Turn on thread page Beta

Feminism Is A Complete Contradiction - A Waste of Time watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Every time a feminist speaks, they are full of contradiction. I will highlight a few here, most of us are academics or aspiring academics here so we can have a proper discussion about the topic.

    True equality in the rawest sense would actually hurt women than help them, and there are thousands of examples. For example boxing or tennis, if it was just tennis, not men's tennis or women's tennis, there wouldn't be a woman even in the top 100. However in reality, if you look at Wimbledon for example, women only play 3 set matches, and only compete against women but take the same prize money as men. Is that not contradictory?

    In an article in The Telegraph, only 9% of women identified themselves as feminist. Why then if feminism is for the betterment of women, the vast majority of women do not support it?

    Recently grid girls in F1 were banned. Many girls lost their jobs and were upset and went on TV arguing against feminists saying they lost their jobs. Feminism is about giving women choice right, it's her body, if she wants to cover she can, if she wants to model she can. So why in this case are feminists telling women what they can wear or not or what jobs they can do or not?

    Some women choose to take career breaks to have children, and then some choose to work part time after that - it is their choice nothing to do with me. But I saw an interview on TV other day, a woman came back to work after having a child and demanded a pay rise to pay for childcare. Why should she be given a pay rise when while she has been away others have come in everyday, worked long hours, overtime etc. Why do these women expect the world to bend over backwards for them? You can't have your cake and eat it.

    Women complain men objectify them. Well firstly there are strip clubs with male strippers which women attend, I don't see feminists complaining about these. Secondly if a woman chooses to wear less and go out, men will look and be excited by it. This is not objectification, this is biology and genetics. Men will find attractive women, attractive they shouldn't apologize for this, it is biology.

    Many girls on here and other places say they expect the man to ask them out, take them out, pay for the meal, make the first move etc. As a male I don't have a problem with this, it is what it is. Some girls even say they prefer a man's man - again this is not wrong, it should come as no surprise that men like feminine women, and women like masculine men. So if this is what women prefer, who are feminists to tell them otherwise?

    And on a side note what with the men are trash, women are trash topics popping up? Men and women are not the same, so they are different - it is an undeniable fact of life. But that doesn't mean one is better than the other, both are equal worth but they will choose different things because of course by definition they are different.

    Bottom line, feminism is a complete contradiction. They say they are helping women, well clearly that's not the case as most women do not support feminism.

    Thoughts?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nice thread.

    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    True equality in the rawest sense would actually hurt women than help them, and there are thousands of examples. For example boxing or tennis, if it was just tennis, not men's tennis or women's tennis, there wouldn't be a woman even in the top 100. However in reality, if you look at Wimbledon for example, women only play 3 set matches, and only compete against women but take the same prize money as men. Is that not contradictory?
    The funny thing about this is if equality ever were to be implemented in sports like tennis and women wind up performing miserably, feminists would blame it on sexism and the game rules would be changed such that each point scored by a woman would become worth two points scored by men. That way women would wind up beating men in games. You wind up getting parity in numbers. Women might even wind up beating men in greater numbers and feminism will tell you look at the numbers. Didnt we tell you that women can do as well if not better than men in tennis and the only thing holding them back was sexism?...lol This is exactly what is happening in society today in all areas of life - Discrimination against men in pursuit of parity for women in areas of life where they cannot compete with men.

    The funny thing about equality is that the only way to achieve it between two different groups such as men and women is to discriminate between them. As in, the only way to achieve it is by giving one group favourable treatment over the other. Equality is discriminatory. It contradicts itself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Grid girls are evil.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Bravo! I can imagine a wave of feminists will be coming on here to "prove you wrong" with more contradictions.

