Turn on thread page Beta

Feminist/ militantly political girls watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well there is something we can do with words in the English language.

    Change the definition...

    We do it all the time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    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?
    Just to add this this, the reason the word ***** is considered particularly derogatory when applied to males is because it is associated with femininity.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    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?
    Why do feminists always linger in the past? In a modern context slut can mean both men and women, thus being genderless. If somebody is sexually promiscuous then they can be deemed a slut (by the definition of the word).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Argh, I did though. I specified the Abolitionist movement (19th century) in America. Could I be anymore specific?

    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 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:
    You didn't specify the abolitionist movement until after I had provided you with examples of slavery, your original point was that slavery doesn't exist at all.

    A lot of things have been achieved but men and women are not completely equal, I recommend feministing.com if you want to find out about some modern day gender issues.

    You were building a strawman when you accused me of putting foward domestic violence as a gender issue, when I was using it as an analogy for slavery.

    I'm going to my boyfriends now (guess what I'm not a man hating hairy legged lesbian!! :eek: ) so we will have to continue this discussion another time
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    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 spokewomen for the white house or even secretary of state when the republicans are back.
    Well I don't want to have a debate or anything (Yeah, just blame the liberals for everything), it's hardly appropriate here and you'd just piss me off. I actually did find it funny how she said that in front of Perez Hilton though...

    I do find it awfully funny however, how she didn't want to 'let Jesus down' and the next minute she is posing practically naked in photo shoots... Awesome Christian conservative lady you have there. Care to explain that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by basketofsnakes)
    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.
    You're looking too much into it (Which is something I'm usually guilty of doing). My basic point was that I wouldn't campaign with people to be able to be violent towards people who are generally weaker than them. I was just using adults and children as an example.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    You didn't specify the abolitionist movement until after I had provided you with examples of slavery, your original point was that slavery doesn't exist at all.

    A lot of things have been achieved but men and women are not completely equal, I recommend feministing.com if you want to find out about some modern day gender issues.

    You were building a strawman when you accused me of putting foward domestic violence as a gender issue, when I was using it as an analogy for slavery.

    I'm going to my boyfriends now (guess what I'm not a man hating hairy legged lesbian!! :eek: ) so we will have to continue this discussion another time
    I also recommend wikipediaing Masculism

    Have fun!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Why do feminists always linger in the past? In a modern context slut can mean both men and women, thus being genderless. If somebody is sexually promiscuous then they can be deemed a slut (by the definition of the word).
    Feminists don't linger in the past, but if you're looking at the meaning of the word, considering the root of the word is generally quite useful.

    By whose definition? My dictionary's definition specifically mentions women You could call a man a "****" that doesn't change the fact it's a word associated with women, since it's an obscene word for "vulva".

    The whole point is - the fact that most words which describes someone who is sexually promiscuous are generally associated with women (which slut definitely IS), says something about our society's attitude towards female sexuality and female promiscuity. To reduce the argument to, "well, you can call a man a slut as well", is to somewhat ignore the point.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    Well I don't want to have a debate or anything (Yeah, just blame the liberals for everything), it's hardly appropriate here and you'd just piss me off. I actually did find it funny how she said that in front of Perez Hilton though...

    I do find it awfully funny however, how she didn't want to 'let Jesus down' and the next minute she is posing practically naked in photo shoots... Awesome Christian conservative lady you have there. Care to explain that?
    That's right we shouldn't debate here.

    That's what makes it even better, she took on Perez Hilton, people as beautiful and intelligent as her are rare. She even hinted at immigration problems. :coma:

    I don't think there is anything wrong with the photo shoot, it isn't porn, and people who take part are screened to ensure they have not done anything like porn. I see it as a very prominent respectable position, alot of hardwork and dedication is required to win, she would have been representing America and echoing the views of hawks in the Republican party.

    Hopefully we'll hear from her oneday. I would love to see her as a running mate for Ron paul :o: What a combo

    http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/Ron%20Paul.jpg

    http://blog.ryanzhale.net/wp-content...prejean_01.jpg
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Feminists don't linger in the past, but if you're looking at the meaning of the word, considering the root of the word is generally quite useful.

    By whose definition? My dictionary's definition specifically mentions women You could call a man a "****" that doesn't change the fact it's a word associated with women, since it's an obscene word for "vulva".

    The whole point is - the fact that most words which describes someone who is sexually promiscuous are generally associated with women (which slut definitely IS), says something about our society's attitude towards female sexuality and female promiscuity. To reduce the argument to, "well, you can call a man a slut as well", is to somewhat ignore the point.
    What was the astericked word? Feminists do linger in the past, it's no longer a collective cause fighting for "equality" but something somewhat further than that.

