Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why can't feminists win arguments? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    These aren't often feminists you see on youtube compilations.

    they're misandrists

    Often, the basis of their argument is false, which means their chance to win becomes naught.

    Whether or not the left argues better or not is up for debate; Milo routinely gets schooled by left wing scientists

    and so do many republicans on Bill Maher

    but so do a lot of liberals on Tucker Carlson's show

    Basis of argument matters a lot

    I mean, Emma Watson might be the leading feminist in the world, but you haven't seen her spewing any man hate or matter of that nature have you?
    Except, they are feminists. Look at the history of feminism and the ideology that these people hold is the descendent of feminist ideology throughout the decades.

    “Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition” a quote that comes out of the second wave of feminism from the 70’s. The idea that feminism is just simply the name for a movement fighting for equal rights based upon gender is total fiction.

    Feminists can’t win arguments because more often than not they’re trying to argue a contradiction, namely that their man hating isn’t man hating.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyber Ninja)
    with all due respect, how can these women be leading feminists when the average feminist hasn't even heard of them?

    Feminist theory is equal rights for men and women (definition). The technicalities of changing the theory are irrelevant when it doesn't need changing. She's a UN ambassador for women, so how is she not an authority in feminism? She's given plenty of speeches, plenty of tweets and interviews about empowering women.Why does it matter that what she's done hasn't changed feminism? Its helped women, thats the point.
    Simple, your average feminist isn’t a feminist. They’ve appropriated the name of a movement without the faintest clue of what it’s about.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scorpian_1)
    we all know of gods like Milo, Gavin and Ben...
    Once you have decided that those who oppose feminism are gods you need no further explanation of their powers. Besides, zealots tend not to be especially receptive to alternative views, no matter how reasonable they might be they cannot be recognised as such.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    The average feminist doesn't know anything about feminism. The good majority of feminists fall for this ideology's generalities without knowing anything about its core theory..the theory behind the generalities.

    Feminists who are educated in feminism know these women very well and hold them in high regard. Many streets, universities, colleges and organisations are named after Simone De Beauvoir. In fact if you go the US, feminist groups provide you with tours of her life. You pay them money and they take you around to the places that she visited when she went to the US. Kate Millet was inducted into the national women's hall of fame in the US in 2013 etc etc.



    What you have said here is a lot like saying Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is about light. What does that tell me about the theory behind this concept of relativity? NOTHING. What you have written is not feminist theory but a generality that does not tell me anything about the theory of feminism.

    Feminism is based on 7 key principles each of which has its own theory.

    1. The Patriarchy - We live in a world run by a system created by men for men to subjugate and abuse women. This is identical to the views of nazis towards jews. Nazi ideology preaches that the world is run by a system created by jews for the beneficence of jews. This is why people call feminists feminazis. The two ideologies share a similar core concept...one is based on race the other on sex/gender. In one the enemy is the Jew in the other the enemy is man.

    2. The idea that gender is a social construct and heterosexuality is wrong - Feminism teaches its followers that there is no such thing as male or female. That we are all born androgynous (without sex) and that we are programmed by society to become male and female...and that part of this programming is heterosexuality. Feminism preaches that heterosexuality (they call it heteronormativity) is sexist and that the correct way of living life is being able to have sex with anyone of any gender and of any age. Feminism has since the early 60s campaigned for the legalisation of both paedophilia and incest.

    3. There are no gender roles - This is basically the idea that men and women do not have roles in life specific to their gender. That there is no such thing as mother or father....that these roles that people play in society are sexist concepts put in place by men to subjugate and enslave women under the patriarchy.

    4. The idea that the concept of a family is sexist and must be destroyed. Feminism believes in a world where there is no such thing as father and mother and child or marriage. That we should have sex with anyone and everyone without contracts and our offspring be looked after by anyone and everyone...they call this a "cooperative human community" and this community they believe should be based on "the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism”...i.e. sex with anyone and everyone.

    5. The concept of "Sisterhood". This is a core principle in feminism that preaches the idea that women should unite against men and only through unity can achieve equality.

    6. The "Female way of knowing" - This is another core concept of feminist theory. Its the belief that women have a way of understanding the world that is superior to that of men.

