Feminism largely invents non-issues Watch

Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#1
Feminism, is based on the false premise of female victimhood and historical oppression. This historical oppression is just not true. Historically women have been elevated in society and been cared for in a way over and above men. Women were given special privileges like being the first to be evacuated in a disaster, protected from hostile forces and not forced to fight in wars.

Feminism has used the cry of oppression as a smokescreen when what it really is saying is that it can’t deal with each gender being naturally diffierent. (Hence it fits into the suite of cultural Marxist belief systems which can’t deal with natural differences between groups.)


The following video shows some of the current feminism claims. Of the small number which are true, it’s indenegenuous of the feminists to call them societal oppression of females because they are negatives which the whole of society agreees are negatives and which it tries to stop:

2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 months ago
#2
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
Feminism, is based on the false premise of female victimhood and historical oppression. This historical oppression is just not true. Historically women have been elevated in society and been cared for in a way over and above men. Women were given special privileges like being the first to be evacuated in a disaster, protected from hostile forces and not forced to fight in wars.
Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.
6
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 months ago
#3
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.
Okay, but it isn't before the early 20th century, or before 1839, it's 2018. Just because something historically had a good purpose doesn't mean it still does.
1
reply
Salem2012
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 months ago
#4
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.
Now women in the UK have equal rights.
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 months ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Okay, but it isn't before the early 20th century, or before 1839, it's 2018. Just because something historically had a good purpose doesn't mean it still does.
(Original post by Salem2012)
Now women in the UK have equal rights.
OP specifically stated that women had never been historically oppressed, which is simply not true. I had given three counter examples.

Women and men have equal rights today, yes.
2
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#6
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

It was once harder for women to get a divorce than it had been for a man, for example when it came to adultery. This only changed in the early 1900s.

Women did not have any custody over their children up until 1839, when they could have custody over children up to the age of seven.
So what if women didn’t have the right to vote. It’s like saying sharolders of a company can vote in the board but bondholders and employees can’t vote. Someone has to come up with a governance structure and when they created democracy it was one man one vote.

The man was considered the head of the household and therefore cast the vote to get the household represented. Hence you have heard the phrase “wearing the trousers”, it comes from the fact that in terms of natural roles, males have taken the lead role.

In the same way that the employees and bondholders are not being persecuted by not being allowed to vote. You could argue that it’s a lack of representation but they are not having their lives ruined (unlike Conservatives in Hollywood who are - and no one talks about it) - because we just like to create a lot of non-issues.

I have no issues with women doing any job or role they want. That’s called freedom but people creating victim cultures and trying to police our thoughts and language and constant government endorsed agendas to root out this so called oppression and prejudice that does doesn’t exist - is a threat to our freedom. A female or any other person does not need a state mandate to do something legal like get a job. This state nonsense like the gender pay gap is simply discrimination which it is not. There are gender differences meaning a tendency for different roles, for example more female stewardesses in an airplane and more male aircraft engineers. That is down to group differences not discrimination.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 months ago
#7
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
So what if women didn’t have the right to vote. It’s like saying sharolders of a company can vote in the board but bondholders and employees can’t vote. Someone has to come up with a governance structure and when they created democracy it was one man one vote.

The man was considered the head of the household and therefore cast the vote to get the household represented. Hence you have heard the phrase “wearing the trousers”, it comes from the fact that in terms of natural roles, males have taken the lead role.

In the same way that the employees and bondholders are not being persecuted by not being allowed to vote. You could argue that it’s a lack of representation but they are not having their lives ruined (unlike Conservatives in Hollywood who are - and no one talks about it) - because we just like to create a lot of non-issues.

I have no issues with women doing any job or role they want. That’s called freedom but people creating victim cultures and trying to police our thoughts and language and constant government endorsed agendas to root out this so called oppression and prejudice that does doesn’t exist - is a threat to our freedom.
Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

We live in a democratic society and women make up about 50% of the population. Governments vote upon laws and regulations which determine what life we can live. It is therefore only fair to allow all people (above reasonable age) the right to contribute to this process, be it through running as an MP, or voting directly in a referendum, etc.

