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

Misandry and female privilege in the way we are taught to form relationships Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Oh look it's TSR's top misogynist. The guy who believes that women in developing countries where marital rape isn't even a legal definition, have it so much easier than men.

    (Original post by Joinedup)
    *Might* be a biological/evolutionary basis for males jumping through hoops to try and impress females and females being selective...

    https://www.biologycorner.com/worksh...es_choose.html


    Yeah but people like to use the evo-psych definition when it suits them. So a lot of the anti-feminist guys on here, and the OP himself, uses it to justify why women dominate care roles, why slut shaming is justified etc. However when it comes to justifying a behaviour that supposedly benefits the female, all of a sudden the evo-psych approach has no basis.


    Regardless of this debate, I agree it has got very little basis. It's much more to do with cultural values imo.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    You are very confused that much we both agree about....

    Lets just explain a couple of basic concepts of logic. These will help clarify things for you. On this planet and in this reality people who hold different beliefs to you might not agree with you about history. Do you understand this basic concept? Just incase you don't, allow me to elaborate...You are a feminist. I am not. You have your own interpretation of history which feminists like you will agree with. I am not a feminist. Therefore, I might disagree with you and your interpretations of history and people who disagree with feminism, like me are going to disagree with you too. That's how basic logic works on this planet, in this reality, this 'universe'.

    OK.....now that we've got this out of the way, lets deal with your interpretation of history but before we do that I need to address one more thing...I'm not debating you here. As I explained before, i believe that debating feminists is often (as I believe is the case with you) a total waste of time......but these replies they are not only for you but for everyone that might want to read them.... and so I am going to address these issues for everyone else that might want to consider them.

    1. You claim that "patriarchy says that men (should) pick a woman to be their wife". That the patriarchy puts the onus on the man to make the move.

    Patriarchy, just incase you might not know, is (putting it simply) a feminist principle which claims that men rule over the world and are in a state of privilege which they use to subjugate and disadvantage women.

    Ask yourself the following question:

    Who benefits from men making the move? Do men benefit from this culture or women? Well as a result of this culture men are exposed to rejection whilst women are protected from rejection. Men as a result of this culture are taught to bow and crawl on all fours and present women with gifts, diamonds and jewellery in order to please women and gain their approval. Women are not.

    So who is being disadvantaged here? The one doing the bowing or the one being bowed to? The one seeking approval or the one being sought for approval? the one facing rejection or the one being protected from rejection? of course common sense entails that the one doing the bowing and the one seeking approval and the one facing rejection is the one who is in a state of disadvantage whilst the other who is protected form these things is in a state of privilege.

    Clearly we see that women are in a state of privilege as a result of this culture. This is not agreeable with patriarchy. This disproves patriarchy which preaches the opposite that men are in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage. So this is not patriarchy.

    This addresses your first point.

    2. You claim that "In general, (men) used to get rejected by the woman's father, or oldest brother."

    That is a good example of a distortion of history. Approval has ALWAYS been ultimately sought from women. In some parts of the world men sought approval from the woman through the father not from the father....so the approval was given by the women and not the parent. This culture is inscribed in the main religions of the world. Men have to seek approval directly or indirectly from women. The oldest religion that teaches this principle is Judaism, which by conservative estimates is over 3000 years old. So 3000 years ago men were obliged by religion to seek out approval from women.

    What else did you say in your comment?

    3. "Of course, since it was realised that women are people, the woman has been able to say no to the man".

    When in history, anywhere on this planet, in this reality, in this 'universe' were women not recognised as people? How could a gender that is not viewed as human be worthy of protection at the expense of a human's life? throughout history men have been taught to protect and put their lives on the line for women....in what reality would it make sense for a human being to be taught to give up their life to a protect a non-human? why would a man be raised to die for a woman if she was considered a no-worth non-human. Throughout history religions have worshiped female gods...women have lead armies in the west and the east...sheba, boadicea, cleopatra, Aisha etc...how could people allow themselves to be lead by inferior non-humans? Do you feminists think at all before you write your nonsense? Do you understand why I tell you that you live in an alternate reality? because your interpretations do not conform with our reality.....they do not make sense...they are illogical...and all it takes is two seconds worth of thought to refute everything about everything that you claim....

