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

Why are you grateful for feminism? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The best thing about feminism is not having to be married to have sex. As much as SJW's are festering piles of human garbage, feminism feeds into my egotistic nihilism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    There is more than enough capital in the system to pay for this and a whole lot more, if used properly. The way that capital and wealth is arranged right now doesn't even cause all that much happiness for the minority that benefit from it.


    is that relevant?
    do you consider taxation a moral act?
    how does the agent of the act (the government) shape the morality of the act?
    does that make any sense? to me it doesn't - either the act itself is "moral" or it isn't.

    It depends whose freedom we're talking about Policies like these can be justified on the grounds of liberty just as much as protecting employer interests can. I don't know why you prefer employers' freedom to be rich over families' freedom


    you're not talking about "freedom" though when you talk about families. you talk about economic security. that's not the same thing. that's why socialists aren't liberals. freedom is not regarding personal well being. you could be very poor, but still very "free". freedom isn't attached to some idea of "what I can do with that freedom" - it could be the case that your freedom is still there but simply not made full use of via your own personal shortcomings. but that isn't, again, to say that you don't have freedom.

    to have fulfilling careers and to combine that with parenting. Of the two, research is clear about which one creates the most happiness. And few would disagree with the notion that the underlying goal in policy should be making the greatest number of people in society happy... Mill certainly didn't. Also the Swedish employers love this because - unsurprisingly - employers have families too.
    Swedish employers and companies seem happy. Why do you assume that this coercion is so unpleasant? And why do you think that profit is a good goal for an individual or society to have? It's good if it creates more happiness for society, but we've covered that above. And there are a lot of reasons to think that the excesses of wealth we take for granted now come at a cost that isn't really worth while... e.g. the sustainability of human life.


    because I care about justice and the concept of what is earned and deserved, not about happiness. I care about people's liberty to gain happiness for themselves, not to sap it out of the lives of others. if you earn property, it ought to be considered your own, not the government's or somebody else's, in so far as it is possible. there really is not a valid concept of "fair taxation" just like there's inherently no such thing as "fair theft"

    That's not true. I am 31 and female and I experience daily stress and anxiety over the prospect of my future. Why? Because in this country under the current status quo, I either need to accept a very difficult life balancing child rearing and my career... and accept being mediocre in both areas. Or I have to choose between the two.
    Or my husband has to accept mediocrity in his career in the same way. That sounds rather similar to your first suggestion that just because women are biologically capable of bearing children that they should accept crap lives on top of it.
    but this is the thing: it is their lives, and they ought to bear responsibility over it, and that's not due to their gender, it's to do with them being humans. they don't have to have children, and they can adopt them to stop pregnancy inhibiting their careers if they feel that this is better (and in my opinion adoption is more moral than natural birth; if I ever have kids, I'll probably adopt). if it's regarding parenting, then again, you have to ask the fundamental question: "who's choice is it?", because if you have a choice, you must bear responsibility for it. it's like if you make a huge economic gamble and lose a lot of money - should the government bail you out? no? so how is this any different? it's still a gamble - having kids might necessarily make you poorer, but surely that is regarding the fact that kids themselves are an investment not in your economic life but rather your family life? why is it supposed that there ought not be a conflict when it is clear that one is asking something from the other necessarily?

    When you say 'its our life and we should pay for it', we do...
    If a taxation system is run fairly then people are not taxed to the extent that they are in financial hardship.


    taxation is immoral and it should exist in so far as it protects us physically (the bare purpose of a republic/public government), not financially. I don't understand how people can consider taxation as something that isn't fundamentally based on people with all the weapons and power stealing money from others without that power. that is a fact of politics. you cannot detach taxes from their means/origin. even if we accept that money would be far better used, publicly, for welfare than individuals amassing it for themselves, does that mean we can steal and then say it is moral? because I don't you can reconcile the idea of "earn" with "fair theft" because earn suggests a lack of the latter - if "earn" is fair, then "theft" is not

    Furthermore, presumably you think that the human race should continue. If it is to continue, then the people who sacrifice their physical well being to be baby factories need to be rewarded for that social contribution. Parents and families also create human capital by educating and socialising children, who grow up to be the employers, wealth creators and entrepreneurs (Etc etc) of the future. So it's not really true that it's just 'my life' that 'I' have to pay for. We are all interconnected. If I choose not to have a child, I will be contributing to the collective problem of population aging. But if I do choose to have a child, I have to take a lot of major personal sacrifices for doing something that will make society better for other people.


