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

Why modern feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with the OP that there is a pay gap. However I think there is a very good reason why women are on the whole paid less than men. They work in safer jobs, they travel less, they work less hours to achieve bonuses, they are less likely to relocate to get that better job, and they go on maternity leave (in which time men get vital experience). I no longer think that feminism is neccessary in modern society because men and women are equal in their inequalities, if not the other way around - men have more inequalities Vs Women, seeing as many female inequalities are just myths like the pay gap. What we need is a government policy of Egalitarianism, instead of favouring women by creating positions and laws such as the 'Women and Children Act' and the females minister. Harriet Harman in particular has shown what damage feminism can do if it ever manages to penetrate our government, and if it continues I think men will be on the losing foot for many years to come.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I agree with the OP that there is a pay gap. However I think there is a very good reason why women are on the whole paid less than men. They work in safer jobs, they travel less, they work less hours to achieve bonuses, they are less likely to relocate to get that better job, and they go on maternity leave (in which time men get vital experience). I no longer think that feminism is neccessary in modern society because men and women are equal in their inequalities, if not the other way around - men have more inequalities Vs Women, seeing as many female inequalities are just myths like the pay gap. What we need is a government policy of Egalitarianism, instead of favouring women by creating positions and laws such as the 'Women and Children Act' and the females minister. Harriet Harman in particular has shown what damage feminism can do if it ever manages to penetrate our government, and if it continues I think men will be on the losing foot for many years to come.
    It depends how you define the pay gap. If you simply take a random sample of men and a sample of women, and then compare their wages, then it's pretty obvious there will be a pay gap for the reasons you say. The fact that women on average work fewer hours, do less dangerous jobs, etc. does not imply there is unfair discrimination going on. It's a woman's own choice to work fewer hours, take time off to have children, etc.

    But if they pay gap is defined to be a difference in pay for the same job, for the same hours, things are a bit different. That's at least some evidence that women are being paid less simply because they are women. But even then it's not necessarily true that two people with the same job title should get paid the same. In some jobs, it might just be the case that men tend to be slightly better at it so are paid more on average. It could also be down to negotiating their salary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    It depends how you define the pay gap. If you simply take a random sample of men and a sample of women, and then compare their wages, then it's pretty obvious there will be a pay gap for the reasons you say. The fact that women on average work fewer hours, do less dangerous jobs, etc. does not imply there is unfair discrimination going on. It's a woman's own choice to work fewer hours, take time off to have children, etc.

    But if they pay gap is defined to be a difference in pay for the same job, for the same hours, things are a bit different. That's at least some evidence that women are being paid less simply because they are women. But even then it's not necessarily true that two people with the same job title should get paid the same. In some jobs, it might just be the case that men tend to be slightly better at it so are paid more on average. It could also be down to negotiating their salary.
    Maybe you misunderstood me. I am not holding the pay gap up as an example of why we need feminism, I am refuting it as a valid assumption within our society. There are of course individual cases of men and women being paid less because of their sex but to think it is going on wholesale is laughable, people would never get away with it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Maybe you misunderstood me. I am not holding the pay gap up as an example of why we need feminism, I am refuting it as a valid assumption within our society. There are of course individual cases of men and women being paid less because of their sex but to think it is going on wholesale is laughable, people would never get away with it.
    Yeah I was agreeing with you. The problem is when feminists talk about the pay gap but don't make it clear what they mean by it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Yeah I was agreeing with you. The problem is when feminists talk about the pay gap but don't make it clear what they mean by it.
    I wasn't sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing lol, you said stuff that agreed with me but it seemed like you were disagreeing for some reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aesop)
    It is delusional to suggest that women retain power despite man's monopoly on social, political and economic resources. Not only is your 'power' concerned with beauty and aesthetics (showing your inherent misogynism), but you're portraying an individualistic, interpersonal characteristic as being some kind of political force. If you are a wealthy and successful man, the power you have over women comes in coercion. You can force and coerce others to achieve your will. Women were and continue to be used as means rather than ends in themselves. You honestly think that a woman can bat her eyelids and the state gives her anything she wants? The power that came with control is immense; relative attractiveness is nothing but a degrading defense of misogynistic ideals.

