Turn on thread page Beta

Feminists Are Always Unattractive - Is This Generally True? watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I'm saying generally.

    Obviously I have my own opinions below.

    I'm a mans man, I don't do all that crap where these 'men' are becoming women.

    Most girls don't find that kind of crap attractive. Girls from my experience want strong, stability, strength in their man - which is what I am.

    Feminist men, although they are very low in number are a disgrace to society and a disgrace to manhood.

    Men and women are fundamentally different, how can you achieve equality with two different things? You can't.
    Feminism is made up of predominantly women because the movement is anti-men.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Significant proportion of the loudest (and the ones most hateful of men) are lesbians. The butch lesbian ones and the ones no into taking care of their appearance (scruffy hair etc.)!

    Another large fraction are those who feel threatened about women's looks being a pronounced part of how women are viewed because they lack good looks. They are the ones that talk about women having the right to choices but then try to prevent beautiful women from making a choice to do work that focuses on their looks.

    So, generally, I would say you are right. Most feminists are unattractive aesthetically.

    Far more are unattractive personality-wise. The worst breed of human beings.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waldorf67)
    That’s because you’d label ALL women who refer to you as sexist as feminist?

    :rofl: This is hilarious.

    It is a fact, you took this scale didn’t you? It’s a pretty good measure of sexism, it stems from peer-reviewed, research using the scientific method. It has ecological validity and it is predictive of attitudes and even behaviours. Can’t get more objective than that sugar

    And what does one individual say about the general population? I can find a male poster who posts vile misogynistic comments and should I use that as the prototype of all men who are not feminists? Using your logic that is precisely what I should do.

    I have never seen somebody take the principles of logic and morph them as you do. Reason just do not apply here does it.


    I've only been called sexist by women about 3 times on this forum and all the women who called me this were feminists, who had previously mentioned they were feminists. Actually that's a lie, those 3 women have called me sexist multiple times so it's likely more than 3 times but it's the same women doing it.

    I am starting to think that YOU are also a feminist, as you said my views are sexist. Which isn't quite the same as calling someone sexist, but comes pretty close.

    and I did not make that study up, it is a valid study I linked to. You obviously disagree with it, if so you should really take it with them ..the researchers.., I am just passing on their findings [whilst also agreeing with lol]

    I do not think "every" feminist is like this, as I have noticed some feminists here who do not have these personality traits. However, when a female poster does act like a dude, it is usually a feminist.........
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulfolobus)
    They come in all shapes and sizes.......

    Not when it comes to how ignorant they are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANM775)
    I've only been called sexist by women about 3 times on this forum and all the women who called me this were feminists, who had previously mentioned they were feminists. Actually that's a lie, those 3 women have called me sexist multiple times so it's likely more than 3 times but it's the same women doing it.

    I am starting to think that YOU are also a feminist, as you said my views are sexist. Which isn't quite the same as calling someone sexist, but comes pretty close.

    and I did not make that study up, it is a valid study I linked to. You obviously disagree with it, if so you should really take it with them ..the researchers.., I am just passing on their findings [whilst also agreeing with lol]

    I do not think "every" feminist is like this, as I have noticed some feminists here who do not have these personality traits. However, when a female poster does act like a dude, it is usually a feminist.........
    So the ambivalent sexism scale is also a feminist?

    So what does acting like a “dude” entail?
    Bad language and aggression.

    You do realise that holding such believes that using bad language and behaving more verbally aggressive, is sexist, right?

    Logic. I’m just going to end every statement to you with that word, logic. It’s a beautiful concept.

    I note that you can’t respond to nearly the entirety of my post.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ANM775)
    I've only been called sexist by women about 3 times on this forum and all the women who called me this were feminists, who had previously mentioned they were feminists. Actually that's a lie, those 3 women have called me sexist multiple times so it's likely more than 3 times but it's the same women doing it.

    I am starting to think that YOU are also a feminist, as you said my views are sexist. Which isn't quite the same as calling someone sexist, but comes pretty close.

    and I did not make that study up, it is a valid study I linked to. You obviously disagree with it, if so you should really take it with them ..the researchers.., I am just passing on their findings [whilst also agreeing with lol]

    I do not think "every" feminist is like this, as I have noticed some feminists here who do not have these personality traits. However, when a female poster does act like a dude, it is usually a feminist.........
    I'd say I'd call people who identify as feminists... FEMINISTS.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Waldorf67)
    So the ambivalent sexism scale is also a feminist?

    So what does acting like a “dude” entail?
    Bad language and aggression.