    4. You claim that "we've still got this patriarchal idea of wooing and being a gentleman along with the equal notion that the woman gets to make her own choice."

    This is not a patriarchal idea. Like I explained before; patriarchy states that men are in a state of privilege and women in a state of disadvantage...who benefits from this culture of gentlemenly behavior? who benefits from wooing? WOMEN!!!!!! how could it be a patriarchal idea if women come out on top as a result of it? does making sense mean anything to you feminists?
    Please don't condescend me.

    If you believe this debate is a waste of your time, I don't know why you made this thread and continue to respond to it.

    1. The patriarchal background to a man picking his wife means he got the choice on her attributes, could insist she was a virgin, would pick from the best families. Etc.

    I'm going to link the rest of point 1s response into point to 2...

    2. Approval was not sought from women. If you think a woman had the right to say no then you're sorely mistaken. Some women still have no right to say no. Some women are getting murdered or attacked for saying no. Martial rape wasn't a thing until the 90s in this country, and still isn't some places. Child brides are still a thing.

    Rejection was still a thing, but you were rejected by the woman's father, so this is not a gender issue. A woman in those days could be rejected when our forward by her father because she wasn't a virgin, because she didn't have child bearing hips, because her status wasn't high enough.

    Who benefitted in the above situation? Undoubtedly men. They could control their daughters and choose their wives.

    3. I admit a little bit of hyperbole for effect there, but I refer to no right to say no, no right to own property or vote or... well, I don't feel the need to continue with this list because we all know what I'm getting at.

    Women were protected because they were property, because they were there to have children and raise them, regardless of their desires to do so or not. Men didn't touch another man's woman, not because she was an individual with desires and her own autonomy to say no, but because she belonged to another man.

    4. You used to have to woo the father, make it clear you were a good match for his daughter. Now the woman is the one with the opportunity to say no, so that has transferred over to her. It is still the same principles and it has the patriarchal root - many men and women want to break free from this, men like you who feel they're doing all of the work and women who are sick of it being deemed inappropriate or aggressive if they're the ones doing the pursuing - it's still seen as a man's trait to approach someone in a lot of circumstances.

    We've had a slight breakdown of the patriarchal idea, as I said earlier, and this issue why it appears that women are getting the better deal here. For equality to be achieved we need to completely ditch what we have that is ditched in patriarchy and let people decide what they want to do - somewhere people want to pursue and get done on one knee, some people want to be pursued, we should be able to do that regardless of gender.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Prevailing culture in almost every country around the world puts the burden on men to approach and propose relationships to women
    This culture reflects our biology. We are programmed to chase and mate with women. They are programmed to be as discerning as possible and to mate only with the most virile

    It's nature famalam, and as soon as you start interfering with millions of years of evolution, guess what? You start encountering significant psychological/sociological issues

    Far from encouraging women to act increasingly like males (feminism/women's lib), we should recognise and respect our healthy, balanced, natural essence

    (Original post by queen-bee)
    I'm just traditional I guess but I value and respect men, nor would I ever take advantage of any man to gain power or feel more important. I :heart:dominant men
    You see OP, one does not have to bow in deference to women in order to get results under modern cultural norms

    Just have to learn to balance communicating sexual/romantic interest and nobility with commanding respect :hat:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    This culture reflects our biology. We are programmed to chase and mate with women. They are programmed to be as discerning as possible and to mate only with the most virile

    It's nature famalam, and as soon as you start interfering with millions of years of evolution, guess what? You start encountering significant psychological/sociological issues

    Far from encouraging women to act increasingly like males (feminism/women's lib), we should recognise and respect our healthy, balanced, natural essence

    You see OP, one does not have to bow in deference to women in order to get results under modern cultural norms

    Just have to learn to balance communicating sexual/romantic interest and nobility with commanding respect :hat:
    A dominant man is just so dreamy and makes you feel protected :heart:

    I can't really describe but it feels right being with one
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I act like a gentleman when I find a girl that acts like a lovely lady that I would like to be in a relationship with. It's fun when you have a girl that obviously likes you but you're both doing the chasing flirty games anyway.
    Pretty rare to find this type of girl though so usually I just go for the equality approach with everyone when I'm not looking for romance.