    The body positive movement is another contradiction. If you are a "skinny b*tch" then you don't have the right to talk about body positivity because you're what "society deems as acceptable" (no sh*t hungry hippo) so the movement can only be about fat girls who feel like they don't get enough compliments from strangers. This whole "movement" is all about societal acceptance yet they then go on to say that "it's all for them and not society" and then go on to say "post your photos on Instagram to gain those likes". Choose what you bloody want!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Some women choose to take career breaks to have children, and then some choose to work part time after that
    Interesting post. Some women, and men for that matter choose to have kids. Correct. I count myself in that camp. But the choices around going back to work are not quite as free as you seem to be suggesting. The choice is a) do I earn more than £25k? If so, it is just about worth going back to work and spending £12k - £15k a year on childcare. b) If I do earn £25k, do I want to farm my child into a nursery from 7.30am to 6pm so that I can continue pursuing my career? c) options A is not quite there or I am not content to settle with option B so the only choice left is to get a part time minimum wage job or stay at home and hope that we can survive on one income until the child goes to school. And bear in mind that our society is now set up such that it requires two salaries to live - this is why young singles can't buy a house.

    What women who have had kids really want is option d) To continue to pursue their high paid career but work less hours. I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why that isn't possible. There are a few companies and organisations that have adopted policies that allow people to work less - schools for example and the result is loyal staff and high productivity. I am sure it will come. Something will give, it will suddenly be big news and the government will act. Or companies will slowly realise that having loyal productive staff is worth the effort.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiomasher)
    Grid girls are evil.
    HAha, being honest. I watch f1, I had comepletly forgotten that grid girls had gone until I read your comment.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Is that why you wasted all your time writing this thread?
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andrew97)
    HAha, being honest. I watch f1, I had comepletly forgotten that grid girls had gone until I read your comment.
    I just don't get the appeal of F1 (grid girls aside). All the cars look the same, more or less, they go around and around at the same speed in a rather abstract environment such that you can't really tell they are going fast (unless you are there maybe). At least with rally driving you get a real sense of the drivers skills and the risks they are taking, and you get to see some trees and stuff.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Interesting post. Some women, and men for that matter choose to have kids. Correct. I count myself in that camp. But the choices around going back to work are not quite as free as you seem to be suggesting. The choice is a) do I earn more than £25k? If so, it is just about worth going back to work and spending £12k - £15k a year on childcare. b) If I do earn £25k, do I want to farm my child into a nursery from 7.30am to 6pm so that I can continue pursuing my career? c) options A is not quite there or I am not content to settle with option B so the only choice left is to get a part time minimum wage job or stay at home and hope that we can survive on one income until the child goes to school. And bear in mind that our society is now set up such that it requires two salaries to live - this is why young singles can't buy a house.

    What women who have had kids really want is option d) To continue to pursue their high paid career but work less hours. I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why that isn't possible. There are a few companies and organisations that have adopted policies that allow people to work less - schools for example and the result is loyal staff and high productivity. I am sure it will come. Something will give, it will suddenly be big news and the government will act. Or companies will slowly realise that having loyal productive staff is worth the effort.

    ‘To continue to pursue their high paid career but work less hours’.

    Why should a person expect the same career development as another person within the same career when they’ve worked less hours? Isn’t that inherently selfish? That argument is built entirely off of entitlement. Your career develops with how much you put into it, don’t expect to be given a booster because of your own life choices.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Nice thread.



    The funny thing about this is if equality ever were to be implemented in sports like tennis and women wind up performing miserably, feminists would blame it on sexism and the game rules would be changed such that each point scored by a woman would become worth two points scored by men. That way women would wind up beating men in games. You wind up getting parity in numbers. Women might even wind up beating men in greater numbers and feminism will tell you look at the numbers. Didnt we tell you that women can do as well if not better than men in tennis and the only thing holding them back was sexism?...lol This is exactly what is happening in society today in all areas of life - Discrimination against men in pursuit of parity for women in areas of life where they cannot compete with men.

    The funny thing about equality is that the only way to achieve it between two different groups such as men and women is to discriminate between them. As in, the only way to achieve it is by giving one group favourable treatment over the other. Equality is discriminatory. It contradicts itself.
    (Original post by iAngely)
    Bravo! I can imagine a wave of feminists will be coming on here to "prove you wrong" with more contradictions.