    You do realise that holding such believes that using bad language and behaving more verbally aggressive, is sexist, right?

    Logic. I’m just going to end every statement to you with that word, logic. It’s a beautiful concept.

    I note that you can’t respond to nearly the entirety of my post.

    I do not believe in these internet multiple choice tests can accurately tell if a person is sexist or not, if i've done any such tests in the past it was due to bordem/curiosity

    in fact most women throwing around the sexist label are in fact sexist themselves because they only bestow that word upon males and not females, even if females say the same thing. Like there are many females who will slutshame other women

    study:
    https://tinyurl.com/y7fpog9n

    but they don't call these women sexist, they only call men sexist for slutshaming ...which in fact makes them sexist themselves


    acting like a dude, I would say behavior like showing a lot of aggression, throwing potty mouthed insults, confrontational, rebellious, argumentative, multiple use of ridiculing

    your typical woman does not act like this.

    but when you've got a woman on here displaying many/all of these traits it usually turns out to be a feminist
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sharpshooter)
    I heard recently from some women following the #MeToo movement are against the idea of dating men entirely nowadays, saying "we don't need men" "men can't be trusted" etc. Wouldn't actually be the worst idea for humanity as a whole as severely overly populated as a species.
    They don't need men but they are happy to rely on the inventions of men and societies men developed.

    Yeah, right! They really don't need men.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Creativetype)
    You’re assuming all feminists are female?
    You would have to be a really pathetic beta mangina be a male feminist
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ruthflame57)
    On and off? We’re not your family, you don’t need to lie and pretend you have a girlfriend. Everyone here can easily see why you’re single. It’s okay, we all mature at different rates.
    I can't.

    How do you know what I see?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    I can't.

    How do you know what I see?
    Honey, I have nothing more to say.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    That is interesting, the points you raise.

    I have been contemplating a part of this a lot recently, I never have and hopefully never will hit a woman. It is said many times and places it is wrong to hit women, but the correct statement should be it is wrong to hit people.

    Now I want there to be a inequality here. Like I said I don't want to see men boxing women as a sport, because I find that distasteful. Equality it it's truest sense would say there is nothing wrong with that.

    Thus comes the great contradiction, do we treat men and women equal in all senses or do we acknowledge women are 'weaker' than men and give them a platform to make it level - but that means acknowledging women are weaker.

    And that poster is a teacher? Jesus, thats the kind of crap feeding into our schools now? He believes nurses should be paid as much as CEOs and engineers - this is only possible in a dream world.
    +1

    I like it when I get replies from intelligent folk. Folk that clearly gave their brain a chance before they put that pen to paper.

    I could not agree with you more. The problem lies with equality.

    We’ve been raised in a society that preaches nothing but equality morning day and night as the ultimate concept of fairness!! but is it? Is it fair for equality to exist between men and women when they are so clearly different? Is it fair to expect the same outcomes from both sexes when they have different preferences, strengths and limitations? Is it fair to hold them to the same standards when they are so evidently different in almost every single way? No!!!! Its not fair. Treatment between the genders that does not take into account their differences, their strengths and weaknesses, their vulnerabilities, their needs, their dependencies etc. is unfair. Equality between men and women is unfair. Equality between men and women is sexism. Yes, equality between women and men is sexism. Treating women and men identically is sexism.

    Feminism is a contradiction. They claim women and men are equal, identical in every way and that their differences are so nonexistent that a woman can become a man and a man become a woman by simply feeling that they were the other sex…They claim that our biology does not define who we are and how we should be treated…They want equality between the two genders….yet, and this is one example of their many contradictions, they refuse men their right to have a say in abortion. Their reason for refusing men this right? men and women are biologically different!!! loll!! “Woman carries the child and so she must be treated differently to man in this regard” “They must not be allowed equality in their say in abortion because they are biologically different”....lol. Feminists lack the intellectual capacity to see through their contradictions, their hypocrisy, their absurd ideology…
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Equality means:
    Equal pay for equal work (Men in full time work in the UK currently earn 9.1% more than their female equivalent.
    Explain to me what this start proves is wrong?

    What is inequal about men, on average, making 9.1% more than women?

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Equal chance to serve in parliament (only 32% of MP's are women. 45% of Labour MPs but only 21% Conservative. - There's no shortage of qualified female candidates wanting to be selected to stand)
    What is stopping this "qualified female candidates" from being selected?

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Equal chance to achieve a senior position in business (94 of the FTSE 100 companies have a male CEO. The six women's salaries average £2.6 million, the men average £4.7 million)
    What is stopping them from achieving senior positions in business?