    7. Othering - In feminism othering is a way by which men objectify women in this world and a way by which women can achieve equality by separatism (separating themselves from men to prevent men objectifying them).

    These are the core principles of feminist theory. This is just a basic brief outline. Volumes of books have been written about each and every single one of these principles.



    What does this even mean?



    That does not change anything. She remains a follower of feminism and not a pioneer of the ideology and its theory. I'm willing to bet you everything that I have that this woman does not know anything about feminism besides those same generalities that you know..."equality" and that is all....Ideologies are not defined by the actions of their followers but by their pioneers and their teachings, their theory!!!
    I started trying to go through this line by line, but eventually it became apparent that this was in effect. Also, 1) demonstrates perfectly why Godwin's Law was devised.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scorpian_1)
    we all know of gods like Milo, Gavin and Ben who roast the sjw scum of the earth, but in all seriousness, is their actually a reason why right and central advocates just argue better than far lefties and feminists?
    Well it's hard to win arguments when you argue against obvious facts and the only "weapons" at your disposal are blatant hypocrisy and random personal attacks.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I started trying to go through this line by line, but eventually it became apparent that this was in effect. Also, 1) demonstrates perfectly why Godwin's Law was devised.
    I'm not going to defend his post, 'however'.... Godwins Law is.. or is not relevant here.

    Feminism was born from a rather Authoritarian strain of Communists. Authoritarian Communism worked in a manner not too dissimilar to nazism.

    Just look at Jordan Peterson review, he was ripped apart from his comment on comparing modern feminism to Maoism, despite the fact how they shout down dissent is a textbook definition of Authoritarian.

    1.Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
    2.A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
    3.Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
    4.Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    ...Feminism was born from a rather Authoritarian strain of Communists....
    I hope for your sake you're not a history undergrad as this wouldn't be a very promising start at all.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    But I like that feminists prefer Islam

    Anyway feminism relies on the assumption that there is should be 50% in 50% in everything or one side is oppressed.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    why would one seek to destroy the arguments of one of the fairer sex ? to do so would be ungentlemanly in the extreme.
    instead one should praise the plucky filly for her fragile efforts and tactfully move the conversation on to more fruitful topics.

    :hat2:
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    ...“Women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition” a quote that comes out of the second wave of feminism from the 70’s. The idea that feminism is just simply the name for a movement fighting for equal rights based upon gender is total fiction..
    Firstly, not all self-identifying feminists are of the same kind. Secondly, it's entirely reasonable for some feminists to challenge mere 'equality' within a world long shaped by male constructed norms.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    why would one seek to destroy the arguments of one of the fairer sex ? to do so would be ungentlemanly in the extreme.
    instead one should praise the plucky filly for her fragile efforts and tactfully move the conversation on to more fruitful topics.

    :hat2:
    My view would be that it's mostly sexual frustration being vigorously ejaculated across their laptop screens as hatred of women, albeit in the guise of evil 'feminists'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Firstly, not all self-identifying feminists are of the same kind.
    True, but all kinds of feminists believe in the same core principles. Not all Christians are of the same kind but all believe in Jesus as their God. Not all feminists are of the same kind but all believe in the same sexist fundamental principles one being the patriarchy.

    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Secondly, it's entirely reasonable for some feminists to challenge mere 'equality' within a world long shaped by male constructed norms.
    In as much as its reasonable for nazis to challenge unfairness by a world long shaped by jewish norms.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    I hope for your sake you're not a history undergrad as this wouldn't be a very promising start at all.
    Let me guess... you also think the feminist movement started with women's suffrage?

    First Wave Feminism was a term invented by second wave feminists.... ignoring the fact the extreme majority of pro-suffrage women were not feminist and the feminist movement didn't really exists back then.

    It's not until the 1960's that feminism was really a thing and it was a conscious decision to claim the women's suffrage movement. As in you actually have groups of socialist/communist members having meetings over it as some individuals were worried about being associated with the middle/upper class leaders of the movement.

    Also don't forget a large portion of the suffragette movement were not particular nice people. Racism, discrimination against disabled people, bombings, tax evasion to get estranged husband arrested etc to try and use violent means (pretty much terrorism) to get the vote.... then you have the white feather diabotical.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    What’s the difference between a feminist and my elbow?