A company isn't equivalent to a government for several reasons. For one, a company doesn't dictate the entire life of their employees, of which they employee far less than there are people in the country. An employee can also leave a company (with relative ease) should they dislike how it is run. You seem to also conveniently be unaware that there are companies which are run on democratic means.

Men are no longer heads of the household, nor should they be used to 'represent' the women of the household through their vote. A married man and women could have completely different opinions on politics.
1
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#8
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

We live in a democratic society and women make up about 50% of the population. Governments vote upon laws and regulations which determine what life we can live. It is therefore only fair to allow all people (above reasonable age) the right to contribute to this process, be it through running as an MP, or voting directly in a referendum, etc.

A company isn't equivalent to a government for several reasons. For one, a company doesn't dictate the entire life of their employees, of which they employee far less than there are people in the country. An employee can also leave a company (with relative ease) should they dislike how it is run. You seem to also conveniently be unaware that there are companies which are run on democratic means.

Men are no longer heads of the household, nor should they be used to 'represent' the women of the household through their vote. A married man and women could have completely different opinions on politics.
How about getting give people choice? If woman or anyone else wants to vote / work or anything else legal, why not? If families want the man as the head of the household, why not? In the family wants the woman to be the head of the household, why not?

In most families the man is the head of the household and most people like it that way. The PC brigade don’t represent most people and according to Milo Yanopolis only 7% of Western women subscribe to feminism. What we need is freedom not people trying to show their agendas, dogmas and perceived victimhood down our throats, creating compelled speech, the use of state force to remove people’s free will and expensive Orwellian termed Conservative government Marxist quangos to oversee equality of outcomes that group differences prevent from naturally occurring.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 10 months ago
#9
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
How about five people choice? If woman or anyone she wants to vote / work or anything else legal, why not? If families want the man as the head of the household, why not? In the family wants the woman to be the head of the household, why not?

In most families the man is the head of the household and most people like it that way. The PC brigade don’t represent most people and according to Milo Yanopolis only 7% of Western women subscribe to feminism. What we need is freedom not people trying to show their agendas, dogmas and perceived victimhood down our throats, creating compelled speech, the use of state force to remove people’s free will and expensive Orwellian termed Conservative government Marxist quangos to oversee equality of outcomes that group differences prevent from naturally occurring.
Please answer the questions I asked:

Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

Try to actually keep to one topic/point and not just ramble on about things which are irrelevant.

If a woman chooses to enter a relationship where the man is the head of the household, then that is fine. People being expected/forced to have those relationships isn't right. This was the norm in the past, although you seem to believe that it never was.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 10 months ago
#10
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
So what if women didn’t have the right to vote. It’s like saying sharolders of a company can vote in the board but bondholders and employees can’t vote. Someone has to come up with a governance structure and when they created democracy it was one man one vote.

In the same way that the employees and bondholders are not being persecuted by not being allowed to vote.
Please continue with this analogy, I'm enjoying this unintended justification of socialism.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
2
reply
TCA2b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 10 months ago
#11
And utterly fails to deal with those where they do emerge, all the while bashing actual feminists, like Erin Pizzey.
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 10 months ago
#12
(Original post by SHallowvale)

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?
Even aside from the gendered dimension of it, it's long been recognised that a voting franchise based on households is profoundly undemocratic. It massively skews the electorate towards the wealthier young adults who can afford to move out and live on their own at an earlier age.

Pre-1969 Northern Ireland, for instance, had a "one household, two votes" system where each household could only have up to two adult voters (presumed to be the householder and their spouse). Virtually every historian of the Troubles will note that this was deliberately designed to over-represent the generally wealthier Protestant population at the expense of young Catholics who couldn't afford to move out of their parents' houses yet.
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#13
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Please answer the questions I asked:

Should women have the right to vote, yes or no?

Should men be considered the head of the household, yes or no?

Try to actually keep to one topic/point and not just ramble on about things which are irrelevant.

If a woman chooses to enter a relationship where the man is the head of the household, then that is fine. People being expected/forced to have those relationships isn't right. This was the norm in the past, although you seem to believe that it never was.
Women should have the right to vote.

People should have the right to consider whoever they want as the head of a household.

If most people chose to consider men as the head of households, cultural Marxists should just accept it, shut up about it and not try and change it through the institutions.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 10 months ago
#14
(Original post by Airplanebee2)
Women should have the right to vote.