    The body positive movement is another contradiction. If you are a "skinny b*tch" then you don't have the right to talk about body positivity because you're what "society deems as acceptable" (no sh*t hungry hippo) so the movement can only be about fat girls who feel like they don't get enough compliments from strangers. This whole "movement" is all about societal acceptance yet they then go on to say that "it's all for them and not society" and then go on to say "post your photos on Instagram to gain those likes". Choose what you bloody want!
    Thank you, of course I believe what I've posted is pretty much common sense but angry men hating women just think different, They seem to want it all, but contradict themselves in the process.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Interesting post. Some women, and men for that matter choose to have kids. Correct. I count myself in that camp. But the choices around going back to work are not quite as free as you seem to be suggesting. The choice is a) do I earn more than £25k? If so, it is just about worth going back to work and spending £12k - £15k a year on childcare. b) If I do earn £25k, do I want to farm my child into a nursery from 7.30am to 6pm so that I can continue pursuing my career? c) options A is not quite there or I am not content to settle with option B so the only choice left is to get a part time minimum wage job or stay at home and hope that we can survive on one income until the child goes to school. And bear in mind that our society is now set up such that it requires two salaries to live - this is why young singles can't buy a house.

    What women who have had kids really want is option d) To continue to pursue their high paid career but work less hours. I am yet to hear a convincing argument as to why that isn't possible. There are a few companies and organisations that have adopted policies that allow people to work less - schools for example and the result is loyal staff and high productivity. I am sure it will come. Something will give, it will suddenly be big news and the government will act. Or companies will slowly realise that having loyal productive staff is worth the effort.
    You clearly haven't worked in the real world a day in your life or researched how the real world works.

    High end careers requires immense effort, from 70 to 80 hours a week, you can't decide to have a high end career and work 25 hours a week - it isn't how it works otherwise everyone would be doing it.

    High end jobs which pay 100k a year are very competitive, require huge amounts of overtime, huge amounts of commitment

    You are yet to hear an argument why it isn't possible because it isn't possible. It won't and can't be tried. What a stupid thing to say.

    You know to progress to senior positions in companies it is incredibly difficult.

    A 100k salary is not something you come in and press a few buttons for, you need to justify your seat if you want that kind of salary. Men or women fight hard and compete because there are others there doing huge amounts of sacrifice for the company, why should someone come in whos working 25 hours a week part time be entitled to get that salary and position above all the other people who work 70-80 hours a week?

    Serious contradictions , as I said you can't have your cake and eat it. You can't decide you only want to work 3 days a week and earn 150k as a director.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsLife1)
    ‘To continue to pursue their high paid career but work less hours’.

    Why should a person expect the same career development as another person within the same career when they’ve worked less hours? Isn’t that inherently selfish? That argument is built entirely off of entitlement. Your career develops with how much you put into it, don’t expect to be given a booster because of your own life choices.
    So you judge success on how many hours puts in? Or is it what they achieve in the time given? We have low productivity in this country and the ethic you are talking about plays straight into that. People working long hours, but achieving little.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    You clearly haven't worked in the real world a day in your life or researched how the real world works.

    High end careers requires immense effort, from 70 to 80 hours a week, you can't decide to have a high end career and work 25 hours a week - it isn't how it works otherwise everyone would be doing it.
    I think you completely misjudge me. I have been in the world of work for 20 years or so. I have sat through meetings attended by up to 20 people from around the world that have lasted in excess of 3 hours and achieved nothing whilst the majority don't even contribute. If success is gained by putting in the hours then we are doing something seriously wrong. No one can make good decisions after working 80 hours in a week and anyone who thinks they can is just lying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Women: could you please stop raping us, yelling sexual obscenities in the street at us, and treating us like lesser human beings
    Men: but what about the tennis
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    So you judge success on how many hours puts in? Or is it what they achieve in the time given? We have low productivity in this country and the ethic you are talking about plays straight into that. People working long hours, but achieving little.
    Time put into a career is what causes success. Time put in is what dictates experience. Experience is what is valued. A woman who takes 2 years off of work due to having a child has 2 years less experience than her co-worker who has had no time off. Therefore, she makes less money.