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    Whether or not the man pays for a meal on a date is pretty insignificant in comparison with being overlooked for promotion at work and getting paid less purely because of your gender.
    How are they getting paid less "purely because of their gender"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    What is inequal about men, on average, making 9.1% more than women?
    If there is a difference of 9.1% that's clearly not equal.
    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    What is stopping this "qualified female candidates" from being selected?
    All male selection panels, who in some constituencies vet candidates and choose the one to stand. There are plenty of capable women wanting to become Tory MP's but they are less likely to get through the selection process than male equivalents.

    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    What is stopping them from achieving senior positions in business?
    All, or mostly male panels who select the CEO. Middle-aged white men tend to select middle-aged white men.

    (Original post by RoyalBeams)
    How are they getting paid less "purely because of their gender"?
    The evidence is clear on this. As one example, the majority of people stacking shelves in Tesco are women, and the majority working in the warehouse are men. Warehouse workers were paid more, despite the job being a similar level of difficulty and being of equal value to the company. Why would Tesco do this?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    The evidence is clear on this. As one example, the majority of people stacking shelves in Tesco are women, and the majority working in the warehouse are men. Warehouse workers were paid more, despite the job being a similar level of difficulty and being of equal value to the company. Why would Tesco do this?
    The instant I see or read about a shop worker being crushed to death whilst stacking shelves in a supermarket then I will stand right alongside people who say they deserve the same pay as warehouse workers. Until then, if for no other reason than that, you and everyone else campaigning for this can **** right off.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    I saw on some TV program on BBC recently someone said feminists are nearly always not attractive - do we think that is true?

    It just seems to me feminists are striving for things which are impossible to attain. Like tennis, if it was unisex then there wouldn't be a female pro in the top 10,000. Also women's tennis games are 3 sets, mens are 5 sets. I believe they tried women's tennis with 5 sets and all that happened was more injuries and fatigue so it didn't work out. In this case equality would harm women as oppose to help them.

    A lot of 'typical' girls I know like to dress up, wear make up, look good, take selfies for instagram and snapchat. They say they expect the guy to ask them out, they say they want their men to be real men, pay for the first date etc. So is this wrong?

    Also consider women are physically, mentality, biologically and emotionally different from men. Not saying one is better than the other, my opinion is both are as important as each other. But knowing they are very different, how can you achieve equality? You can't.

    One of the biggest enemies of feminism is attractive women. They seem to hate them and hate what they want to do with their bodies.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    What an ignorant reply full of nonsense.
    The problem with starting a response like this is that it makes you look rather stupid when it turns out not to be true. The difficulty you have debating with a teacher is that I can read and think independently, so it didn't take long to see through the falsehoods you appear to believe.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    In the UK conviction rates and prison sentences are lower for women than they are for men for all crimes without a single exception, from murder to sexual assaults
    The document you base this on states very clearly that more men are convicted of crimes because more crimes are committed by men.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    In 2015 the conviction rate for murder for women was roughly 200% lower than that for men (2) and 300% lower than the national average (3).
    Again, you have totally failed to understand. More men are convicted of murder because more murders are committed by men. Women are most likely to be killed by a male partner or ex-partner. Men are most likely to be killed by an acquaintance or colleague. It is factually impossible for those statistics you quote to be true, because they suggest that the national average is somehow higher than the rate for either men or women. And you said I was stupid!