    You don't have to approach anyone if you don't want to. You can find a feminist girl and treat her like a man if you want lol.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    I act like a gentleman when I find a girl that acts like a lovely lady that I would like to be in a relationship with. It's fun when you have a girl that obviously likes you but you're both doing the chasing flirty games anyway.
    Pretty rare to find this type of girl though so usually I just go for the equality approach with everyone when I'm not looking for romance.

    You don't have to approach anyone if you don't want to. You can find a feminist girl and treat her like a man if you want lol.
    Lol but what is she's a Feminist and wants to Be dominated ? :innocent: win win
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    Lol but what is she's a Feminist and wants to Be dominated ? :innocent: win win
    Ye it's only if she has the stereotypical horrible feminazi personality I won't even touch them with a stick lmao.

    You're the type of girl I'd describe as a lovely lady tbh. Kind hearted, good morals, principles, etc.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    Ye it's only if she has the stereotypical horrible feminazi personality I won't even touch them with a stick lmao.

    You're the type of girl I'd describe as a lovely lady tbh. Kind hearted, good morals, principles, etc.
    What I she tells you she wants to dominate you? :mmm:

    You're so lovely,thank you :kiss::heart:

    Please say mashallah,I don't want the curse of the evil eye on me...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    What I she tells you she wants to dominate you? :mmm:

    You're so lovely,thank you :kiss::heart:

    Please say mashallah,I don't want the curse of the evil eye on me...
    Well I own handcuffs and bed restraints so I don't mind taking turns. In fact that's ideal :sexface:

    you're welcome.

    mashallah (had to google what that means :lol: )
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I hate the idea that men have to pay for everything, I get back when men had the money and women most likely did not it made sense but now things should be shared, If I buy something for you I expect you to buy something or atleast split the bill
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Oh look it's TSR's top misogynist. The guy who believes that women in developing countries where marital rape isn't even a legal definition, have it so much easier than men.
    -snip-
    Splutter - what makes you think I believe that?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    This culture reflects our biology.

    We are programmed to chase and mate with women.
    It is not true of our biological reality that men are programmed to chase after women. In fact biology has it such that women have a greater need to chase after men than men chase after women. For example, as men we do not have biological timers ticking on top of our heads. We are not under pressure to find mates. We remain fertile throughout our life. It is the opposite for women. Once a woman reaches a certain age, she can no longer reproduce and therefore is under pressure throughout adulthood to find a male partner to mate with. So in biology women have a greater urgency to find a partner than men. This in turn is programmed into their behaviour, which revolves around men throughout their life. You see it in the books that they choose to read. You hear it in the discussions that they choose to have with their friends a good majority of which revolve around boys and partners and their families. You see it in the activities they choose to do all of which allow them as much exposure to men as possible. ...A large majority of their life revolves around finding a partner. This is in complete contrast to men who's lives do not revolve around women but careers, politics, success and power.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    They are programmed to be as discerning as possible and to mate only with the most virile
    Both men and women are equally judgmental towards the opposite gender. Women are not more discerning towards men. Men look for good mothers, for carers etc. Women look for protectors, providers. So both genders are equally judgmental towards the opposite sex.

    Our relationships culture does not make sense. It is not agreeable with our biology. Considering our biology and our preferences there is no jsutficiation for men to seek out women and women to be sought out by men. There is no justification for this and if there was a justification for this there is no justification for men bowing to women...it serves no purpose but to subjugate men at the expense of women....