    By my definition. I see the word as genderless, so can you if you wished. If you wish to see it as the personification of the oppression of women then fair enough, but I don't.

    Society is changing. Sexism does still exist (and always will), but it cuts both ways.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    That's right we shouldn't debate here.

    That's what makes it even better, she took on Perez Hilton, people as beautiful and intelligent as her are rare. She even hinted at immigration problems. :coma:

    I don't think there is anything wrong with the photo shoot, it isn't porn, and people who take part are screened to ensure they have not done anything like porn. I see it as a very prominent respectable position, alot of hardwork and dedication is required to win, she would have been representing America and echoing the views of hawks in the Republican party.

    Hopefully we'll hear from her oneday. I would love to see her as a running mate for Ron paul :o: What a combo

    http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/Ron%20Paul.jpg

    http://blog.ryanzhale.net/wp-content...prejean_01.jpg
    You didn't see the pictures did you? She was actually topless / showing her breasts. She's done it twice. http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/13/miss-c...opless-photos/ *No nudity, those parts are censored*

    We can debate whether she is beautiful, she certainly isn't intelligent. She would ruin Ron Paul who is actually intelligent and respectable, even if he is in the Republican party and has said some offensive statements when he was younger. Yeah, too bad she's sacked now as Miss California for not even bothering to turn up to the events she's meant to. All she has to do is look 'pretty', how hard is that? She rushed to Fox News though :rolleyes: Hardwork and dedicated my arse.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    What was the astericked word? Feminists do linger in the past, it's no longer a collective cause fighting for "equality" but something somewhat further than that.

    By my definition. I see the word as genderless, so can you if you wished. If you wish to see it as the personification of the oppression of women then fair enough, but I don't.

    Society is changing. Sexism does still exist (and always will), but it cuts both ways.
    I can't spell it out, since I got warning points for doing that before, can't you guess? There aren't really that many four-letter words which mean "vulva".

    It's so bizarre to me when people say "oh, feminism has acheived its goals" - that's such a narrow viewpoint. Feminism's goals, oddly enough, aren't contained to western society. Women in the Middle East, especially are incredibly oppressed. There are societies where we still need to fight for even the most basic rights for women. That said, in our society, we are undoubtedly unequal. Women are underrepresented in many arenas of society - government, finance, the law, the police - and they're underpaid in many more.

    Unfortunately you don't get to decide how the majority of people would define a word - the dictionary definition is, unsurprisingly, more definitive than just your opinion of what a word means. It doesn't mean what you think it does, move on with the argument. I don't see it is the personification of the oppression of women, I do see it as representative of our society's view of female sexuality, which is a repressive one. Women aren't as free to be promiscuous as men are, and this is represented in words like "slut", "whore" or "****".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    I can't spell it out, since I got warning points for doing that before, can't you guess? There aren't really that many four-letter words which mean "vulva".
    Aha, yes, I've got it now. Wasn't thinking for a moment. C*nt. Fab.
    It's so bizarre to me when people say "oh, feminism has acheived its goals" - that's such a narrow viewpoint. Feminism's goals, oddly enough, aren't contained to western society. Women in the Middle East, especially are incredibly oppressed.
    Indeed, you're quite right. But we're talking, I presumed, about our society. And anyway, the majority of modern Western feminists are only concerned about themselves in their own comfy society (which, ironically, is fine). I do, however, agree, that in many countries (mostly Islamic states) are fiercely biased towards men and that needs to be addressed. In fact, I was arguing in an Islamic thread today against the oppression of women in such countries.
    That said, in our society, we are undoubtedly unequal. Women are underrepresented in many arenas of society - government, finance, the law, the police - and they're underpaid in many more.
    But men could say the same; there are many issues that females clearly have a benefit over men. What do you suggest? Quotas? Affirmative action?
    Unfortunately you don't get to decide how the majority of people would define a word - the dictionary definition is, unsurprisingly, more definitive than just your opinion of what a word means. It doesn't mean what you think it does, move on with the argument. I don't see it is the personification of the oppression of women, I do see it as representative of our society's view of female sexuality, which is a repressive one. Women aren't as free to be promiscuous as men are, and this is represented in words like "slut", "whore" or "****".
    Well, I don't agree, not that you'd care (from the tone of your post).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    You didn't see the pictures did you? She was actually topless / showing her breasts. She's done it twice. http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/13/miss-c...opless-photos/ *No nudity, those parts are censored*

    We can debate whether she is beautiful, she certainly isn't intelligent. She would ruin Ron Paul who is actually intelligent and respectable, even if he is in the Republican party and has said some offensive statements when he was younger. Yeah, too bad she's sacked now as Miss California for not even bothering to turn up to the events she's meant to. All she has to do is look 'pretty', how hard is that? She rushed to Fox News though :rolleyes: Hardwork and dedicated my arse.
    I've never seen those pictures. In a liberal society it can be tough which is why her transformation to where she is now is all the more remarkable. She said she is not perfect but considers herself Christian and is trying to better herself. Impressive from someone growing up in California.

