Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BibblyBobbly)
    I am an egalitarian, but I also appreciate that there are going to be differences in treatment and attitude, regardless of what you do.

    Well men and women are never going to be equal in all senses, as we are not the same. Just as 35mm has pointed out, would you still campaign for men to be able to punch a woman without anybody complaining, whereas it is okay for a girl to hit a guy, because that doesn't seem very fair to me.

    The thing about women and men not having equal pay is a recurring theme, and one which I do not know enough about to comment, although on face value it does seem wrong that women get paid less for doing the same.
    Well I can't disagree with that really. Yes, men and women are different, but I wouldn't campaign with an adult's (A man or woman) right to punch their kid in the face. Yeah, it's bad if the kid hits back, and they shouldn't, but the adult is generally a lot stronger than the kid, and they should hit someone their own size, otherwise they're just cowards.

    Although, in some cases women can be stronger than some men...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually now I am not so sure. I remember I found one Miss California even more hotter when she said she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman. She went up on the hotness scale even more :rofl:

    I saw alot of potential in her as the right's poster girl. Apparently Cheney and O'Reilly were excited LOL
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    It's your fault for attaching gender-specific meanings to pretty meaningless words. You can call a man a slut if you wish, it doesn't change the meaning: the word is genderless.
    slut isn't a meaningless world. it isn't genderless either, if you consider its history, etymology, and general usage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    Slavery still exists. It is a fact.

    About the domestic violence thing, I've not actually tried to "add it to my feminist cause" I was using it as an analogy. It does disproportionately affect women though and in that way it is a gender issue in a sense. Gang culture disproportionately affects males. It would make sense to concentrate time and resources on helping adolecent males to stay out of gangs, I wouldn't consider this sexist or unfair at all.
    domestic violence may disproportionately affect women, however many cases of violence against men go unreported due to fear of ridicule etc, it's not as one sided as you think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    Well I can't disagree with that really. Yes, men and women are different, but I wouldn't campaign with an adult's (A man or woman) right to punch their kid in the face. Yeah, it's bad if the kid hits back, and they shouldn't, but the adult is generally a lot stronger than the kid, and they should hit someone their own size, otherwise they're just cowards.

    Although, in some cases women can be stronger than some men...
    you can't compare punching a kid to punching a woman, kids are immature and don't understand what is going on a lot of the time, woman know exactly what they are doing and what is wrong and right.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    Slavery still exists. It is a fact.
    Didn't contest that, domestic violence does indeed exist. But when the abolitionists fought for the abolition of slavery in late 19th century America they won what they were fighting for. They thus ceased to be a political force, because they had won and no longer had a cause to fight for. Such is the same for feminism. It ceased to be "feminism" long ago, it is now "femalechauvinists with a rhetoric of male-bashing".
    About the domestic violence thing, I've not actually tried to "add it to my feminist cause" I was using it as an analogy. It does disproportionately affect women though and in that way it is a gender issue in a sense. Gang culture disproportionately affects males. It would make sense to concentrate time and resources on helping adolecent males to stay out of gangs, I wouldn't consider this sexist or unfair at all.
    You bought it up as a feminist cause. You suggested that it supports the notion that female are subordinate to men.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    The argument is that when it comes to describing sexual promiscuity (especially, but not exclusively) our language is incredibly biased against women - which both reflects a bias in our society, and could create further bias. (this idea that language effects the way speakers understand society is called the sapir-whorf hypothesis if you're interested). Slut, like ****, is a female-word that can be applied to men, it's still a female word - and that's the issue.

    If you think this argument isn't worth your time, then STOP REPLYING. If you actually want to discuss this idea - then discuss it.
    Sapir Whorf? Sounds Star-Trekky to me xD

    I never said it wasn't worth my time, I said I can mock it, which is definitely worth my time

    The fact that you are unhappy about some words being applied to women and not men is laughable, there are a fair share of words that aen't used to describe men, and we don't mind because men and women are different, so there are always going to be words used to describe one more tha the other.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    slut isn't a meaningless world. it isn't genderless either, if you consider its history, etymology, and general usage.
    Slut is a derogative term for an individual who is sexually promiscuous. If you believe that it only applies to females then you're undermining your own cause; it suggests you believe that only females can be sexually promiscuous and therefore the term can't be applied to men. (Ah, the sweet irony).

    Anybody, regardless of gender, can be sexually promiscuous and hence be called a slut.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    Actually now I am not so sure. I remember I found one Miss California even more hotter when she said she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman. She went up on the hotness scale even more :rofl:

    I saw alot of potential in her as the right's poster girl. Apparently Cheney and O'Reilly were excited LOL
    Yeah, weren't they thinking of getting her on Faux news? The 'fair and balanced' news station. Besides, practically all her family are homosexuals and they 'said' they thought the same way, which makes her idioc- I mean, 'beliefs' even more stupid.