    Spoiler:
    Show
    My elbow has a point
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a girl and I disagree with feminism 🤯😬
    Attached Images
     
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Let me guess...
    Please don't. There's a difference to be identified between the origins of feminism and the first self-labelling 'feminists'. Not all historians are likely to be in exact agreement (not least because history is, you know, complicated) but a reasonable starting point for coherent feminist thinking is The Enlightenment with figures like Jeremy Bentham and Mary Wollstonecraft. I can see that you (and your friends here) are bent on demonising anyone, past or present, that suggests female disadvantage is a legitimate subject for address, so please don't be too offended if I do not actually take you seriously.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Part of it will come down to how you define 'winning' an argument. This by no means applies to every case, but on here, for instance, I tend to see circular reasoning from those arguing against feminism, or simply just ignoring the points they can't argue against. Often this means that they get the last word in; this can be pertained to winning, but equally, they haven't actually taken any control over the debate, the other person simply realises that they won't engage in a reasonable argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanB1991)

    Feminism was born from a rather Authoritarian strain of Communists. Authoritarian Communism worked in a manner not too dissimilar to nazism.
    Grade A horseshoe thoery nonsense right here.


    (Original post by DanB1991)
    Just look at Jordan Peterson review, he was ripped apart from his comment on comparing modern feminism to Maoism, despite the fact how they shout down dissent is a textbook definition of Authoritarian.

    1.Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on political institutions and groups like legislatures, political parties and interest groups;
    2.A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" such as underdevelopment or insurgency;
    3.Minimal social mobilization most often caused by constraints on the public such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity;
    4.Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers.
    If only Jordan Peterson was being placed in a gulag for his theories of lobster society and how they relate to human gender poltics.

    The right used to have intelectual heavy weights like Friedman and Hayek. Now they have Jordon Peterson -___-
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Please don't. There's a difference to be identified between the origins of feminism and the first self-labelling 'feminists'. Not all historians are likely to be in exact agreement (not least because history is, you know, complicated) but a reasonable starting point for coherent feminist thinking is The Enlightenment with figures like Jeremy Bentham and Mary Wollstonecraft. I can see that you (and your friends here) are bent on demonising anyone, past or present, that suggests female disadvantage is a legitimate subject for address, so please don't be too offended if I do not actually take you seriously.
    Well you could argue many individuals in the mid to late 1800's were the "true" first wave feminists. The Suffrage movement of the 1890's onwards wasn't realistically a feminist movement, never mind the suffragette movement. Their goals, aims and beliefs were starkly different than what could be described as 'feminist'. Even then it was an extremely small movement. It's akin to saying consumerism started in the early 1600's, you have features of it, just it wasn't fully developed or supported at that time in history.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Grade A horseshoe theory nonsense right here.
    Well that is kinda the theory at a very base level.... So you don't think the far left and far right both display authoritarian tendencies? Ignoring the fact Nazism (and fascism for that matter) doesn't strictly fall easily onto the whole Left/Right Political Spectrum anyway and trying to place it there is a completely doomed exercise.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadowdweller)
    Part of it will come down to how you define 'winning' an argument. This by no means applies to every case, but on here, for instance, I tend to see circular reasoning from those arguing against feminism, or simply just ignoring the points they can't argue against. Often this means that they get the last word in; this can be pertained to winning, but equally, they haven't actually taken any control over the debate, the other person simply realises that they won't engage in a reasonable argument.
    In all honesty you see that on both sides of the argument. I would argue in my personal experience it tends to be more on the left side of the political spectrum.

    The left tend to blame the observers or interviewers inherent sexism, racism, socialisation etc when presented with the contradictions in their beliefs. It's akin to the Gender contradiction in modern feminism.

    If you ask how they can believe in encouraging individuals to be Trans while also claiming Gender and Gender oriented behaviour to be a product of socialisation they claim something along the lines that you wouldn't understand as you're transphobic. But then would never answer the original question.

    By comparison the right tends to simply say "It doesn't work", "It's always been that way and worked pretty well so far", "You're a far left nuttcase" etc

    The Left does get a particularly bad rep concerning this because in all honesty they're the dominant force in politics and media, especially here in the UK. Just look at the Cathy Newman vs Jordan Peterson debated, it was diabolical for the left.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.