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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    With one of the most powerful women in politics spouting militant, anti-male rhetoric, her plans to implement 'positive' discrimination to the detriment of men and various examples of an increased anti-male attitude within the feminist community (and other areas - Shelias' Wheels anyone?) - Do/will men need to start a Meninist movement?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This should be a poll thread, and yes they should
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's called Masculinism. Nobody wants to stick up for men. Harriet Harman can suck my balls.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Targets for rape convictions = :hand: :hand: :hand:

    Harriet Harman really is getting to the point where she's just making us look bad.

    I am still a feminist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    yes we should i say
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    I am still a feminist.
    Why do you call yourselves feminists rather than, say, gender egalitarians if what you want is actually equality?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would be a meninist against harman, although I agree people should be 'gender egalitarians' although this sounds pretencious and wordy
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    She'll be out in the next election, so the damage will only last a bit longer.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Why do you call yourselves feminists rather than, say, gender egalitarians if what you want is actually equality?
    i) Because feminist is the word that I have ended up inheriting and which is attributed to most of the theory and ideas around my views on the subject
    ii) Because "gender egalitarianism" is not possible. Human emancipation is not best served by accepting the gender dichotomy and trying to make it "equal" because it never will be. (I am not a liberal feminist.)

    I admit "feminist" is not the best word.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    All we need is a traditional conservative party to fight back against the radical feminists.

    If you interested, click on the (1st) link in my signature to join one on TSR.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Harriet Harman can suck my balls.
    This made me LOL.

    And, is a whole movement required? No, not really. It's one person, whose influence is debatable. Men still hold the top jobs and the power positions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathill)
    This made me LOL.

    And, is a whole movement required? No, not really. It's one person, whose influence is debatable. Men still hold the top jobs and the power positions.
    And it's men as much as women who're politically correct. Can't blame that on women alone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathill)
    This made me LOL.

    And, is a whole movement required? No, not really. It's one person, whose influence is debatable. Men still hold the top jobs and the power positions.
    Her influence is hardly debateable, she has already created one act that allows women to be hired above men. It's hardly mens fault that women aren't accepting the top jobs and power positions, in case you were wondering over 55% of university places are taken by women, it's not our fault they do bugger all with those qualifications. Of course when it was 55% men that was a big problem and it needed to be balanced, when it's the other way around who cares.
    Offline

    2
    We already have this, it's called gender equality - let's not make the same mistake that some feminists have made in the past and focus only on our own gender.

    There are still many reasons to be feminist, many proper and valid reasons, e.g. their treatment in rape cases. However all of this is becoming marred because one labour douche wants positive discrimination - yes she's a moron, but don't get THAT angry over it, Jesus.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Her influence is hardly debateable, she has already created one act that allows women to be hired above men. It's hardly mens fault that women aren't accepting the top jobs and power positions, in case you were wondering over 55% of university places are taken by women, it's not our fault they do bugger all with those qualifications. Of course when it was 55% men that was a big problem and it needed to be balanced, when it's the other way around who cares.
    In response to this, just because they have the qualifications, that doesn't mean they can get the jobs... The whole point is that some people feel that when it comes to the job-seeking stage, women are being discriminated against - hence this law in the first place. It's not a simple as women are doing 'bugger all' with the qualifications.

    At the end of the day, it's just one woman at the end of a dying government, her time is almost over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathill)
    In response to this, just because they have the qualifications, that doesn't mean they can get the jobs... The whole point is that some people feel that when it comes to the job-seeking stage, women are being discriminated against - hence this law in the first place. It's not a simple as women are doing 'bugger all' with the qualifications.

    At the end of the day, it's just one woman at the end of a dying government, her time is almost over.
    Well up until the age of 30 women are over represented in the professions, and they are on average paid slightly more than men. Given the many positive promotion exercises going on within most private enterprises I believe that women are choosing to leave promising careers to raise children, to the benefit of the women who continue to work. Look at the females within government, many like Harriet Harman are the quality of back benchers or worse but they have benefited hugely from more qualified capable women choosing to be mothers. I fear that if Harman gets her way there will be government quotas applied to organisations to be 50/50, despite the fact that at any one time a large percentage of the female population are stay at home mothers. This means we will no longer be a meritocratic society and every institution will begin to look like our police service, where the physical and mental entry requirements are far lower for females and minorities because the government is forcing them to exclude men to make the figures look 'fairer'.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by littleshambles)
    Targets for rape convictions =

    Harriet Harman really is getting to the point where she's just making us look bad.

    Exactly - this ridiculously widespread derisive outcry and leery humour against Harman over some mild and extremely sensible remarks is indicative of just how far feminism has to go.

    Her comments mainly relvoved around wishing to improve the rape conviction rate, which is shockingly low at 6%, and reducing domestic violence by an evolutionary process of education; these are both laudable aims, and even the most hardcore 'meninist' could not reasonably dispute them (the spirit of the aims at least if not the methods i.e reducing violence againts women).

    Of course these more unopposable comments of Harman's have been hugely downplayed in order to focus on her more debatable remarks; that the credit crisis was mainly the responsibilty of men. This on the face of it is also fairly indisputable; the vast majority, if not all of the main figures responsible for the crisis- the politicians, the bankers etc are men beasue such a huge number of top positions in both the fields of finance and politics are occupied by men; 97% of bank managers in this country are men.