    You aren’t entitled to career development when you haven’t been working towards your career. Because that’s what you seem to be suggesting.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsLife1)
    Time put into a career is what causes success. Time put in is what dictates experience. Experience is what is valued. A woman who takes 2 years off of work due to having a child has 2 years less experience than her co-worker who has had no time off. Therefore, she makes less money.
    B0llocks. Sorry but just b0llocks. You are basically suggesting that regardless of ability or effectiveness, someone who has worked for 2 additional years is automatically "more qualified" than someone who took a couple of years off? I am afraid you only have to look at the eejits that run our country to see that loyalty and upbringing do not yield effectiveness. I would rather see people paid on their effectiveness rather than the current system that pays based on loyalty and time put in. No wonder we have such low productivity when folks like yourself are peddling the myth that in order to raise productivity all we need to do is work longer hours.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    B0llocks. Sorry but just b0llocks. You are basically suggesting that regardless of ability or effectiveness, someone who has worked for 2 additional years is automatically "more qualified" than someone who took a couple of years off? I am afraid you only have to look at the eejits that run our country to see that loyalty and upbringing do not yield effectiveness. I would rather see people paid on their effectiveness rather than the current system that pays based on loyalty and time put in. No wonder we have such low productivity when folks like yourself are peddling the myth that in order to raise productivity all we need to do is work longer hours.
    Don’t dare misquote me to further a moronic argument you entitled imbecile.

    I never said more hours equals more productivity. I said more hours equals more career development. Productivity is also so subjective based on occupation it’s impossible to implement.

    And yes, if you’ve worked in a field 2 years longer than someone else you are more qualified. Jack with 4 years experience and a masters degree is more qualified than Joe with 2 years experience and a masters degree.

    Someone who just had 2 years off is also highly unlikely to be as productive as someone who hasn’t. Doing work to a good standard takes time. Bleating ‘b-b-but I’m more productive because I know-‘ oh wait, you don’t. You have no clue how productive your co-workers are. If you do have a clue, maybe you should focus more on your own work to increase your own productivity. Experience runs employment probability.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WhatIsLife1)
    And yes, if you’ve worked in a field 2 years longer than someone else you are more qualified. Jack with 4 years experience and a masters degree is more qualified than Joe with 2 years experience and a masters degree.
    Really? I have worked with many Jacks, some of which have PhDs. Doesn't mean they can do the job though. Yet they are paid as if they can and it is only thanks to those that work around them that they don't get spotted.

    Qualifications are only a piece of paper. Anyone can swot for an exam. Doesn't mean you can apply that knowledge though.

    And 2 years in a 40 - 50 year career is diddly squat. The jobs market at the moment is going to benefit those who can change and adapt, not those who can go the distance slowly accumulating knowledge of technology and process that will be out of date in 5 years. So if anything, someone coming into a job after a 2 year break isn't going to be at that much of a disadvantage simply because what is going on how wasn't going on 5 years ago anyway.

    Women who do manage to succeed after giving birth definitely do it in-spite of folks like you rather than because of you. There is a vast pool of talent to be tapped by any company willing to make small concessions yet it is the sort of stubborn can't do attitude you and many others like you are displaying that is preventing that. It is a shame. It is almost like you feel threatened.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by konvictz0007)
    Every time a feminist speaks, they are full of contradiction. I will highlight a few here, most of us are academics or aspiring academics here so we can have a proper discussion about the topic.

    True equality in the rawest sense would actually hurt women than help them, and there are thousands of examples. For example boxing or tennis, if it was just tennis, not men's tennis or women's tennis, there wouldn't be a woman even in the top 100. However in reality, if you look at Wimbledon for example, women only play 3 set matches, and only compete against women but take the same prize money as men. Is that not contradictory?

    In an article in The Telegraph, only 9% of women identified themselves as feminist. Why then if feminism is for the betterment of women, the vast majority of women do not support it?

    Recently grid girls in F1 were banned. Many girls lost their jobs and were upset and went on TV arguing against feminists saying they lost their jobs. Feminism is about giving women choice right, it's her body, if she wants to cover she can, if she wants to model she can. So why in this case are feminists telling women what they can wear or not or what jobs they can do or not?