    Neo Con :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad someone here does, instead of all the women-bashers on this site.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by basketofsnakes)
    you can't compare punching a kid to punching a woman, kids are immature and don't understand what is going on a lot of the time, woman know exactly what they are doing and what is wrong and right.
    I was actually thinking more about 14, 15 and 16 year olds. They know exactly what they are doing. Besides, not all women are 'mature', just like not all kids (As much as I generally hate them) are immature.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BibblyBobbly)
    Sapir Whorf? Sounds Star-Trekky to me xD

    I never said it wasn't worth my time, I said I can mock it, which is definitely worth my time

    The fact that you are unhappy about some words being applied to women and not men is laughable, there are a fair share of words that aen't used to describe men, and we don't mind because men and women are different, so there are always going to be words used to describe one more tha the other.
    Fine, make jokes about it on your own time, I'm not bothering to discuss this with you anymore if you're not willing to seriously consider it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Didn't contest that, domestic violence does indeed exist. But when the abolitionists fought for the abolition of slavery in late 19th century America they won what they were fighting for. They thus ceased to be a political force, because they had won and no longer had a cause to fight for. Such is the same for feminism. It ceased to be "feminism" long ago, it is now "femalechauvinists with a rhetoric of male-bashing".

    You bought it up as a feminist cause. You suggested that it supports the notion that female are subordinate to men.
    Slavery still exists, you didn't mention the specific circumstances.

    Certain specific causes feminists have fought for have ceased to be an issue, e.g. we have the vote now, but that doesn't mean that there are no longer any gender inequality issues at all.

    If you read back I didn't bring it up as a feminist cause, I brought it up as an analogy for slavery in the sense that it used to be offically condoned, but still exists even though it isn't anymore.

    I'm going now because I can't be bothered to argue anymore when you keep building straw man arguements rather than replying to what I am actually saying.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Fine, make jokes about it on your own time, I'm not bothering to discuss this with you anymore if you're not willing to seriously consider it.
    It is because claiming the English Language is sexist because some words aren't used to describe women as much as men, is in itself a joke.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Slut is a derogative term for an individual who is sexually promiscuous. If you believe that it only applies to females then you're undermining your own cause; it suggests you believe that only females can be sexually promiscuous and therefore the term can't be applied to men. (Ah, the sweet irony).

    Anybody, regardless of gender, can be sexually promiscuous and hence be called a slut.
    Slut, if you look at its history, etymology, and usage, is a female-associated word. That doesn't mean I only think women can be promiscuous, it doesn't even remotely suggest that, it means that "slut" is a word which means a sexually promiscuous woman.

    Here's the etymological definition -

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=slut

    almost all of the earliest usages of the word slut, are related to women. Just like a man could be a *****, the word '*****' is considered a world associated with females, because its origin refers to a female dog.

    Is the point explained?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    I was actually thinking more about 14, 15 and 16 year olds. They know exactly what they are doing. Besides, not all women are 'mature', just like not all kids (As much as I generally hate them) are immature.
    so you're saying it's equally bad to hit a 14 year old as it is to hit a woman because they are smaller? Therefore it is just as bad for a woman to hit a smaller man?

    btw not all 14-16 year olds are tiny.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    But you would not call a man a slut even if he displayed the same traits or behaviour. Therefore the term is inherently unfair.
    People do...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    Well I can't disagree with that really. Yes, men and women are different, but I wouldn't campaign with an adult's (A man or woman) right to punch their kid in the face. Yeah, it's bad if the kid hits back, and they shouldn't, but the adult is generally a lot stronger than the kid, and they should hit someone their own size, otherwise they're just cowards.

    Although, in some cases women can be stronger than some men...
    Yeah some women are "muscular" I think I'll phrase it and some guys are weaker than others. I'm not advocating punching women by the way, I'm just highlighting an example of "sexism"
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    Slavery still exists, you didn't mention the specific circumstances.
    Argh, I did though. I specified the Abolitionist movement (19th century) in America. Could I be anymore specific?
    Certain specific causes feminists have fought for have ceased to be an issue, e.g. we have the vote now, but that doesn't mean that there are no longer any gender inequality issues at all.
    Exactly, so you no longer fight for the vote because you've got it. Why don't you do that for everything else you've achieved?
    I'm going now because I can't be bothered to argue anymore when you keep building straw man arguements rather than replying to what I am actually saying.
    I'm going to be petty and say that means you've now lost the argument (not vice versa, [and not that this was an argument paticularly]). And if you knew anything about debating you'd know I wasn't "attacking strawman", I've answered each of your points, or lack thereof. And so have you, nobody's playing the strawman card, that, again, is merely a trigger word you're using :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    Yeah, weren't they thinking of getting her on Faux news? The 'fair and balanced' news station. Besides, practically all her family are homosexuals and they 'said' they thought the same way, which makes her idioc- I mean, 'beliefs' even more stupid.

    Neo Con :rolleyes:
    To be honest, I was impressed at what a strong person she is. She did indeed appear on Fox News and she stood by her beliefs and said she didn't want to let Jesus down. She said she had no regrets. She refused to sacrifice her belief despite knowing the backclash she could face from so called liberals.

    She was really pretty, blonde hair and all, with a good vision for America. She may have not won the competition but she won the hearts of millions :o:

    I would love to see her as spokewoman for the white house or even secretary of state when the republicans are back. :coma:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: July 26, 2009
  • 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.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.

  • 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

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