    but that's like saying "I was a worker in steve jobs' factory, therefore I deserve some of his fortune" - a parent doesn't voluntarily have a child for the collective. they have a child for their own personal fulfilment. the fact that there is any overlap is a total coincidence and hence an irrelevance. if I told a person to buy a lottery ticket and they happened to win the jack pot, that doesn't mean I deserve any of that jack pot money, right? again: same exact principle. your *intention* and your *free choice* is all that matters. and having kids shouldn't be dishonestly seen to be some kind of public service. because it's not.

    Instead of your perspective, what I see is that humans all have a huge amount of potential to create value for society.
    It is only logical for a state or a society to do what it can to unleash that potential. Excessive individualism and privatisation of cost (both real cost and others, like the time and physical sacrifice) runs against the strategic advantage we have by sharing the cost and cooperating to find a more efficient and mutually beneficial solution. Again, this is the underlying philosophy of the entire Enlightenment. And it is consistent with liberalism.
    I don't see individuals as being part of some overarching project, and that idea of "efficiency" as in "human instrumentality" really just sounds like "how can we best *use* people?" - is that really a suitable equation that liberalism would ever make? again, like utilitarians would say, there is a concision between liberty and happiness, but liberty isn't *for* happiness inherently. it's for self-ownership as a moral idea. it could be the case that people use their liberty stupidly and hence make themselves unhappy overall, but is that for us to get involved with? I don't think so - it would be crazy to have individuals tell other individuals how best to lie their lives. we're all individuals at the end of the day, and liberty doesn't regard Whether you use that liberty in the most utilitarian (in reality) fashion, surely. it's all about your ability to reason and risk - happiness isn't always something that's easy to find

    I don't think many people want 5 kids and a career I think if you polled society you'd find people want 2 and a career they enjoy. Whereas what we have now is many people abstaining entirely because it's so hard to manage both. This seems like a rather weak concern though, tbf
    yes but so what? having children is hard if you want to balance them with a career - who's saying it's not? it just seems strange to think that people should have a human right to have kids or something - kids are a private matter, not some kind of public service like I said - it's kind of like the environment - just because it is a matter of public relevance doesn't necessarily make it a matter of private irrelevance - it's more based on private choice what happens to it (i.e. emissions rates being based on the choices of individuals to drive or not drive)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    it's something to make fun of and laugh about
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SinsNotTragedies)
    It is. You are looking at the wrong stream of feminism, ironically one that taints modern feminism - which is working on issues that translate across cultural divides.

    That is not a fact. Feminism is intertwined also with the LGBT movement, which encapsulates men in their campaigning also - the point is that the movements are gender blind, the divide between male and female is irrelevant. Equality is equality, regardless of gender. Feminism doesn't hurt men.

    Thanks to feminism, yes. I was answering the user's query of what feminism has done for him. Our modern culture has been shaped by feminism giving strength to the submissive woman, so it is very relevant in regards to the question I was answering.

    We live in a more multicultural country nowadays, and thus many cultural gender issues are emerging in modern society. In the UK we have issues such as FGM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...ses-in-england) to address. By championing women's rights we hope to get the message across to cultures that still are unequal.

    There is also rape culture, misogyny and intimidation of woman - viewing them as the weaker sex - to address.
    1) how do we have a rape culture? that's insane. are you defining "rape" in a creative way or something? do we have a society like the congo? did I miss something here? elaborate?
    2) misogyny AND misandry in different contexts, I'll accept. but why the emphasis on misogyny? it is not clear in the slightest in 2017 that misogyny is more pervasive than misandry in the west. let me ask you: when is it ever going to acceptable to believe that midandry is becoming more predominant than misogyny? will ever never be a time that the evidence regarding a whole host of men's problems is allowed to be recognised?
    3) ...aren't women the weaker sex factually though? what's wrong with that...? it's a generalised view, but it's "generally" true physically. so what? it's not about physicalities, it's about mentalities - men and women are basically exactly the same regarding intelligence, and in this kind of civilisation, it's intelligence that allows you to succeed.

    also, regarding our "multicultural" society - surely, if it is bringing in misogynist cultures like those from the middle east, that is anti-women?