    The reason men controlled those resources wasn't because 'women didn't need to', it was because women weren't able to.
    I was going to write a long critique of the opening statement but I'm qutie content to second what you're saying here. Spot on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I agree with the OP that there is a pay gap. However I think there is a very good reason why women are on the whole paid less than men. They work in safer jobs, they travel less, they work less hours to achieve bonuses, they are less likely to relocate to get that better job, and they go on maternity leave (in which time men get vital experience). I no longer think that feminism is neccessary in modern society because men and women are equal in their inequalities, if not the other way around - men have more inequalities Vs Women, seeing as many female inequalities are just myths like the pay gap. What we need is a government policy of Egalitarianism, instead of favouring women by creating positions and laws such as the 'Women and Children Act' and the females minister. Harriet Harman in particular has shown what damage feminism can do if it ever manages to penetrate our government, and if it continues I think men will be on the losing foot for many years to come.
    I really don't see how you can say that there's no need for feminism anymore when I see so much sexism on a daily basis, almost all of it against women. When it comes to the law, yes, there is equality, but that's certainly not the be all and end all of it; attitudes towards women are a huge huge part of it too and unfortunately attitudes towards women- in the media, at home, at work, at school, in crime statistics- are often very sexist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I really don't see how you can say that there's no need for feminism anymore when I see so much sexism on a daily basis, almost all of it against women. When it comes to the law, yes, there is equality, but that's certainly not the be all and end all of it; attitudes towards women are a huge huge part of it too and unfortunately attitudes towards women- in the media, at home, at work, at school, in crime statistics- are often very sexist.
    That is total crap. Men face the same amount, if not more sexism, within society. Every other advert makes a mockery of their inability to cook. And what are you talking about crime stats for? Despite men being the victims of more crimes, the feminazi harriet harman decided it was best to tailor the national curriculum towards teaching 5 year olds that specifically hitting women was wrong, not that it was wrong to hurt anyone. While we're on the topic I suppose you already know that women serve lesser sentences for the same crime too?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    That is total crap. Men face the same amount, if not more sexism, within society. Every other advert makes a mockery of their inability to cook. And what are you talking about crime stats for? Despite men being the victims of more crimes, the feminazi harriet harman decided it was best to tailor the national curriculum towards teaching 5 year olds that specifically hitting women was wrong, not that it was wrong to hurt anyone. While we're on the topic I suppose you already know that women serve lesser sentences for the same crime too?
    So what? What exactly is 'total crap' in my post? I never denied that men are victims of sexism too. What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that there's so much sexism against women, and doesn't prove that there's no need for feminism. Why do you need to make it men vs women?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    So what? What exactly is 'total crap' in my post? I never denied that men are victims of sexism too. What's your point? That doesn't change the fact that there's so much sexism against women, and doesn't prove that there's no need for feminism. Why do you need to make it men vs women?
    Feminism makes it men vs women. Does the 'femi' part of the name of that ideology not give it away for you? In our society feminism has the ability to apply a lot of pressure, as well as the ability to recruit key individuals within government who get no recrimination for their actions because women will follow them blindly. This means mens issues are essentially pushed to one side and ignored, or worse when they are brought up laughed at because men have it o so good in this society. I am in favour of egalitarianism, in which anyone and everyone gets their issues resolved properly, rather than favouring women at the expense of men time and time again. Therefore there is no need for feminism, aka picking a side, in our modern society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Feminism makes it men vs women. Does the 'femi' part of the name of that ideology not give it away for you? In our society feminism has the ability to apply a lot of pressure, as well as the ability to recruit key individuals within government who get no recrimination for their actions because women will follow them blindly. This means mens issues are essentially pushed to one side and ignored, or worse when they are brought up laughed at because men have it o so good in this society. I am in favour of egalitarianism, in which anyone and everyone gets their issues resolved properly, rather than favouring women at the expense of men time and time again. Therefore there is no need for feminism, aka picking a side, in our modern society.

    That's like saying that the existence of Breast Cancer Care means that ovarian cancer issues are sidelined, because it's 'picking a side'. Just because the movement is focused on a specific sex that doesn't mean it's against women. The fact is that unless women's issues are focused on specifically they're easily forgotten/sidelined.

    The equality issues facing men are so different from the equality issues facing women, that it's so muich more beneficial to separate them. Similarly, you can't group in racist issues with sexist issues. By your logic we shouldn't have anti-racists because they mean sexism issues are pushed to the side. Lumping them all into one movement of egalitarianism means that something is going to be pushed to the side.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    That's like saying that the existence of Breast Cancer Care means that ovarian cancer issues are sidelined, because it's 'picking a side'. Just because the movement is focused on a specific sex that doesn't mean it's against women. The fact is that unless women's issues are focused on specifically they're easily forgotten/sidelined.