People should have the right to consider whoever they want as the head of a household.

If most people chose to consider men as the head of households, cultural Marxists should just accept it, shut up about it and not try and change it through the institutions.
Who is trying to do this?

Who is trying to force people to not allow a man to be the head of a household?

Do you accept, then, that women had been oppressed in the past?
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 10 months ago
#15
[Edit
0
reply
Just my opinion
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 10 months ago
#16
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Women did not have the right to vote until the early 1900s and even then they had to be older than men (who could vote at 21) and meet more requirements. Before that, they could not vote at all.

Neither did millions of working class men.
The vast majority of nearly 1,000,000 men that were killed in the trenches after being shamed into going by women, including feminsts, participating in the White Feather Campaign ( Google it) never had the vote either.
In the famous photo where Pankhurst is being arrested by two police officers outside Buckingham palace three people dont have the vote.
Pankhurst and the two coppers, but is shocking how few people know this.
I'll let you into a little fact I only found out myself a couple of years ago.
Despite my family going back as far as any other in this country my great grandfather was the first man in the history of our family to get the vote and he cast it in 1918 on the same day that my grandmother cast her vote.
He was 29 and she was 31.
Ofcourse to get the vote he had to be gassed and left partially sighted for the rest of his life. My grandmother god bless her didn't have to do anything.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 10 months ago
#17
(Original post by Just my opinion)
Neither did millions of working class men.
The vast majority of men that were killed in the trenches after being shamed into going by women, including feminsts, participating in the White Feather Campaign ( Google it) never had the vote either.
In the famous photo where Pankhurst is being arrested by two police officers outside Buckingham palace three people dont have the vote.
Pankhurst and the two coppers, but is shocking how few people know this.
I'll let you into a little fact I only found out myself a couple of years ago.
Despite my family going back as far as any other in this country my great grandfather was the first man in the history of our family to get the vote and he cast it in 1918 on the same day that my grandmother cast her vote.
He was 29 and she was 31.
Ofcourse to get the vote he had to be gassed and left partially sighted for the rest of his life. My grandmother god bless her didn't have to do anything.
Female suffrage was explicitly prohibited by law up until that point. Men could vote, approximately 60% were able to if I recall correctly. When the law changed to allow women to vote, all men over 21 were given the right to vote; women weren't.
0
reply
Airplanebee2
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Who is trying to do this?

Who is trying to force people to not allow a man to be the head of a household?

Do you accept, then, that women had been oppressed in the past?
The P.C. brigade and the state are trying trying to get the state and the institutions to peddle feminism and put speech controls on people to make people who disagree feel like they can’t speak. We even recently had politicians calling for laws against “sexist hate crime”, translation, who knows!!!

No one is trying to force men to be the head of a household but this subject is covered by this P.C. compelled speech and people are supposed to pay lip services to all ideas that negate specific gender roles. Hell on the first day of a social sciences course in 1992, a female started talking to me about if only we could use technology to make men pregnant, it would be great for equality.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
joey11223
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 10 months ago
#19
I think in countries like ours as of now that's mostly true, obviously it wasn't that long ago it wasn't relevant. For example rape in marriage wasn't illegal/recognized until 1991 and was ruled as inconceivable in 1984, only because a case in Scotland in 1990 ruled against that did England then change too, I'd imagine that was thought of as a feminist issue.

For much of the world women's lack of basic rights/equality is still a major concern. However that said the rights/equality of various groups, including white males, in different scenarios is a problem, it's not just women only issues, more...issues of humanity and broader equality in general.
0
reply
trippieblue
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report 10 months ago
#20
I often stop reading when someone says "cultural marxist".

Anyways, none of this actually addresses what feminists are saying. Things like the #metoo movement have shown the struggles women do face. Sure, some of it is pretty ridiculous and far-fetched, such as the gender pay gap. Whilst the idea that theres a disparity between women and men's pay for the same job is untrue, there are real concerns we should be aware of, such as why women are forced to choose their child over their career.
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Do you give blood?

Yes (61)
8.65%
I used to but I don't now (17)
2.41%
No, but I want to start (265)
37.59%
No, I am unable to (167)
23.69%
No, I chose not to (195)
27.66%

Watched Threads

View All