    Yes, men can be subject to sexual abuse but a disproportionate amount of women are subject to it, on a larger scale than men.
    in what context though
    women are more likely to be paedophiles
    women are more likely to hit children than men, and MUCH more likely to hit male children than female children too
    lesbians have the highest amounts of domestic violence
    women are more likely to hit men while men are less likely to hit women in a more general context, i.e. they are more likely to return expressions with physical force (slapping)

    You are talking about circumcision? I agree with you there, FGM and its male counterpart both need to be addressed. FGM is definitely more pressing, it is far more dangerous and life-threatening. But I hope you can see that if we fight against FGM, in my eyes we also fight against the male equivalent to put both genders on equal ground.
    it's not far more pressing in the west though. and I'm kind of depressed that people like you actually think that FGM is more prevalent when the other thing is LEGAL AND FREELY AVAILABLE. it's not only banned here, but taken HUGELY seriously. when is MGM taken that seriously?!

    In no way do I disregard male struggle (however, female struggle is far more vast) - I believe organisations such as Fathers4Justice have grounds and I support male parenthood matters.
    well you can say that but that's not to say that fathers4justice is integrated into "feminism", because it is not. it is against feminism today. feminism today isn't legal equality, it's the doctrine of patriarchy. and this kind of "patriarchy" feminism is the same one that says that there's a rape culture - and you yourself said there was. so how are you saying that those kinds of radical feminists are "the wrong strand of feminism" when you yourself adhere to it...? would you not say you yourself were closer to a feminist like mackinnon than J. S. mill?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    That isn't true actually. There are still a lot of families, communities, work places and schools where traditional gender roles are actively policed. There is a lot of current carefully documented evidence of the pressure that (especially) working class men face in their communities to conform to very traditional modes of masculinity and sexuality, and I have met many women who have experienced dismissal and hostility from men because of their gender. For instance, my childhood best friend was physically hit by her line manager because she suggested a more efficient approach to the project they were working on because he felt insecure (she has a PhD, he only had a Masters). When the incident came to light, the employer didn't sack her manager but moved her to a different project (even though she was most qualified to stay on the original one), and covered the thing up. There continues to be a significant volume of domestic abuse. And personally I experienced over the course of my life that I was being treated differently to men in many of the same situations. So, for example... I found that my male peers and classmates got respect, status and approval when they behaved in aggressive and condident ways. But when I behave aggressively, confidently... if I'm assertive, then people react differently because they perceive it differently if it comes from a woman. I didn't come to this conclusion lightly. It took many years before I realised there was this pattern.
    do you generally use anecdotes over evidence? it's not like I can look into a crystal ball and see all these things you've described, nor can I put them into a larger societal context. only stats (evidence) can do that. I could give you a huge stream of personal anecdotes but they wouldn't prove my point at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Basically everything Craggy says.

    When my mum was at school (a high-achieving private girls' school), the girls who wanted to be doctors were told no, they should be nurses, because it was more ladylike. I'm grateful that nobody at school ever said anything like that to me or led me to believe I wasn't capable - and yet on my first day at university I dropped something in a practical and one of the demonstrators said to me "and that's why we shouldn't let women do medicine." Thankfully there weren't too many people around with that sort of attitude, but sexism lingers in some corners.

    I'm currently on maternity leave after having my first child. I'm very grateful that we now have the support to have children, take time out to nurture them, and come back to a fulfilling career. I'd be miserable as a long term stay-at-home mum, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have children.

    I don't agree with everything every feminist says, but I do think feminism is still needed, both for the far greater injustices suffered by women in other less liberal countries and for the ongoing low-level sexism that is still prevalent in the UK, as well as the growing nastier tide of MRAs and misogyny that is lurking in the internet.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)