    I am still waiting for someone to provide me with a justification for men having to approach women and why it should not work the other way around.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    It's nature famalam, and as soon as you start interfering with millions of years of evolution, guess what? You start encountering significant psychological/sociological issues

    Far from encouraging women to act increasingly like males (feminism/women's lib), we should recognise and respect our healthy, balanced, natural essence
    I am not against our nature. I am not a feminist. I don't believe that men and women are the same. I believe that we are unique and we should be treated differently but equally. My problem is with certain aspects of our culture which I think are unnatural, unjustified and therefore incorrect.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    You see OP, one does not have to bow in deference to women in order to get results under modern cultural norms
    This does not justify the act of bowing.

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    Just have to learn to balance communicating sexual/romantic interest and nobility with commanding respect :hat:
    The operative word here is 'Balance'. Where is the balance in relationships the way they are now?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Splutter - what makes you think I believe that?
    No no, that was directed at the OP, not you!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    We are not under pressure to find mates
    Speak for yourself mate. Most of us are, in essence, driven by a strong urge to root wenchfolk

    in biology women have a greater urgency to find a partner than men
    They’re not subject to the same potent, fundamental urges, and any chronological urgency is incidental. They may become conscious of a need to procreate (in a hurry) IF they become broody AND they have failed to conceive by a certain age, but this is not wholly a matter of raw biology, but (also) of circumstance, psychology, and sociology, and does not apply to all that many women, at any given moment in time

    A large majority of their life revolves around finding a partner
    Take a look at indigenous tribal peoples (closer to our natural essence, as [band-structure] primates) and you find things are rather different. These are largely sociocultural influences; strip away cultural barriers to women simply mating with dominant males, and raising the young, in small, fluid community-oriented settings and both men and women become far less preoccupied with such things

    men who's lives do not revolve around women but careers, politics, success and power
    As you have yourself alluded to, males primarily seek females with high replication value (aesthetic appeal and maternal qualities), and females primarily seek males with high security value (provider status and paternal qualities)

    The bulk of economic activity in the West is, in essence, ultimately motivated thusly. Take women out of the equation altogether and you'll find most men care only about a fraction of consumer goods (those of high practical utility). A large portion of consumption is either directly, or indirectly, attributable to pleasing/appeasing female appetites, as individuals and, by exertion, as mothers (males are motivated to provide for their children too but not to to the same, cushy, extent)

    Both men and women are equally judgmental towards the opposite gender
    Simply untrue. Consider the 80:20 reproductive ratio of the Neolithic era (genetic evidence suggests 80% of women mated with 20% of men at that time). The women of the age were, by definition, 4 times more discerning than the men, in generally electing to mate only with the top 20% most desirable males

    As males we are programmed to spread our seed widely and, left to our own devices, will mate with attractive pubescent females we come into contact with if at all possible (see primate behaviour)

    Females, on the other hand, can be killed by males, injured during intercourse, are rendered vulnerable by pregnancy, may die in childbirth or as a result of miscarriages, must hope for the most healthy and robust children, and are more reliant on their mate proving to be being a strong, successful (hunter/gatherer), and dependable protector and father figure

    there is no justification for men bowing to women
    This has no basis in primate biology as far as I’m aware, aye, although male members of other species do of course demonstrate deferential ritualistic presentational acts (raptors, for example). It’s just noble, chivalrous, and can be hugely symbolic e.g. where a relatively dominant male elects to make such a gesture, not from a position of weakness but out of courtesy, respect, and romantic intent

    why it should not work the other way around
    As you said yourself, females are more preoccupied with attracting males. The sociopsychological damage stemming from associated rejection is hence far more profound in the (relatively directly/overtly emotionally affected) psychology of females

    Furthermore, male value, as derived from (socially) perceived attractiveness, revolves around a larger number of constructs, that are also more subjective, than is the case re: female attractiveness

    Where is the balance in relationships the way they are now?
    It takes two to tango amigo. Relationships have, broadly speaking, indeed become increasingly unbalanced over the past generation or two, not helped by the introduction of a third party in relationships in the form of ‘state husbandry’

    However, men still retain the ability to educate and empower themselves, and influence each other (people like myself help model successful strategies for the generations coming up). So long as that remains the case, the only people they have to blame for fundamental imbalance in relationships is, I’m afraid, themselves

    The piece of advice I most frequently dispense to young people is that it pays dividends to set a healthy trajectory early on in relationships. Granted, few new partners are a clean slate, and some women are indeed perverted by misandry and/or develop princess complexes fairly early on in life, but few are terribly fixed when you strip away the layers of BS. Virtually every girl I’ve ever dated has responded to reason and (my particular blend of) male leadership, even the upstart/vocal feminists
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Foo you are obviously a considerably intelligent guy, but what you say sometimes simply contradicts the academic literature.

