Turn on thread page Beta

Why do women want gender equality in the workplace, but not in dating? watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    "All men do this"

    "Not all men"

    "Don't mansplain to me, honey"

    ------------------------------------------------

    "All women do this"

    "Not all women, you misogynist."

    Both are stupid.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by username3750700)
    I can guarantee every guy upvoting this crap is ugly.

    If women dont want you, then they have every right to turn you down. Stop feeling so entitled you neckbearded idiots.
    Yeah, I got the impression that the whiners in this thread and the others upvoting them are the usual "nice guys" who feel that women owe them for the fact that these so called ''nice guys'' view them as trophies and properties, mere notches on the bedpost. These people are the farthest thing from actual ''nice guys'', who actually tend to get romantic partners and often stay happily in relationships for years.

    True nice guys are not the trilby-wearing, patronising and creepy neckbeards who use terms like "ma'am" or "m'lady" and expect women to throw themselves at them, nice guys are men who treat women like individual human beings and equals.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loveleest)
    - No, men are just more likely to hold positions in top institutions. Why are men more likely to become headteachers than women?
    - Well, that's not us women fault wtf? THAT DOES NOT JUSTIFY SLUT SHAMING. Maybe if men decided to have higher standards when it comes to casual sex then it would be harder for women. Even then women have to still have a hard time. (dress nice, hair makeup etc)
    - Every week two women in the UK are killed by an abusive partner. We are more likely to be sexually abused.
    - You're not listening to the facts, are you? There is equal opportunity for women to get to these positions. Whether they get to these positions or not is down to their own life choices and abilities. Nothing to do with gender.

    It's actually white working class men who are the one of most disadvantaged groups in society. They are least likely to go to university and get good paying jobs. But you don't hear feminists talk about this, I wonder why?


    - Men have higher sex drives than women. This is a biological fact, you can't get around it. From this stems different attitudes to sex among men and women. When you have all this surplus male sex drive in society, then it becomes frightfully easy for a woman to get laid as much as she wants.

    Lets say it was the other way around - women had higher sex drives. Now if men slept around, they would be the ones who aren't respected. Get the point?

    Makeup and clothes is time consuming, but I wouldn't call it difficult. Men also need to get ready before going out, it's not an issue only women face. You over-estimate how much men even care about looks anyway. There is diminishing returns to looking good in terms of attracting men. Most of the pressure women have for looks comes from other women.


    - Well that's unfortunate and I'm sorry to hear, but that doesn't mean male sexual assault and rape victims should be treated with any less severity. Plus if you hang around and marry decent, kind men, you should generally avoid this. There are so many nice, kind, honest men out there who get overlooked by women for ****heads and abusers. If you're a good judge of character, such problems should be avoided. If you want to go out with the "badboy" because of a sexual thrill, don't come crying when later down the line, he cheats and abuses you.

    Don't get me wrong - sexual abuse is wrong and men should be punished if they do it. But also don't put yourself in situations where it could potentially happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I believe that pregnant mothers do not have a right to end the lives of their unborn children.
    Wasn’t the question.
    Do you still believe that we do not have the right to do what we want with our own bodies where someone else’s life is at risk?
    Because if you do believe this then shouldn’t we all be placed on the donor list against our wishes?

    Being on the donor list is a massive deal and if someone gets on the list, then they have to go through with the donation imo.
    So should they get life imprisonment for murder if they refuse and the person dies because they couldn’t find another donor in time?

    The argument you are making, i think, is for someone who wants to donate a kidney and then refuses to do so. That is the same argument with a surrogate mother, who wants to donate her womb for pregnancy and then refuses to before conception. This is very different to a woman, who is already pregnant and then decides against it and kills the child.
    Well no because if it’s before conception, nobody will die if she changes her mind.

    Now had conception already occurred and she then refused to have the fertilised eggs implanted into her womb then wouldn’t she be a murderer in your pro life view? Life imprisonment for her too?

    If you look at it from a purely contract view, she broke the contract and deserves to pay with time in prison or her life. You cannot enter a contractual situation through having sex and then cancel the contract. In commercial law, i think you will probably be liable.
    She accepts responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy/STDs as a result of her negligence sure but she didn’t sign up to endure a pregnancy, risk her life in the process or become a mother for the rest of her life.