    I hope you already know that J.S. Mill was a major feminist.
    Economic security is a matter of liberty. Freedom is what you can and cannot do. Things that encroach your ability to do what you want to do are things that curb your freedom. Most especially so if they are things that can easily be altered by social arrangement. There are many different types of liberty, and many types of liberal.
    because I care about justice and the concept of what is earned and deserved, not about happiness. I care about people's liberty to gain happiness for themselves, not to sap it out of the lives of others. if you earn property, it ought to be considered your own, not the government's or somebody else's, in so far as it is possible. there really is not a valid concept of "fair taxation" just like there's inherently no such thing as "fair theft"
    You are a deontologist then. I'm a consequentialist.
    Your position is emotionally intuitive. But I don't think emotions about moral principles and about right and wrong are the right method to identify the right policy choices to pursue.
    but this is the thing: it is their lives, and they ought to bear responsibility over it, and that's not due to their gender, it's to do with them being humans. they don't have to have children, and they can adopt them to stop pregnancy inhibiting their careers if they feel that this is better (and in my opinion adoption is more moral than natural birth; if I ever have kids, I'll probably adopt). if it's regarding parenting, then again, you have to ask the fundamental question: "who's choice is it?", because if you have a choice, you must bear responsibility for it. it's like if you make a huge economic gamble and lose a lot of money - should the government bail you out? no? so how is this any different? it's still a gamble - having kids might necessarily make you poorer, but surely that is regarding the fact that kids themselves are an investment not in your economic life but rather your family life? why is it supposed that there ought not be a conflict when it is clear that one is asking something from the other necessarily?
    Ok... so do you want us to charge every drunk person who goes to A&E? Should we abolish the NHS? Should the state never intervene to mitigate the risks of entrepreneurship and make sure that anybody who tries to do anything risky bears full 'responsibility'? How about science? Most of the technologies and advantages we enjoy in modern societies were brought about because somebody was sheltered from risk and responsibility by a higher power such as a state, and given the freedom to experiment without personally footing the bill.
    Nobody takes full responsibility for their actions and choices in life. And our societies and lifestyles would be radically different if they did.
    I don't see individuals as being part of some overarching project, and that idea of "efficiency" as in "human instrumentality" really just sounds like "how can we best *use* people?
    Since we're 'using' people to make everyone happier in this scenaro, yes
    liberty isn't *for* happiness inherently. it's for self-ownership as a moral idea.
    Really? What is self ownership? Define it? Can you pick it up? Is it tangible? Honestly, if I think about myself and my own 'self ownership', the only reason I have to value it is because it gives me one of two things: happiness or the ability to protect myself from unhappiness.
    yes but so what? having children is hard if you want to balance them with a career - who's saying it's not? it just seems strange to think that people should have a human right to have kids or something - kids are a private matter, not some kind of public service like I said - it's kind of like the environment - just because it is a matter of public relevance doesn't necessarily make it a matter of private irrelevance - it's more based on private choice what happens to it (i.e. emissions rates being based on the choices of individuals to drive or not drive)
    Well I already explained that it's a public not private matter. Since my kids will go on to change your environment and the society you live in. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye there if you can't recognise that.

    But in answer to the 'so what... having children is hard' point. But... it's not. In Sweden. So if everyone is happy and they're having kids and careers and they found a way to have their cake and eat it, why do you want to mess that up? It's like you want to steal a toy from a child. There is a way to make that work to everyone's benefit, so why on earth wouldn't you?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    im not. there a bunch of OTT man haters.
    if hitler only hit out at women, then feminists would be the equivilent
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    do you generally use anecdotes over evidence? it's not like I can look into a crystal ball and see all these things you've described, nor can I put them into a larger societal context. only stats (evidence) can do that. I could give you a huge stream of personal anecdotes but they wouldn't prove my point at all.
    Actually it depends on what point one is making whether an anecdote is suitable evidence or not. I was refuting the very general and black and white claim that women are no longer pressured to 'submit' in modern society.
    It is very easy and unproblematic to disprove this claim using just one anecdote. Because only one exception is needed to disprove a generalised rule like that.
    But I actually didn't use only anecdotes. I referred to research in former posts, to a survey and to a widespread well documented sexual harrassment crisis which has been widely corroborated by the press in recent years.