    (Original post by CookieButter)
    The argument used to justify these orders by our government was that women do not commit violent crimes as often as men (11) but that does not explain why they deserve lighter sentences for equal crimes.
    No, but the document you linked to makes it completely clear.
    "For female offenders, the predominant mitigating factors that were included (within the offence groups analysed) included the appearance of genuine remorse, the age of the offender, the offender having caring responsibilities and a lack of previous relevant convictions. Male offenders were less likely to have any of these taken into account, especially in relation to having caring responsibilities. The aggravating factors that appeared for male offenders included the presence of previous relevant convictions, the location of the offence, being a member of a group or gang and evidence of some degree of pre-planning or pre-meditation. All of these were less likely to appear for females, although threatened or actual use of weapons (or equivalent) appeared for a similar proportion of both genders. "
    In other words, men and women have the same law applied, and are treated according to their circumstances. Men tend to have more previous convictions, are less likely to show remorse, more likely to have premeditation and are less likely to be the principal carer. Note the phrase 'less likely'. Not 'never', so the rest of your paragraph is factually incorrect. In the UK there are 1.6 million women bringing up children by themselves. For men it is 179 000. That's why having a responsibility as a carer is more likely, but not exclusively, going to apply to women.
    On page 85 of the same document is a chart that shows men are also more likely to reoffend.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Yes, my ignorant friend, women in the UK cannot be charged with rape thanks to sexist laws the main architects of which have been feminists. As in, if a woman rapes a child in this country...
    Rape is legally defined as the penetration of mouth, vagina or anus by a penis. That's why women can't be charged with rape. There are other offences, such as sexual assault by penetration. This is prosecuted under exactly the same sentencing guidelines as rape.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Take chronic, prolific child rapist Vanessa George as an example... She is thought to be responsible for the rape of between 30 and 300 babies
    Utter nonsense. The victims were sexually assaulted and photographed. They were not raped. How could she have raped them, without a penis? One other woman was convicted of assault by penetration though.
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    she was charged with sexual assault and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence. Having served 6 years in prison she is currently on review for parole
    That's the same sentence given to John Warboys who was convicted of drugging and raping or sexually assaulting 12 women. Yes, male and female sex offenders getting the same sentence. If you look at the table on the final page of this research document https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-sentences.pdf you will see that a large range of factors were measured, and for gender there was no statistically significant difference. What mattered was the type of crime and number of previous convictions.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Our culture shames people, particularly, men and boys for reporting women for crimes of violence. Men in the UK are twice less likely to report having experienced abuse from their female partners (4) as compared to women.
    That's something that needs to change in our culture then. We need to get rid of gender stereotypes where men are always seen as stronger. I don't think any feminist would disagree with you there.

    (Original post by CookieButter)
    We live in sexist societies that outright refuse to hold women accountable for their actions,
    Except you have no evidence to support this assertion. Quoting an American judge from 1923 is not going to change anyone's mind. Yes, there are initiatives aimed directly at reducing female reoffending. Even more is being spent of reducing gang and knife crimes, which are overwhelmingly committed by men.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dheorl)
    The instant I see or read about a shop worker being crushed to death whilst stacking shelves in a supermarket then I will stand right alongside people who say they deserve the same pay as warehouse workers. Until then, if for no other reason than that, you and everyone else campaigning for this can **** right off.
    LOL So pay should be based on your chance of being killed at work? Good luck with arguing that. Construction workers would do very well, but the service sector would largely be working for free.
    The latest figures show a total of 5 deaths in the UK across wholesale, retail, vehicle repair, accommodation and food services. Try again.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    LOL So pay should be based on your chance of being killed at work? Good luck with arguing that. Construction workers would do very well, but the service sector would largely be working for free.
    The latest figures show a total of 5 deaths in the UK across wholesale, retail, vehicle repair, accommodation and food services. Try again.
    Umm, where did I say that? The notion of higher pay for more dangerous work has always been fairly accepted.

    Apart from anything the market dictates their value. Tesco pay warehouse workers that much because it's what attracts enough workers. If the women in the shops don't like what they're getting paid, then by all means they can go work in a warehouse (because as they say, the work is no harder, right?) and then Tesco will naturally have to increase shop worker wages to attract enough staff.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    If there is a difference of 9.1% that's clearly not equal.
    No, it does not clearly look unequal to me.

    Can you explain why it is "clearly" unequal to you?

    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    All male selection panels, who in some constituencies vet candidates and choose the one to stand. There are plenty of capable women wanting to become Tory MP's but they are less likely to get through the selection process than male equivalents.
    What evidence do you have that capable women who want to be MPs are not getting through?

    What evidence do you have that these capable women are more capable than the men being selected over them?

    Or is you argument stating that if a capable woman is interested, more capable men should be overlooked?


    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    All, or mostly male panels who select the CEO. Middle-aged white men tend to select middle-aged white men.
    So what is stopping talented and equally capable women in a capitalist economy in setting up companies and then have middle-aged white women select female CEOs and board members who are "obviously qualified" to run the company?


    (Original post by Lit teacher)
    The evidence is clear on this. As one example, the majority of people stacking shelves in Tesco are women, and the majority working in the warehouse are men. Warehouse workers were paid more, despite the job being a similar level of difficulty and being of equal value to the company. Why would Tesco do this?
    NONSENSE!

    Do you have any evidence that women stacking shelves are paid less than men stacking shelves because of their gender?

    Or do you have any evidence that women in warehouses are paid less than men in warehouses because of their gender?

    What stops the women applying for the warehouse jobs instead of the stacking shelves since they are of "similar levels of difficulty" as you claimed?

    How "clear" is your evidence really? You like to claim "clear" in mud waters?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

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

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

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