    To your point, the potential donor is not responsible for the patient’s life until he accepts to do it. Once he does, then he is responsible. A woman is not responsible for any child until she gets pregnant, then she is responsible for the well-being of the unborn child.
    Don’t you accept to donate your organ when you put yourself on the list? That means that (according to you, fortunately the law doesn’t agree) if anyone is in desperate need for a donor, you have to give it to them. Even if you change your mind, you no longer have the right to keep your own kidney. It doesn’t matter if you have new medical conditions that could worsen as a result of the kidney transplant. You should be forced to risk the dangers of surgery and if you die as a result despite you not wanting to do it in the first place, so be it. Nobody will be held responsible for your death. You shouldn’t have put yourself on the list. RIP.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    But they do have that right according to UK law and, no doubt, according to the majority of citizens. The point at which a foetus becomes a 'child' is debatable, but for many it is not until there is the possibility of physiologically independent life that the latter term becomes meaningful.
    This is a debate. Of course abortion is legal in the UK. This discussion is not about legality.

    We both disagree on this point. Life begins at conception and not birth.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cat_mac)
    That’s your opinion, in reality there is no ‘social contract’. Especially if the two consenting adults use contraception.

    The idea that sex is only for creating a child is outdated and luckily no longer stands in modern culture. Yay orgasms!

    You manage to avoid the rape point every time it is brought up, that’s certainly not agreeing to have a child. Using contraception is not agreeing to having a child. Engaging in sex, whether you like it or not, is NOT agreeing to have a child.

    If you personally only have sex to conceive, that’s fine. If you tell people they’re murders and should go to prison for terminating an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy, that’s nowhere near fine. You’re entitled to your opinion but don’t expect kind words or ‘agree to disagree’ when you judge people to your personal moral standards.
    Ok
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I mean, the statement you’ve made is speaking on behalf of the population of Britain and billions of other women elsewhere. Some feminists today give women a bad name but this isn’t to say all feminists are raging equality psychos who are selfish and want the benefit when it suits them, like you’ve basically generalised here. I have a pretty open minded view on this topic. You have to remember however, that men put those rules on us in the past and we have had to stand up against them. Me and my boyfriend split the cost of meals or I take some initiative and bring my own coat so I’m not cold? But men of the past implicated these things into us and some still have that mindset so that they could gain further control. They made us appear weak so therefore they could have the overall control. I think In any relationship there should be a certain aspect of respect and politeness and you should hold doors open for people anyway, it’s nice to do so. There are many stay at home dads nowadays and mothers going out, working and doing perfectly fine. My boyfriend has mental health problems and I let him express whatever emotion he wants and I let him know that it’s perfectly okay to do so and I’m here for him no matter what. I think it’s about your own personal mindset and your views there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from changing these observations you’ve made in your own life.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Wasn’t the question.
    Do you still believe that we do not have the right to do what we want with our own bodies where someone else’s life is at risk?
    Because if you do believe this then shouldn’t we all be placed on the donor list against our wishes?

    So should they get life imprisonment for murder if they refuse and the person dies because they couldn’t find another donor in time?

    Well no because if it’s before conception, nobody will die if she changes her mind.

    Now had conception already occurred and she then refused to have the fertilised eggs implanted into her womb then wouldn’t she be a murderer in your pro life view? Life imprisonment for her too?


    She accepts responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy/STDs as a result of her negligence sure but she didn’t sign up to endure a pregnancy, risk her life in the process or become a mother for the rest of her life.


    Don’t you accept to donate your organ when you put yourself on the list? That means that (according to you, fortunately the law doesn’t agree) if anyone is in desperate need for a donor, you have to give it to them. Even if you change your mind, you no longer have the right to keep your own kidney. It doesn’t matter if you have new medical conditions that could worsen as a result of the kidney transplant. You should be forced to risk the dangers of surgery and if you die as a result despite you not wanting to do it in the first place, so be it. Nobody will be held responsible for your death. You shouldn’t have put yourself on the list. RIP.
    You are still making an argument on something that is a different to the main argument.

    Nobody is forcing a woman to get pregnant. A woman got pregnant on her own accord. Now she is pregnant, there is another life involved.

    This is very different to going on the donor list. There are two types of organ donation, during life and after death. If an organ donor expressed to donate their organ when they die, nobody can change the decision because thos were their wishes.

    During life, this is another issue entirely, organ donors have a responsibility to donate if they have agreed to donate in the first place. There is no law that stops them from rescinding that agreement.

    This is completely different to a pregnant woman with an unborn child. The woman is not a volunteer in an organ donation programme. She does not have any right to accept or reject the pregnancy. She is responsibility for the protection and safety of the unborn child until delivery and beyond.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    You are still making an argument on something that is a different to the main argument.
    Not really. You said that we shouldn’t get autonomy over our bodies where another life is at risk. It appears you only agree with that when it comes to abortion.

    Nobody is forcing a woman to get pregnant. A woman got pregnant on her own accord. Now she is pregnant, there is another life involved.
    Nobody is forcing a donor to put themselves on the list. A donor put themselves on the list on their own accord. Now someone needs their organ, there is another life involved.