    In many academic disciplines such as philosophy or political theory, anecdotes and even hypothetical thought experiments are routinely used when discussing principles or rules.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    but this is the thing: it is their lives, and they ought to bear responsibility over it, and that's not due to their gender, it's to do with them being humans. they don't have to have children, and they can adopt them to stop pregnancy inhibiting their careers if they feel that this is better (and in my opinion adoption is more moral than natural birth; if I ever have kids, I'll probably adopt)
    You do realise that people who adopt also take time off to care for their child? They're entitled to just as much leave (and therefore career impact) for adoption as for a biological child. The physical side of pregnancy and recovery from childbirth only accounts for a small part of the time taken off.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    [/color]

    I hope you already know that J.S. Mill was a major feminist.


    he was a feminist in the sense that modern feminists aren't

    Economic security is a matter of liberty. Freedom is what you can and cannot do.
    Things that encroach your ability to do what you want to do are things that curb your freedom. Most especially so if they are things that can easily be altered by social arrangement. There are many different types of liberty, and many types of liberal.
    there is *literally* a difference between your personal ability to choose and your personal ability to determine your acts, and being able to choose things based on taking away choices from others (i.e. socialism) - that's why you can't just say freedom is "whatever you're able to get away with", because that would mean a bank robber is "free" to rob banks. in a more universal understanding of the term, they are not "free" to do that, because they are only able to determine their OWN choices, not the choices of others.

    You are a deontologist then. I'm a consequentialist.


    I am a deontologist in a legal sense because I cannot justify a mode of logic that suggests that people are servants to some undeserved collective utility. but I am a consequentialist regarding people's free lives. people should live for only THEIR private choices and consequences, and they shouldn't force people to do what they and their group wants just because. that's personally why I don't think utilitarianism as a bare theory is very strong because it doesn't say that utility is only justified in a context where it is earned. it just says that the greatest good for the greatest number is good because it's good. it could be realised via genocide technically, but that wouldn't change anything. that's why public consequentialism is bad - it doesn't involve a formula of universal justice.

    Your position is emotionally intuitive. But I don't think emotions about moral principles and about right and wrong are the right method to identify the right policy choices to pursue.


    what do you mean? I never talked about emotions, I talked about what is universal

    Ok... so do you want us to charge every drunk person who goes to A&E? Should we abolish the NHS?


    what do you mean? what do you mean drunk? drunk = not deserving? or drunk = a problem they've caused themselves by drinking? I think all kinds of self-inflicted problems ought to be paid for by the person themselves. I personally don't think that health care ought to be a public service, but generally, I don't find it as much as other things because our way of doing health care isn't terribly inefficient. I'd probably go for a system where either the state had no place possible (i.e. not establishing corporate relations with insurance companies) or they set minimum price levels if anything at all (although this is only if the market was very limited, which it would only be at first if we deregulated) - there are a lot of examples of countries that have that style of health care and it generally works greatly and people still basically can all afford health care - not like the US system which is the worst system in the world *due* to the government

    Should the state never intervene to mitigate the risks of entrepreneurship and make sure that anybody who tries to do anything risky bears full 'responsibility'?


    yes - why would it? why would they be entitled to it? can you make a formula producing that kind of logical entitlement?

    How about science? Most of the technologies and advantages we enjoy in modern societies were brought about because somebody was sheltered from risk and responsibility by a higher power such as a state, and given the freedom to experiment without personally footing the bill.


    I don't think you're putting this into the right perspective
    the fact that a person had little but had a lot of good ideas *necessitated* their promotion of their ideas for the sake of the fruits of that idea. the fact that they were poor could have been a huge stimulant of their genius through necessity.

    Nobody takes full responsibility for their actions and choices in life. And our societies and lifestyles would be radically different if they did.


    again, you'll have to elaborate

    Since we're 'using' people to make everyone happier in this scenaro, yes
    Really? What is self ownership? Define it? Can you pick it up? Is it tangible?


    why are you asking that? it's like asking "can you pick up 2+2=4?" just because it's not tangible doesn't mean it is senseless. what I'm referring to isn't even meant to be tangible. for example, I like happiness (personal happiness) - I can't pick it up - so what?
    self-ownership is the idea that you own yourself and you are your own master. therefore, like any property you may own, you own the business of yourself and what happens to/with it. so if I self-own, I and not somebody else can control me. so it's the logic that is against the logic of slavery at its core. and if a person can use their body, they can acquire property via their bodies (both physical and mental bodily processes), either individually or cooperatively via contracts.

