.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.