    I feel that you present something as complex as romantic behaviour, as if it's fact, when it's just what you personally believe?


    For example, you say that males are programmed to spread their seeds far and wide, and would mate with any attractive females they come into contact with, if they could. But that's simply not true, and is a very outdated, reductionist perspective.

    The research shows that humans on the whole show a significant preference for monogamy. Both males and females.
    Even in polygamous cultures, the male will often prefer to form a significant pair-bond with one particular female. Research even shows that this applies on a biopsychological level, for example the hormone Oxytocin that is higher in individuals who have formed pair-bonds, leads you to perceive other potential females as less attractive.

    Higher levels of Oxytocin also leads attached males to stand further away (create more interpersonal distance) from other females compared to their single counterparts.
    I.e our basic biopsychology for want of a better word encourages us to stay with the person we are attached to.

    Your statement that males will naturally breed with other attractive females to "spread their seeds" can also be questioned by the fact that adulterous affairs usually stem from relationships that have a higher than normal amount of issues, or from an individual who is experiencing personal issues.

    I.e, if it was normal for males to want to spread their seeds, if it was in their basic physiology, you'd see a lot more of adultery in happy relationships and well-adjusted males. Which you don't often.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    If you believe this debate is a waste of your time, I don't know why you made this thread and continue to respond to it.
    I don’t believe that debating this issue is a waste of time. I should think that that was obvious from the lengths of my replies and seeing how I made this thread. I wrote that I believe that debating feminists is often a waste of time and I made that very clear in my last comment. So, don't twist my words.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    1. The patriarchal background to a man picking his wife means he got the choice on her attributes, could insist she was a virgin, would pick from the best families. Etc.
    This is not true. I am going to use religions as an example again. Abrahamic religions have been around for thousands of years. They were the main influence on culture throughout time. In Judaism and in Islam women and men have for thousands of years used matchmakers as the main method for finding a partner. The man and the women would both tell the matchmaker (a professional or a family member) the choice of attributes that they would like in their partner and the matchmaker would go out and look for a match. The attributes/demands can be based on looks, status, virginity, anything (Nothing is taboo), but it was still the man's obligation to approach and propose to the woman once a prospective match was made. So what you have written above is not true of our reality, which for thousands of years has allowed both women and men to choose their future partner in accordance with the attributes that they demand from the matchmaker…

    This is an example of what I meant by you distorting history to suit your agenda.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    I'm going to link the rest of point 1s response into point to 2... 2. Approval was not sought from women. If you think a woman had the right to say no then you're sorely mistaken. Some women still have no right to say no. Some women are getting murdered or attacked for saying no. Martial rape wasn't a thing until the 90s in this country, and still isn't some places. Child brides are still a thing……
    Throughout time women have always had the right to approval. The right of a man and a woman to approve their partner is inscribed in our thousand year old religions, which dictate that any forced marriage is greatly sinful. Additionally, forced marriages happen to both men and women with the former being widely ignored and underreported thanks to feminised media. Regardless, both are considered wrong.