    Honestly, if I think about myself and my own 'self ownership', the only reason I have to value it is because it gives me one of two things: happiness or the ability to protect myself from unhappiness.


    depends if your happiness is deserved or fairly acquired; again, if you desire happiness, you cant just say you automatically deserve it, especially if you have to violate somebody else's freedom or happiness (or usually both) to get it

    Well I already explained that it's a public not private matter. Since my kids will go on to change your environment and the society you live in. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye there if you can't recognise that.


    yes but in the most abstract sense possible. it's like saying that the act of a mosquito technically shaped the way the world appears today (the butterfly effect). so what? I don't owe that mosquito anything for it, because they didn't do it *for* me. it's also kind of like saying that white people enslaving black people hundreds of years ago means that white people today change the lives of black people today - it's very abstract, like this concept. it's only true in the most generalistic and non-literal sense possible.

    But in answer to the 'so what... having children is hard' point. But... it's not. In Sweden. So if everyone is happy and they're having kids and careers and they found a way to have their cake and eat it, why do you want to mess that up? It's like you want to steal a toy from a child. There is a way to make that work to everyone's benefit, so why on earth wouldn't you?
    everybody's benefit?
    are you ignoring that people have to pay taxes?
    are you ignoring that not everybody paying taxes wants kids?
    are you ignoring that some people might have to pay far more taxes for the sake of people who don't and also have kids?

    by the way I'm sorry this is going to have to be my last message because this is taking a long time to type
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helenia)
    You do realise that people who adopt also take time off to care for their child? They're entitled to just as much leave (and therefore career impact) for adoption as for a biological child. The physical side of pregnancy and recovery from childbirth only accounts for a small part of the time taken off.
    what age child are you talking about?
    either way: it's not like adoption changes anything regarding parenting
    I am saying that it skips the pregnancy stage which is usually said to be something that women can take free time off for
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    by the way I'm sorry this is going to have to be my last message because this is taking a long time to type
    I don't think we will change eachothers' views, so it is probably best not to waste more time on it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    1) how do we have a rape culture? that's insane. are you defining "rape" in a creative way or something? do we have a society like the congo? did I miss something here? elaborate?
    Rape culture in reference to victim blaming. When our justice system blames a woman's non-provocative behaviour, there is a problem with our culture that shies away from labelling rape as rape regardless of a woman's clothes, how intoxicated she was, or how late she was out.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-too-much.html

    2) misogyny AND misandry in different contexts, I'll accept. but why the emphasis on misogyny? it is not clear in the slightest in 2017 that misogyny is more pervasive than misandry in the west. let me ask you: when is it ever going to acceptable to believe that midandry is becoming more predominant than misogyny? will ever never be a time that the evidence regarding a whole host of men's problems is allowed to be recognised?
    Because women are called 'sluts' and 'whores'. What is a man called? A player? And he gets a pat on the back for having sex with multiple women, while society's conception of the woman who has sex with multiple men is skewed towards believing she has loose morals and has had a bad upbringing. Single mothers are viewed upon with pity, even contempt, while the man gets paid little attention - just because of simple biological function.

    3) ...aren't women the weaker sex factually though? what's wrong with that...? it's a generalised view, but it's "generally" true physically. so what? it's not about physicalities, it's about mentalities - men and women are basically exactly the same regarding intelligence, and in this kind of civilisation, it's intelligence that allows you to succeed.
    Women may sometimes be weaker, but this can prevent them from being viewed seriously. Women's psyches are regarded as weaker as well, they are viewed as sensitive and irrational - incapable of making decisions and incapable of being strong under pressure.

    also, regarding our "multicultural" society - surely, if it is bringing in misogynist cultures like those from the middle east, that is anti-women?
    No. Multiculturalism in itself isn't anti-women but unfortunately it has allowed for cultures where feminism hasn't a large emphasis to practise their misogynistic rituals in an enlightened society. Why do you bring the whole of the Middle East into this? Why not African cultures and some South Asian cultures, which are prohibitive towards women? Most Middle Eastern girls in the West are hardly subject to cultural misogyny.

    in what context though
    women are more likely to be paedophiles
    women are more likely to hit children than men, and MUCH more likely to hit male children than female children too
    lesbians have the highest amounts of domestic violence
    women are more likely to hit men while men are less likely to hit women in a more general context, i.e. they are more likely to return expressions with physical force (slapping)
    I was talking about rape.

    Do you have proof for all of those? I will only address if it is provided, so I can understand the arguments.