    Some women choose to take career breaks to have children, and then some choose to work part time after that - it is their choice nothing to do with me. But I saw an interview on TV other day, a woman came back to work after having a child and demanded a pay rise to pay for childcare. Why should she be given a pay rise when while she has been away others have come in everyday, worked long hours, overtime etc. Why do these women expect the world to bend over backwards for them? You can't have your cake and eat it.

    Women complain men objectify them. Well firstly there are strip clubs with male strippers which women attend, I don't see feminists complaining about these. Secondly if a woman chooses to wear less and go out, men will look and be excited by it. This is not objectification, this is biology and genetics. Men will find attractive women, attractive they shouldn't apologize for this, it is biology.

    Many girls on here and other places say they expect the man to ask them out, take them out, pay for the meal, make the first move etc. As a male I don't have a problem with this, it is what it is. Some girls even say they prefer a man's man - again this is not wrong, it should come as no surprise that men like feminine women, and women like masculine men. So if this is what women prefer, who are feminists to tell them otherwise?

    And on a side note what with the men are trash, women are trash topics popping up? Men and women are not the same, so they are different - it is an undeniable fact of life. But that doesn't mean one is better than the other, both are equal worth but they will choose different things because of course by definition they are different.

    Bottom line, feminism is a complete contradiction. They say they are helping women, well clearly that's not the case as most women do not support feminism.

    Thoughts?
    It depends on what you decide feminism is. I consider myself a feminist, because I believe that men and women should be treated equally, be given the same opportunities and that society as a whole should work towards an environment where neither gender is objectified or gender norms forced upon people.

    You ask: 'who are feminists to tell them otherwise?' There are some extremes in every movement; that doesn't wipe out the whole movement's validity does it?

    I'd argue the readers of the Telegraph are hardly a representative sample. It's a bit like me saying that a survey from the socialist worker showed that 90% of people are socialists. Though, absolutely alot of women don't identify as feminists, because similar to how a lot of young people don't vote, they are yet to noticeably suffer as a result of their gender. This is thanks to the work of those feminists that came before them.

    I think the argument on objectification is less about women wearing less and more about women being viewed as sexual objects in the media....I'd again say as a feminist there's no issue with stripclubs, as long as the people who work there are treated with respect whether they be male or female.

    ' They say they are helping women, well clearly that's not the case as most women do not support feminism.' I would perhaps suggest that you take the time to read about the suffragettes and then come back to me and argue that feminism hasn't helped women.


    As a pointer for constructing an argument like yours, perhaps actually quote a feminist after saying 'Every time a feminist speaks, they are full of contradiction. I will highlight a few here'.

    Feminists are not some sort of homogenous group. I wouldn't judge the entirety of the Conservative party on the words of Jacob Rees Mogg, as to do so would be ridiculous. If you approach others and their issues and grievances with understanding as a pose to hostility and judgement, you'll find your happier.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Really? I have worked with many Jacks, some of which have PhDs. Doesn't mean they can do the job though. Yet they are paid as if they can and it is only thanks to those that work around them that they don't get spotted.

    Qualifications are only a piece of paper. Anyone can swot for an exam. Doesn't mean you can apply that knowledge though.

    And 2 years in a 40 - 50 year career is diddly squat. The jobs market at the moment is going to benefit those who can change and adapt, not those who can go the distance slowly accumulating knowledge of technology and process that will be out of date in 5 years. So if anything, someone coming into a job after a 2 year break isn't going to be at that much of a disadvantage simply because what is going on how wasn't going on 5 years ago anyway.

    Women who do manage to succeed after giving birth definitely do it in-spite of folks like you rather than because of you. There is a vast pool of talent to be tapped by any company willing to make small concessions yet it is the sort of stubborn can't do attitude you and many others like you are displaying that is preventing that. It is a shame. It is almost like you feel threatened.
    By using 2 and 4 I was emphasising the fact that women often have children early on in their careers, where smaller differences in experience have a far greater effect.

    I’m not preventing anyone from doing anything, I just don’t believe that less experience should be held in equal stead to more experience. That is inherently unfair, and I don’t want an unfair society.

    As with anything, the more time put toward a career, the more you will get out of it.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,603

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.