    The equality issues facing men are so different from the equality issues facing women, that it's so muich more beneficial to separate them. Similarly, you can't group in racist issues with sexist issues. By your logic we shouldn't have anti-racists because they mean sexism issues are pushed to the side. Lumping them all into one movement of egalitarianism means that something is going to be pushed to the side.
    Interesting you should mention breast cancer. Did you know that prostate cancer is an estimated 10 years behind breast cancer? I wonder which ideology we can blame the funding disparity on?

    Feminism has already proven that masculinism will always get pushed to the side. I don't think womens issues are easily forgotten or sidelined at all. They get a massive amount of attention, and are at least on the right track. If anything mens issues are being forgotten. I don't think women or men face enough issues to validate branching off from each other to campaign for their own side. Think about it logically, competing factions make it difficult for everyone to get their issue solved fairly. Look at Harriet Harman in government, every time she progresses her feminist policy ahead of everything else she harms both her own cause as well as men.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Interesting you should mention breast cancer. Did you know that prostate cancer is an estimated 10 years behind breast cancer? I wonder which ideology we can blame the funding disparity on?

    Feminism has already proven that masculinism will always get pushed to the side. I don't think womens issues are easily forgotten or sidelined at all. They get a massive amount of attention, and are at least on the right track. If anything mens issues are being forgotten. I don't think women or men face enough issues to validate branching off from each other to campaign for their own side. Think about it logically, competing factions make it difficult for everyone to get their issue solved fairly. Look at Harriet Harman in government, every time she progresses her feminist policy ahead of everything else she harms both her own cause as well as men.

    If prostate cancer research isn't getting enough funding- which I agree, it isn't- then push harder for more funding instead of blaming the people pushing for more funding for breast cancer care. Nobody's fighting to push male issues down, they're just fighting to get feminist issues dealt with. Instead of trying to stifle these people, why not push your issues to the front too? Like I said, feminism, masculism and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.

    'Think about it logically, competing factions make it difficult for everyone to get their issue solved fairly.' -by this logic, do you think stuff like 'Love music, hate racism' and other anti-racism campaigns are unfair? Do you think it should just be 'Love music, hate inequality?' Because, like women's issues, racism issues 'get a massive amount of attention, and are at least on the right track'- does this mean they undermine issues of sexism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    [B]

    However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.

    It is also not true that women are the “weaker sex.” Pinker documents the fact that boys are much more fragile, both physically and psychologically, than girls and hence require greater medical and psychiatric care. Men succumb to a larger number of diseases in much greater numbers than women do throughout their lives. The greater susceptibility of boys and men to diseases explains why more boys die in childhood and fail to reach sexual maturity and why men’s average life expectancy is shorter than women’s. This, incidentally, is the reason why slightly more boys than girls are born – 105 boys to 100 girls – so that there will be roughly 100 boys to 100 girls when they reach puberty.
    This only talks about biological factors which make women better of than men, not social ones. Feminist are trying to make men and women equal socially, biologically cannot be done without changing DNA etc.

    So feminism, imo, isnt unecessary as women and men are still not seen equally and treated equally. (just look at Sudan)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    If prostate cancer research isn't getting enough funding- which I agree, it isn't- then push harder for more funding instead of blaming the people pushing for more funding for breast cancer care. Nobody's fighting to push male issues down, they're just fighting to get feminist issues dealt with. Instead of trying to stifle these people, why not push your issues to the front too? Like I said, feminism, masculism and egalitarianism are not mutually exclusive.

    'Think about it logically, competing factions make it difficult for everyone to get their issue solved fairly.' -by this logic, do you think stuff like 'Love music, hate racism' and other anti-racism campaigns are unfair? Do you think it should just be 'Love music, hate inequality?' Because, like women's issues, racism issues 'get a massive amount of attention, and are at least on the right track'- does this mean they undermine issues of sexism?
    With love music hate racism there are no by products that damage other races, they just promote equality and acceptance of each other. So really love music hate racism is reasonably egalitarian in nature.

    The problem with the prostate cancer issue is that much of that funding is from the government, who should be fair and impartial, but quite frankly aren't. There is a limited amount of time in parliament and when the feminist issues take the spot light so much there is no time left for mens issues; I mean there is a women's minister, where is the mans minister? Men have tried to get mens issues on the agenda, you may only see FFJ but there are also less radical groups who have been trying to get access to their children for years but no one will listen because it means a direct confrontation with feminism. If feminism continues to sort womens issues out to the detriment of men, whilst sweeping mens issues under the rug or worsening them, then men will be massively unequal. When women were massively unequal I think there was a need for feminism, there was a lot of pushing to be done to get women upto the level of men, but that job is done so now it's time to work together. Talk about biting the hand that feeds, men give women everything they want and this is the repayment they get.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ziggycj)
    This only talks about biological factors which make women better of than men, not social ones. Feminist are trying to make men and women equal socially, biologically cannot be done without changing DNA etc.