    My issue in this discussion is with cultural norms not ‘abnorms’ (for a lack of a better word). My problem is with cultural issues that are socially accepted and not those that are considered wrong and/or illegal by law and by religion. The cultural norm throughout time, has always been that approval is a woman’s right as is clearly inscribed in all major religions…

    You also mention marital rape. You write that marital rape wasn’t a thing until the 90s. You use this as an example for sexism against women!!!!.….how could it be sexism against women when men have it worse in rape laws? marital rape not being recognised as rape until the 90s is still better than the state of male rape, which was not recognised under the law until 1994 (150 years after the recognition of female rape) and even then a sexual assault against a man was only recognised as a rape when the assault was carried out by another man. Female rape of men and children is not recognised as rape to this day in the large majority of countries around the world. So, consider yourself privileged, as a woman, so far as rape laws are concerned. Be thankful you are not a man or a child being abused by a woman who would not even be charged with rape no matter how many hundreds she abused simply because she is a woman…You are using rape laws as an argument for the disadvantagement of women in our culture when women are clearly better off in rape laws than men…


    Importantly, marital rape not being a crime, is actually a rape myth perpetuated by feminists. I am going to show you how this belief is a distortion of the truth. Not only that but how men are more disadvantaged by marital rape laws than women, thus refuting your argument for sexism against women in rape laws.

    Firstly, despite marital rape not being subject to prosecution as rape until 1991, sex with a wife was still considered an unacceptable act if it was forced by the husband. So a husband who forcefully and non-consensually had sex with his wife would still be imprisoned for sexual assault (but not rape) under English Law. So it was still a crime but it wasn’t called rape. Secondly and most importantly, marital rape laws do not recognise rape by wives to this day. So a wife can rape her husband and not be charged with rape.

    As a women, you are privileged in rape laws as compared to men. So if there ever was sexism in rape laws women would be the main beneficiaries of it and men would be the main victims of it. You can rape a child or a husband or man and not be charged with rape just because you are a woman and not just here in the uk but in many other countries around the globe …and feminism has ensured that it stays that way by for example cancelling laws that would see women charged with rape in countries like ‘Israel’.

    If there ever was a rape culture in our laws, in our society, women would be the main beneficiaries of its ills. So don't preach to me about sexism in our rape laws…. because women are privileged by these laws as compared to men….

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    3. I admit a little bit of hyperbole for effect there,
    You have no need to admit to hyperboles. You are a feminist. It comes with the territory.

    I remember reading an ‘international best seller’ by a feminist in which she claimed that in the USA 150, 000 women were dying from anorexia every year .……I did a little research and found that the actual number was around 300. Of course when this truth was exposed and spread across the internet, she, her book and the feminists who parroted her became a laughing stock….

    Everything that is feminism relies on hyperboles and distortions. That is the only way you can justify your baseless, gendered, sexist ideology. You rely on exaggerations and distortions to make a case for your baseless cause.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    but I refer to no right to say no, no right to own property or vote or... well, I don't feel the need to continue with this list because we all know what I'm getting at.
    No right to say no? I have already addressed this issue. Throughout history women have had the right to say no…this right is inscribed our religions, which for thousands of years dictated our practices around the globe. Refer to my reply to point 2 for an elaboration.

    You mention no right to own property…Just incase you do not know, this issue pertains to property laws in the late 1800s. I’ve debated this issue with people before and I did a little research into it at the time and I found that this was another issue that suffered from distortion and lies by feminist.

    Feminists claim that before the early 1900s, in this country, wives had no rights or control over their property by order of the law and that the property acts of 1870 and 1882 put an end to that by giving women rights over their own property. That is actually false. What feminism did to this issue is basically distort the meanings of laws and the functions of the property acts of 1870 and 1882 to make it look like women were not entitlted to control over their property once they were married. Its a very complicated topic that I might start a thread about …but just to give you a simple reply that should suffice to refute this claim….just have a look at women and their property ownership after marriage in this country before the enactment of those laws in 1870 and 1882. Historically, Queen Victoria, wife of Prince Albert, owned vast amounts of wealth and land in the UK, not only that but she owned all of Canada and all of Australia even after her marriage. None of her wealth transferred to her husband. This woman died before the implementation of the women’s property act of 1882….Let me give you another example from the early 18th century….You would benefit from looking her up. Baroness Angela Burdett-Coutts. This woman was one of Britian’s wealthiest people at the time. She owned vast amounts of businesses and land and when she married a husband who adopted her surname as apposed to her adopting his, none of her property transferred to him. She did not loose control over her property or her wealth after her marriage to her husband. Again, this women lived before the implementation of the women’s property act of 1882. Another example is that of Queen Mary the first, wife of Prince Philip the second of Spain. This woman lived in the UK in the mid 1500s and owned vast amounts of property, all of which she had total rights of control over and not her husband.…This issue of the property act is another example of feminism distorting history to portray women as victims when they are not. This issue is a lot more complicated than feminism would have you believe.