    I think the republican party need to broaden their appeal so someone with a bit of spark would help IMO, perhaps as a
    spokeswoman.

    EDIThe never turned up to her Miss California events because she became disillusioned with them. Look at how Perez Hilton treated her and the abuse he gave her.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    Aha, yes, I've got it now. Wasn't thinking for a moment. Fab.
    You might get a warning for that, by the way, just in case you wanted to edit it out.

    Indeed, you're quite right. But we're talking, I presumed, about our society. And anyway, the majority of modern Western feminists are only concerned about themselves in their own comfy society (which, ironically, is fine). I do, however, agree, that in many countries (mostly Islamic states) are fiercely biased towards men and that needs to be addressed. In fact, I was arguing in an Islamic thread today against the oppression of women in such countries.
    We are talking about Western society - but if you say something like "feminists always linger in the past" - that's a broader statement which deserves a broader response. As someone who is a pretty active feminist, I wouldn't say that most modern Western feminist are only concerned about their own society - but there is a bit of apprehension for many feminists to write "for" other women, so to speak, or about another society that they haven't experienced.

    But men could say the same; there are many issues that females clearly have a benefit over men. What do you suggest? Quotas? Affirmative action?

    Well, I don't agree, not that you'd care (from the tone of your post).
    I wouldn't say there were MANY situations where society gives women the edge over men, other than when it comes to child custody, which is a situation which I like to think is beginning to remedy itself and one I would say is unfair. I can't really think of anything else. Modelling, I suppose, but fashion is an industry which has more female demand, it's not really disproportional.

    Obviously I do care, or I wouldn't have been responding to your posts That's a weird thing to say mid-discussion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    You might get a warning for that, by the way, just in case you wanted to edit it out.
    Might be fun.
    We are talking about Western society - but if you say something like "feminists always linger in the past" - that's a broader statement which deserves a broader response. As someone who is a pretty active feminist, I wouldn't say that most modern Western feminist are only concerned about their own society - but there is a bit of apprehension for many feminists to write "for" other women, so to speak, or about another society that they haven't experienced.
    OK. What I would say though, is that in Britain, and many other Western cultures, the cause of feminism has been actualised. In most cases, where possible, females and males are equal. I agree that feminism has a purpose in Islamic countries in paticular.
    I wouldn't say there were MANY situations where society gives women the edge over men, other than when it comes to child custody, which is a situation which I like to think is beginning to remedy itself and one I would say is unfair. I can't really think of anything else. Modelling, I suppose, but fashion is an industry which has more female demand, it's not really disproportional.
    There are many cases, I'll list a few:

    -Male only conscripted military service.
    -Violence against men, by women, is generally more accepted than vice versa.
    -The presumption of male guilt in cases such as rape.
    -(and perhaps the most interesting). Circumcision being advocated for males, whereas female genital mutilation is generally condemned (and prohibited), both of which reduce sexual pleasure. Double standards?

    Moreover, many causes which feminists have fought for have now led to inequality. Such as, domestic violence. The authorities probably wouldn't care, and society wouldn't even believe, a man who claimed to being psychologically, or physically, abused by his wife/partner. Whereas, it's generally presumed that a women is correct in her accusations of a man. Much is the same for rape. Also, it's generally accepted (and socially promoted) to be bisexual or a lesbian for a woman, whereas it's somewhat less easy for a male to come out as gay. Why?

    Many more cases, brain isn't working tonight, I'm afraid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Neo Con)
    I've never seen those pictures. In a liberal society it can be tough which is why her transformation to where she is now is all the more remarkable. She said she is not perfect but considers herself Christian and is trying to better herself. Impressive from someone growing up in California.

    I think the republican party need to broaden their appeal so someone with a bit of spark would help IMO, perhaps as a
    spokeswoman.