    This is very different to going on the donor list. There are two types of organ donation, during life and after death. If an organ donor expressed to donate their organ when they die, nobody can change the decision because thos were their wishes.
    I’m clearly not referring to donation after death so this is irrelevent.


    During life, this is another issue entirely, organ donors have a responsibility to donate if they have agreed to donate in the first place. There is no law that stops them from rescinding that agreement. This is completely different to a pregnant woman with an unborn child. The woman is not a volunteer in an organ donation programme. She does not have any right to accept or reject the pregnancy. She is responsibility for the protection and safety of the unborn child until delivery and beyond.
    Let’s not bring the law into this, because in both cases, the law allows the individuals to retract from their ‘contract’ for whatever reason. The law respects an individuals right to what happens to their body.
    And if life begins at conception then a surrogate mother who changes her mind should be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder should those fertilised embryos in the Petri dish die. So if there are 5 fertilised embryos in the dish and they all die, she should get 5 life sentences right?


    If she has no right to accept or reject the pregnancy, a donor shouldn’t have the right to accept or reject donation. Because in both of these cases, another life is at risk. In both of these cases, the individuals volunteered to be in the position they are in. In both of these cases, person A is the only one who has the ability to save that life yet according to you, only one warrants a hefty prison term. If that’s your stance then ok, stick to your contradictory view. I’m fed up of going back and forth with you about this and we’re certainly not going to agree.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    Not really. You said that we shouldn’t get autonomy over our bodies where another life is at risk. It appears you only agree with that when it comes to abortion.


    Nobody is forcing a donor to put themselves on the list. A donor put themselves on the list on their own accord. Now someone needs their organ, there is another life involved.


    I’m clearly not referring to donation after death so this is irrelevent.



    Let’s not bring the law into this, because in both cases, the law allows the individuals to retract from their ‘contract’ for whatever reason. The law respects an individuals right to what happens to their body.
    And if life begins at conception then a surrogate mother who changes her mind should be sentenced to life imprisonment for murder should those fertilised embryos in the Petri dish die.
    If she has no right to accept or reject the pregnancy, a donor shouldn’t have the right to accept or reject donation. Because in both of these cases, another life is at risk. In both of these cases, the individuals volunteered to be in the position they are in. In both of these cases, person A is the only one who has the ability to save that life yet according to you, only one warrants a hefty prison term. If that’s your stance then ok, stick to your contradictory view. I’m fed up of going back and forth with you about this and we’re certainly not going to agree.
    You are getting things very confused.

    Organ donation is different to pregnancy. Many people DO NOT sign up to major organ donation during their lifetime because it does not work out, e.g. brain, heart etc. These are mostly done after death.

    For life organ donations, when a person decides to be a donor then there is a responsibility to donate when the time comes.

    This is different to a woman is pregnant with child. She is not donating any of her organs to her child, she is just required to keep the baby alive with all things being equal.

    You keep on conflating two very different arguments in the hope that one can disqualify the other, but you fail to realise these are two separate arguments.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    ...Life begins at conception and not birth.
    This depends on how you are using the term 'life'. At the point of conception there is certainly no physiologically independent living entity, hence the generally accepted use of 'foetus'. It's easy to argue that the fertilised egg goes through a long process of eventually becoming something that 'lives', most obviously as birth approaches or, indeed, takes effect..

    As for abortion, aside from it being legal it would appear that a majority of UK citizens accept it, if it were otherwise then there'd surely be a huge movement that translated into a change in the law.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    You are getting things very confused.
    I’m not the one making contradictory statements.

    Organ donation is different to pregnancy. Many people DO NOT sign up to major organ donation during their lifetime because it does not work out, e.g. brain, heart etc. These are mostly done after death.
    I’ve only referred to kidney donation. People sign up to kidney donation during their lifetime. You can live a perfectly healthy life with one kidney.

    For life organ donations, when a person decides to be a donor then there is a responsibility to donate when the time comes.
    Okay.

    This is different to a woman is pregnant with child. She is not donating any of her organs to her child, she is just required to keep the baby alive with all things being equal.
    You’re being too literal. The scenario is obviously different but the principle isn’t. You said we don’t get the right to do what we want with our bodies where another life is at risk. I presented a scenario where another life is at risk to see if you would be consistent with that stance, but you’re not. Someone will die in both scenarios but according to you, one is okay to retract from whereas the other isn’t.

    You keep on conflating two very different arguments in the hope that one can disqualify the other, but you fail to realise these are two separate arguments.
    And this is the common theme of your responses. You’ve not directly answered any of my questions.
    So I’ll ask again:
    do you still believe that we do not have the right to do whatever we want with our bodies where another life is at risk? Yes or no?