    Specifically the paedophilia statement. Anyone who acts upon paedophilia is obviously in the wrong, but as far as I am aware more men are convicted of acts of such a nature. Though woman are capable of paedophilia too, yes, and carrying out associated acts.


    it's not far more pressing in the west though. and I'm kind of depressed that people like you actually think that FGM is more prevalent when the other thing is LEGAL AND FREELY AVAILABLE. it's not only banned here, but taken HUGELY seriously. when is MGM taken that seriously?!
    I don't believe it is more prevalent.

    When FGM goes on under the radar in society there needs to be action on promoting female equality so that certain cultures are prohibited from carrying it out.

    Circumcision is not as dangerous as FGM (though it is still unjust): problems with passing urine, problems with sex, problems with intercourse and not to mention pain, infection and the mortality rate are associated with FGM.

    well you can say that but that's not to say that fathers4justice is integrated into "feminism", because it is not. it is against feminism today. feminism today isn't legal equality, it's the doctrine of patriarchy. and this kind of "patriarchy" feminism is the same one that says that there's a rape culture - and you yourself said there was. so how are you saying that those kinds of radical feminists are "the wrong strand of feminism" when you yourself adhere to it...? would you not say you yourself were closer to a feminist like mackinnon than J. S. mill?
    "Feminism today" could mean anything, as there are several streams. Only third wave extremist feminists will disagree with Fathers4Justice.

    I don't adhere to radical feminism.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    what age child are you talking about?
    either way: it's not like adoption changes anything regarding parenting
    I am saying that it skips the pregnancy stage which is usually said to be something that women can take free time off for
    Any age child - all adoptive parents are entitled to adoption leave. Even for older children it's recommended as while their physical needs are easier to meet, the emotional/psychological/attachment problems they may have require consistent time with their new parents, rather than being in daycare all the time.

    Women don't take "free time off" for pregnancy! Pregnancy lasts 9 months, most women are only on maternity leave for the last few weeks (I stopped at 37 weeks). Some women develop medical problems during the pregnancy and have to take time off earlier - same as you would have to for any other medical condition. Maybe a few take the piss, but not many - most try to work as long as they can in order to maximise the amount of leave they can have with their baby after it's born.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think feminism in it's original form, back in the day was needed and justified as there was an awful lot of un-equality between men and women.

    I think most modern day feminists have taken things too far though and most come off as anti-men. Sometimes I wonder if bad experiences with men [dating wise] makes a woman more likely to become feminist. I don't want to be mean, but when that male comedian a few years ago put on that shirt which said "This is what a feminist look like" and posted a pic ...he absolutely HIT the nail on the head, most feminists do seem to look, ....how should I put this, ......not very perty.......
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SinsNotTragedies)
    Rape culture in reference to victim blaming. When our justice system blames a woman's non-provocative behaviour, there is a problem with our culture that shies away from labelling rape as rape regardless of a woman's clothes, how intoxicated she was, or how late she was out.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-too-much.html
    that's not rape. so it's not a "rape" culture.
    also, that doesn't and never happens in this country.
    you'll never find a judge asking what a rape victim was wearing here.
    and also: men are imprisoned sometimes merely for having sex with a girl who was drunk as if it was rape. does that mean we have a "male unfair imprisonment culture"?
    edit: also; "Mr Justice Males made the comments as he sentenced two men for raping an 18-year-old student just minutes after meeting her"
    "AFTER HE SENTENCED TWO MEN"
    so the comments were irrelevant - it might have been entirely the case that she was being stupid to be so drunk
    it's like leaving your house unlocked and expecting to got get burgled.

    Because women are called 'sluts' and 'whores'. What is a man called? A player? And he gets a pat on the back for having sex with multiple women, while society's conception of the woman who has sex with multiple men is skewed towards believing she has loose morals and has had a bad upbringing. Single mothers are viewed upon with pity, even contempt, while the man gets paid little attention - just because of simple biological function.
    because having sex with multiple women is ****ing hard to do, whereas to have sex with multiple men as a woman is ****ing easy (well, much easier*). you're ignoring this fact of reality.