    EDIThe never turned up to her Miss California events because she became disillusioned with them. Look at how Perez Hilton treated her and the abuse he gave her.
    America is far from liberal. Especially in California? I believe Prop 8 was passed there. If you want to broaden the Republican party's appeal you need to 1) Get with the the times and 2) Get rid of all your Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin types (In other words, practically everyone). Anyways, I like how you keep on coming up with excuses, which you pull completely out of your arse without evidence. She doesn't have nude pictures, she didn't want to let Jesus down. She should run for Vice President or be a spokesperson. Christian conservative woman. Oh, she does? Well she's not perfect, she's trying to better herself Evidence? It's her job, she gets paid good money for it. I thought she was a strong woman? If she can't handle that, I don't think she should be in politics dear.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abhead)
    I came in expecting some big rant about how much the OP hates the afore mentioned type of girls. I'm not actually sure if this post is much better.
    Totally
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    America is far from liberal. Especially in California? I believe Prop 8 was passed there. If you want to broaden the Republican party's appeal you need to 1) Get with the the times and 2) Get rid of all your Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin types (In other words, practically everyone). Anyways, I like how you keep on coming up with excuses, which you pull completely out of your arse without evidence. She doesn't have nude pictures, she didn't want to let Jesus down. She should run for Vice President or be a spokesperson. Christian conservative woman. Oh, she does? Well she's not perfect, she's trying to better herself Evidence? It's her job, she gets paid good money for it. I thought she was a strong woman? If she can't handle that, I don't think she should be in politics dear.
    You Americans are crazy. You have that etatist **** in your avatar but you would probably call yourself a liberal...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 35mm_)
    OK. What I would say though, is that in Britain, and many other Western cultures, the cause of feminism has been actualised. In most cases, where possible, females and males are equal. I agree that feminism has a purpose in Islamic countries in paticular.
    In many situations, men and women are equal. Well, they are equal under the law, anyway, and public opinion would generally support female equality - which is wonderful, of course. The same can be said for race issues - in many situations, races are equal. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant against racism, or that racism doesn't exist, or that fighting against racism is redundant. Feminism isn't redundant, just because sexism isn't as rampant as it was 60 years ago.

    There are many cases, I'll list a few:

    -Male only conscripted military service.
    -Violence against men, by women, is generally more accepted than vice versa.
    I disagree with the idea of conscription generally, so it's a little difficult for me to worry that females aren't being conscripted. I wouldn't really agree that if a woman really physically hurt a man, that'd be "more accepted" than a man really physically hurting a woman - I think it's more the case that it's much easier for men to severely hurt women. Men are generally more strong than women, so when a man hits a woman it's more severe than vice versa.

    -The presumption of male guilt in cases such as rape.
    Ah, now, here's a plum one. This is completely untrue. The MASSIVE presumption that women are "crying rape" is probably one of the most horrible things about our legal system today. The conviction rates for alleged rape cases are miniscule - about 6%. There was a recent report published about how police mismanage rape cases, and how rape victims are mistreated throughout the prosecution of their case. A third of people in this country think that a woman is partially or entirely responsible for being rape, if she acted flirtatiously. Public opinion, the police, and the courts are entirely on the man's side when it comes to rape. Spousal rape has only been illegal for a little over a decade in this country, men are definitely not suffering in this area.

    Circumcision being advocated for males, whereas female genital mutilation is generally condemned (and prohibited), both of which reduce sexual pleasure. Double standards?
    There are different reasons and intentions behind male circumsion and FGM - FGM is generally done without anaesthesia, and often the whole clitoris is removed. That said, I don't agree with male circumsion.

    Moreover, many causes which feminists have fought for have now led to inequality. Such as, domestic violence. The authorities probably wouldn't care, and society wouldn't even believe, a man who claimed to being psychologically, or physically, abused by his wife/partner. Whereas, it's generally presumed that a women is correct in her accusations of a man. Much is the same for rape. Also, it's generally accepted (and socially promoted) to be bisexual or a lesbian for a woman, whereas it's somewhat less easy for a male to come out as gay. Why?

    Many more cases, brain isn't working tonight, I'm afraid.
    I don't think that the authorities "wouldn't care" - domestic abuse against men isn't anywhere near as big a problem as domestic abuse against women. Two women every week die at the hands of their partners, the numbers for men isn't comparable. There is support for male domestic violence victims, it is a genuine issue. It is, absolutely, not the same for rape.

    I think your statement about bisexual and lesbian women is absolutely untrue - I think you'd have to be quite obtuse to make that observation. Male gay culture, and gay men, are far better represented in the media and in popular culture. I don't think coming out is particularly easier for men or women.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
The home of Results and Clearing

1,101

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?

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.