    Should a woman who elected to be a surrogate but changed her mind be sentenced to 5 life sentences if 5 fertilised embryos die because of her refusal? Yes or no?

    Should a individual on the organ donor list who later decides not to donate one of their kidneys to someone who desperately needs it be sentenced to life imprisonment should that person die? Yes or no?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    This depends on how you are using the term 'life'. At the point of conception there is certainly no physiologically independent living entity, hence the generally accepted use of 'foetus'. It's easy to argue that the fertilised egg goes through a long process of eventually becoming something that 'lives', most obviously as birth approaches or, indeed, takes effect..

    As for abortion, aside from it being legal it would appear that a majority of UK citizens accept it, if it were otherwise then there'd surely be a huge movement that translated into a change in the law.
    Majority of the UK are still proud of our brutal past during the British Empire that saw the death of millions of people. I would not use the majority of the UK as a check to see whether something is morally acceptable.

    A foetus is part of the development journey from conception to birth and beyond. Human life has many stages and all stages are important.

    If you look at all other parts of society, there is no other section where it is okay for someone to kill another person under their protection. Sadly, it is okay for a woman because “it is her body”, which I strongly disagree with.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    If you look at all other parts of society, there is no other section where it is okay for someone to kill another person under their protection. Sadly, it is okay for a woman because “it is her body”, which I strongly disagree with.
    The fact that many people, myself included, don't regard a foetus as a 'person' goes some way to explain why people don't agree with you. Until a foetus can be regarded as having something that corresponds to physiological independence then it is, ultimately, an organ of the pregnant woman.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    The fact that many people, myself included, don't regard a foetus as a 'person' goes some way to explain why people don't agree with you. Until a foetus can be regarded as having something that corresponds to physiological independence then it is, ultimately, an organ of the pregnant woman.
    People can be manipulated to believe anything. It just takes a group of “experts” to argue a point, then you get others to argue about it. Sooner or later, it becomes the norm.

    To your point, there is a school of thought that believes life begins at conception, while another that believes something else. There is no unanimous agreement on this topic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    To your point, there is a school of thought that believes life begins at conception, while another that believes something else. There is no unanimous agreement on this topic.
    Ok, but given that, as things stand, abortion is legal, the pressure is on you to persuade people like me that a fertilised egg is a person, just saying you disagree with us isn't going to be enough.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Ok, but given that, as things stand, abortion is legal, the pressure is on you to persuade people like me that a fertilised egg is a person, just saying you disagree with us isn't going to be enough.
    I don't have to persuade you. I don't care if you and your Mrs decide to wipe out your unborn children.

    For the sake of this debate, there are ways to argue this but people like to ignore it. For example, what are the major determinants to show proof of life? Is it a beating heart? Functioning brain? Emotional responses? Basic human growth? Fully formed senses of the human body?

    If you take the basic determinant of a heart beat, which everyone would agree is the basic proof of life. You will see that a baby or foetus has a heart beat from 6 weeks old.

    The second determinant is brain function. Without brain function and a heart beat, a human ceases to exist. This brain function begins to form from 8 weeks old until the age of about 40 years.

    Now, pro-choice and abortion lovers now argue that all of that does not matter. They then set their own point of 24 weeks (6 months), when it is okay to kill a human that has a beating heart and a developing plus functioning brain.

    Their argument is that 24 weeks is when the baby demonstrates regular and consistent brain wave pattern and function which is a major determinant of death. To me, this is BS.

    Now with all this, it is easy to pick and choose what you want in order to back up point. I would argue that the point is life starts at conception.

    Personally, i think people know what they believe, but they want others to tell them that their actions are fine. If they are told that it is okay to kill an unborn child, then it is fine to them because they dont have to hold on to the guilt.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    I don't have to persuade you...
    Then I guess we're both happy. Abortion is legal (I'm happy with that) and you don't feel any pressure to persuade me of your view (you're happy with that).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Then I guess we're both happy. Abortion is legal (I'm happy with that) and you don't feel any pressure to persuade me of your view (you're happy with that).
    Wow, you just took the first point and did not even acknowledge the rest of my argument.

    Anyway, it is cool though. Like I wrote, i dont care if people are out there having abortions. I will share my views and live in my own community. We all have to bear the consequences of our actions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wired_1800)
    Wow, you just took the first point and did not even acknowledge the rest of my argument....
    Of course I did, you pretty much compelled me do that to by starting out to the effect that you didn't need to persuade me of anything. You can't have it both ways.
 
 
 

1,994

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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

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

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