    Women may sometimes be weaker, but this can prevent them from being viewed seriously. Women's psyches are regarded as weaker as well, they are viewed as sensitive and irrational - incapable of making decisions and incapable of being strong under pressure.
    that's not just women then. that's also "physically weak men".
    and physical strength isn't the only thing people are looked down for in society
    ugliness is even worse

    No. Multiculturalism in itself isn't anti-women but unfortunately it has allowed for cultures where feminism hasn't a large emphasis to practise their misogynistic rituals in an enlightened society. Why do you bring the whole of the Middle East into this? Why not African cultures and some South Asian cultures, which are prohibitive towards women? Most Middle Eastern girls in the West are hardly subject to cultural misogyny.
    because generally it is the whole middle east, except maybe israel
    and yes, okay fine, it is both the middle east AND africa, AND south asia.
    this is a pure nit-pick...

    I was talking about rape.
    I know.
    rape is violent
    I gave you the facts about other violent crimes
    why is rape so special to you?
    it's not in a league of its own - it's only worse in a subjective sense - subject to the extent of harm, pain, discomfort, emotional torment, etc. it's still using those same metrics as the other violent crimes then.

    Do you have proof for all of those? I will only address if it is provided, so I can understand the arguments.
    look it up. I honestly don't have time to go fetch them for you. I barely have time to type any of this but I don't want to give the impression I'm not answering you via lack of arguments

    Specifically the paedophilia statement. Anyone who acts upon paedophilia is obviously in the wrong, but as far as I am aware more men are convicted of acts of such a nature. Though woman are capable of paedophilia too, yes, and carrying out associated acts.

    I don't believe it is more prevalent.
    so you think there are just as many jewish and muslim boys as there are jewish and muslim GIRLS that are genitally mutilated? jesus. you realise basically every single muslim and jewish boy is GM'd?

    When FGM goes on under the radar in society there needs to be action on promoting female equality so that certain cultures are prohibited from carrying it out.
    yeah, undesirable cultures that shouldn't even be here

    Circumcision is not as dangerous as FGM (though it is still unjust): problems with passing urine, problems with sex, problems with intercourse and not to mention pain, infection and the mortality rate are associated with FGM.
    that's ****ing irrelevant
    I'm not saying it's bad because it's dangerous.
    I'm saying it's bad because it's a violation of the child.
    it's like saying "rape so long as she's asleep is okay" because there's less violence - again, would you say that's suddenly a justified instance of rape? no? so why is MGM justifiable or relatively justifiable (in your case)?

    "Feminism today" could mean anything, as there are several streams. Only third wave extremist feminists will disagree with Fathers4Justice.

    I don't adhere to radical feminism.
    feminism is kind of a non-concept today
    but regardless, only misandrists generally are proud of labelling themselves feminists - that's why in this country only about 15% of women call themselves feminists even though about 85% of women believe in gender equality (again, I wish I had more time because I would be giving you these stats)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I get to have sex with more sexually liberated women (in theory).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RF_PineMarten)
    I'm grateful for how feminism has focused lots of attention on what are truly the most important issues facing women today, such as mansplaining, "lad's mags" and what shirt a scientist wears.
    That isn't all they focus on -____-
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why are you getting so aggressive, why swear when we're discussing? You're getting very riled up and disproportionately so.

    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    look it up. I honestly don't have time to go fetch them for you. I barely have time to type any of this but I don't want to give the impression I'm not answering you via lack of arguments
    If you don't want to argue your side then that is fine, but don't expect me to 'look it up' when you can't be bothered to provide substance to your case.

    because having sex with multiple women is ****ing hard to do, whereas to have sex with multiple men as a woman is ****ing easy (well, much easier*). you're ignoring this fact of reality.
    Why call a women a slut? It still makes no sense to shame sexually active women. The difficulty level makes no difference, sex is sex. :lol:


    so you think there are just as many jewish and muslim boys as there are jewish and muslim GIRLS that are genitally mutilated? jesus. you realise basically every single muslim and jewish boy is GM'd?
    I didn't imply that. Obviously not... :facepalm: I am saying that FGM is far more severe than its male counterpart, but that doesn't mean circumcision is morally right.


    but regardless, only misandrists generally are proud of labelling themselves feminists - that's why in this country only about 15% of women call themselves feminists even though about 85% of women believe in gender equality (again, I wish I had more time because I would be giving you these stats)
    I label myself as a feminist and I am in no way a misandrist. You will be hard pressed to go out and find a feminist who is a misandrist; the media gives far too much attention to the types of feminists who are difference feminists.

    Neither of us are going to change our views so this is the last of it tbh.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

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

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

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

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

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