    So feminism, imo, isnt unecessary as women and men are still not seen equally and treated equally. (just look at Sudan)
    Feminism is only interested in advancing women in front of men. They have never done anything for men, ever. How does somebody being a feminist in this country help women in Sudan?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    With love music hate racism there are no by products that damage other races, they just promote equality and acceptance of each other. So really love music hate racism is reasonably egalitarian in nature.

    The problem with the prostate cancer issue is that much of that funding is from the government, who should be fair and impartial, but quite frankly aren't. There is a limited amount of time in parliament and when the feminist issues take the spot light so much there is no time left for mens issues; I mean there is a women's minister, where is the mans minister? Men have tried to get mens issues on the agenda, you may only see FFJ but there are also less radical groups who have been trying to get access to their children for years but no one will listen because it means a direct confrontation with feminism. If feminism continues to sort womens issues out to the detriment of men, whilst sweeping mens issues under the rug or worsening them, then men will be massively unequal. When women were massively unequal I think there was a need for feminism, there was a lot of pushing to be done to get women upto the level of men, but that job is done so now it's time to work together. Talk about biting the hand that feeds, men give women everything they want and this is the repayment they get.
    I don't see how 'feminism continues to sort womens issues out to the detriment of men', or worsens men's issues. You claim that this is inherent to feminism- surely if this was the case, anti-racism campaigns would be inherently detrimental to anti-sexism? Isn't your point that anything that focuses on one strand of equality (e.g. anti-racism) is innately sidelining other strands? Yet you yourself have shown this isn't true with anti-racism.

    You seem to think that any issue facing men can be automatically blamed on feminism. All that I see is that in some issues- such as that of breast cancer/prostate cancer- the balance hasn't been found yet. And you yourself has said this is the government's fault- the government isn't a feminist organisation, and if it's trying too eagerly to appease feminism then that's it's problem for not finding a balance.

    By the way, your last sentence- 'Talk about biting the hand that feeds, men give women everything they want and this is the repayment they get.'- this is why we obviously still need feminism. As if women should be grateful to men for giving them equality. As if it was men humouring the women, as if equality didn't rightfully belong to women in the first place. Come on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Feminism is only interested in advancing women in front of men. They have never done anything for men, ever. How does somebody being a feminist in this country help women in Sudan?
    I'm against racism, but this isn't helping anyone directly. Does this mean that being anti-racist isn't a good thing?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I just want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with missygeorgia. Positive rep for you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    I don't see how 'feminism continues to sort womens issues out to the detriment of men', or worsens men's issues. You claim that this is inherent to feminism- surely if this was the case, anti-racism campaigns would be inherently detrimental to anti-sexism? Isn't your point that anything that focuses on one strand of equality (e.g. anti-racism) is innately sidelining other strands? Yet you yourself have shown this isn't true with anti-racism.

    You seem to think that any issue facing men can be automatically blamed on feminism. All that I see is that in some issues- such as that of breast cancer/prostate cancer- the balance hasn't been found yet. And you yourself has said this is the government's fault- the government isn't a feminist organisation, and if it's trying too eagerly to appease feminism then that's it's problem for not finding a balance.

    By the way, your last sentence- 'Talk about biting the hand that feeds, men give women everything they want and this is the repayment they get.'- this is why we obviously still need feminism. As if women should be grateful to men for giving them equality. As if it was men humouring the women, as if equality didn't rightfully belong to women in the first place. Come on.
    Racism is an entirely different issue, when race relations are sorted out no one suffers, unless of course there is positive discrimination. Whilst feminism is progressed mens issues will never be heard, and they haven't, telling me they will is a falacy. Anti-racism can end up, and probably will end up, with a massive inequality for whites in the future. But at the present it is needed because whites and minorities are not equal. Men and women are equal, they have inequalities but these inequalities although different are equal.

    When I say biting the hand that feeds I mean that men could have just as easily not given you anything, irregardless of if you should have it or not, and because of this feminists could at least give me the respect of allowing some of their causes to be heard.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
  • 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.