    Regardless, men suffer the same exact victimisation in many countries around the world, throughout time and to this day. In many middle-eastern countries for example, the husband’s property has for over a thousand years BY LAW been that of the entire family and not his own. The man’s earnings and property are considered rights of the wife by the law whilst the women’s earnings and property are considered her own.

    As for your last point regarding voting, again it suffers from the same exact problem of distortion by feminists. Feminists claim that women were not allowed to vote because people at the time thought that they were less intelligent, less interested in politics etc..….however, that is not true….recently uncovered documents show that women were actually involved in voting in elections for government posts nearly 100 years prior to 1918…..


    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=a4wrx1&s=9#.WJXX4xicZok
    (A polling document from 1843 for an election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor)
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wom...o-in-1918.html

    Additionally, poor men were not allowed to vote too and they only got the vote 10 years prior to women getting the vote in this country in 1918. So it isn’t all as black and white as feminism would have you believe.

    I assure you when you do research into any claim made by feminists you will discover that whatever the claim may be, it will be distorted and it will be very far from the truth.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Women were protected because they were property, because they were there to have children and raise them, regardless of their desires to do so or not.
    This counterargument is just so helplessly desperate….So by your logic, property was more important than a man’s life? how much thought did you put into this argument? Once again, I am going to remind you of cognitive dissonance. This is a great example of it. No matter how obvious it is that you are in a state of privilege you will distort reality to make it consistent with what you believe in. Men are taught to put their lives on the line in the endeavour of protecting women because women are property that is of less worth than them?….do you even logic?

    Look at this picture:

    Name:  Unknown.jpg
Views: 34
Size:  8.7 KB

    This picture is a good example of the same culture that teaches men to put their lives on the line for the protection of women. It is a culture of female superiority and privilege. Its a culture of putting yourself on the line for the betterment of women.

    Look at the picture again and ask yourself, is this how people treat property? and who benefits from this culture of men dying for the protection of women?

    Think about it.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    4. You used to have to woo the father, make it clear you were a good match for his daughter.
    …lol

    Firstly, this is not agreeable with the english definition of the word ‘wooing’.

    In the Websters Dictionary 1828 the definition for wooing is as follows: (note: i purposely selected this old definition so that you don’t say well the definition has changed now).

    “To court; to solicit in love”

    (where courting is the act of being romantically involved with someone for the purpose eventually marrying them)….

    Apply this definition of wooing in the English language to your comment and join me in laughter at your hopeless attempt to twist the meaning of wooing to get yourself out of this predicament that you’ve gotten yourself into.

    Secondly, this claim of yours isn’t agreeable with history. As i mentioned before, the right to approval by a woman is inscribed in our thousand year old religions which dictate that the father, if involved, could only act as a mediator.

    Thirdly, it isn’t agreeable with our historical use of wooing in stories and poems and in real stories of romance between men and women …all the wooing in history has been directed at women. The wooing in stories such as those of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Love’s Labour lost and All’s Well That End’s Well are all directed at women….

    “A heaven on earth I have won by wooing thee.” Bertram trying to seduce Diana in All’s Well That Ends Well.

    Of course this is just one tiny example. You can look up more if you like. There are tons of references to wooing women in classic poetry, stories and historical books.

    What you’ve done here with wooing is another example of cognitive dissonance. You make the claim that wooing is directed at the father which is an incredibly illogical, nonsensical thing to say….. It isn’t agreeable with the english definition of the word or how it has been used for the past thousand years but you have no other choice but to resort to such tactics. You have to distort reality to make sense of feminism. If you accept reality for what it is you will refute feminism.

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    Now the woman is the one with the opportunity to say no, so that has transferred over to her. It is still the same principles and it has the patriarchal root
    As I explained above, women have always been in the position to say ‘no’. You have failed to prove otherwise. Everything you have suggested in this endeavour I have disproven.

    You are just twisting history in the same way that you twisted my words at the start to support your idea of a patriarchy when clearly it is wrong. It is women who benefit today as they have always done from the state of relationships. Men were bowing to women hundreds of years ago and in Africa men have been taught to crawl on all fours when proposing to women for thousands of years…this is our reality….women are in a state of privilege. Women have it easier in relationships this is the way it has always been….

    (Original post by minimarshmallow)
    We've had a slight breakdown of the patriarchal idea, as I said earlier, and this issue why it appears that women are getting the better deal here. For equality to be achieved we need to completely ditch what we have that is ditched in patriarchy and let people decide what they want to do - somewhere people want to pursue and get done on one knee, some people want to be pursued, we should be able to do that regardless of gender.
    Equality is not treating women and men the same way when they are clearly so different. That is not equality. That is inequality. Equality is not to deny gender typical behaviours for the purpose of gaining or protecting privilege…equality is NOT fighting against a system (of patriarchy) that clearly does not exist as evidenced by the state of privilege and easy life that women have had throughout time as compared to men…Equality is not twisting history to portray women as victims and men as victimisers when the opposite is so clearly true…….Equality is fighting against injustices in culture, injustices that do not make sense , ones that do not conform with our biologies…one’s that go against our nature…Equality is fighting against sexism no matter who it affects and admitting to our privilege not justifying it and blaming it on the opposite gender as you have endeavoured and failed to do in this discussion ….….Equality is fighting against gendered ideologies such as yours. Equality is fighting feminism. Equality is teaching our men that bowing and crawling to women is wrong and subjugating…..and that this is sexism against men and not trying to twist history to justify it or dismiss it as you have done.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AperfectBalance)
    I hate the idea that men have to pay for everything, I get back when men had the money and women most likely did not it made sense but now things should be shared, If I buy something for you I expect you to buy something or atleast split the bill
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Foo you are obviously a considerably intelligent guy, but what you say sometimes simply contradicts the academic literature.
    Don't bet on it.

    Also that is the worst argument ever. 'Academic literature' is 90% a bunch of people who studied the subject at uni (which in multiple degrees has about as much to do with real world practice as a fish has to do with an airplane) and want to pretend they didn't waste their time so sit around in research departments churning out garbage to feel better about themselves or under the misguided illusion they're actually making a significant contribution to the field. The remainder is people who really know what they're talking about going on about in in such detail and depth you don't even know what they've said never mind how to critique it.

    Those numbers are totally arbitrary but my point is a lot of so called academic literature is complete claptrap even if it comes from a smart person (see Aristotles theory of equity, just wtf) - the question shouldn't be what do academics say, the question should be 'who is right'. This simplification of how we process information is why people believe ridiculous stuff, because they read it in a textbook somewhere during their degree so it absolutely must be gospel.


    I'm only here for the fireworks (this thread went down exactly as I expected it to) but that kind of comment worries me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Don't bet on it.

    Also that is the worst argument ever. 'Academic literature' is 90% a bunch of people who studied the subject at uni (which in multiple degrees has about as much to do with real world practice as a fish has to do with an airplane) and want to pretend they didn't waste their time so sit around in research departments churning out garbage to feel better about themselves or under the misguided illusion they're actually making a significant contribution to the field. The remainder is people who really know what they're talking about going on about in in such detail and depth you don't even know what they've said never mind how to critique it.

    Those numbers are totally arbitrary but my point is a lot of so called academic literature is complete claptrap even if it comes from a smart person (see Aristotles theory of equity, just wtf) - the question shouldn't be what do academics say, the question should be 'who is right'. This simplification of how we process information is why people believe ridiculous stuff, because they read it in a textbook somewhere during their degree so it absolutely must be gospel.


    I'm only here for the fireworks (this thread went down exactly as I expected it to) but that kind of comment worries me.
    Totally, the random guy of the internet must be right.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see what the big deal is
 
 
 
  • 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.