    Whether women would have done things any differently if they had had these jobs is obviously one of Harman's more pugnacious claims and an definitely a matter of dispute; I for one don't particularly agree with her on that but nonetheless she's entitled to say what she thinks and anyway, unilke her other comments, it wasn't said in complete seriousness. The righteous moral outrage that has been the repsonse goes far beyond constructive dissent and has surely been over the top. And its hardly unreasonalbe of Harman to suggest that we should put more women in the top positions, especially now the generation of university educated women are moving into the workforce; indeed half the workforce in banking and insurance are occupied by women already, so it is surprising that more of them aren't represented on boards. One would expect the discrepency to beging to equal up.

    Women quite obviously have the right to live without fear of violence, be treateded equally at work, and have the same oppotunities as men; these comments of Harman's a not part of an anti-male crusade, as her critics have tried to convey, but a series of very reasonable egalitarian suggestions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galatea)
    Exactly - this ridiculously widespread derisive outcry and leery humour against Harman over some mild and extremely sensible remarks is indicative of just how far feminism has to go.

    Her comments mainly relvoved around wishing to improve the rape conviction rate, which is shockingly low at 6%, and reducing domestic violence by an evolutionary process of education; these are both laudable aims, and even the most hardcore 'meninist' could not reasonably dispute them (the spirit of the aims at least if not the methods i.e reducing violence againts women).

    Of course these more unopposable comments of Harman's have been hugely downplayed in order to focus on her more debatable remarks; that the credit crisis was mainly the responsibilty of men. This on the face of it is also fairly indisputable; the vast majority, if not all of the main figures responsible for the crisis- the politicians, the bankers etc are men beasue such a huge number of top positions in both the fields of finance and politics are occupied by men; 97% of bank managers in this country are men.

    Whether women would have done things any differently if they had had these jobs is obviously one of Harman's more pugnacious claims and an definitely a matter of dispute; I for one don't particularly agree with her on that but nonetheless she's entitled to say what she thinks and anyway, unilke her other comments, it wasn't said in complete seriousness. The righteous moral outrage that has been the repsonse goes far beyond constructive dissent and has surely been over the top. And its hardly unreasonalbe of Harman to suggest that we should put more women in the top positions, especially now the generation of university educated women are moving into the workforce; indeed half the workforce in banking and insurance are occupied by women already, so it is surprising that more of them aren't represented on boards. One would expect the discrepency to beging to equal up.

    Women quite obviously have the right to live without fear of violence, be treateded equally at work, and have the same oppotunities as men; these comments of Harman's a not part of an anti-male crusade, as her critics have tried to convey, but a series of very reasonable egalitarian suggestions.

    You are completely wrong.

    If rape convictions are low this does not necasarily mean the courts are lax on rape it clearly means that the girls who are raped do not have enough evidense to prove anything. In other words.... if you were forcibly raped when you were walking home you will get prosecuted if you were drunk and can't remember saying yes or no.... then its hard to get a conviction.
    The moral of the story is, if you don;t want to get raped don;t get blind drunk. Equally if i don't want to get battered i wont shout an insult at a group of men at night.

    The banking crisis is not the fault of men, its the fault of irresponsible lenders and people irresponsibly lending money including women.


    The reason women may not be represtned on boards is because women notoriously are willing to work less hours, with less travel and take less risk. Women may go to university yet they often study soft courses like social science whereas men predominantly study tough courses like engineering, economics and science.

    In schools boys should be taught maths, science, english etc... not some indoctrination by liberal feminists. Young boys are already lagging behind girls at GCSE level why make their chances even smaller and harder.
    Its a fact that men face a lot more violent crime than women. If anything we should ahve classes that teach violence against anyone is bad if anything at all. This is typical of feminists to pull out their victim card and claim they have it hard, 40 percent of domestic violence is comitted against men.

    I do not value the safety of women above men nor should our schools or government.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I appreciate this thread's getting old, and I shouldn't really allow myself to get rattled up by ignorance, but I thought I should correct a few simple mistruths.

    (Original post by TheJudge)
    If rape convictions are low this does not necasarily mean the courts are lax on rape it clearly means that the girls who are raped do not have enough evidense to prove anything. In other words.... if you were forcibly raped when you were walking home you will get prosecuted if you were drunk and can't remember saying yes or no.... then its hard to get a conviction.
    The moral of the story is, if you don;t want to get raped don;t get blind drunk. Equally if i don't want to get battered i wont shout an insult at a group of men at night
    .
    You seem to be suggesting that being raped is somehow a just punishment for being drunk or something - either way, it's odd lnaguage to use, and more importantly a women should never ever be blamed for being raped - whether she's drunk, wearing a short skirt, etc, etc. The only moral of the story is that its wrong for a man to take advantage of a women if she's drunk.

    As for conviction rates, you're quite right that rape is hard to prove; but quite clearly of 94% of women who make rape claims without getting a conviction, not to mention the thousands more that go unreported, they can't all be making them up, and nor, as you seem to suggest, will they always have been drunk. Obviously, I'm not going to condone locking people up with little or no evidence, but the suggestion that this conviction rate should be improved, (giving that the average conviction rate is 39%) or that a mechanism should be put in place so most women will feel that at least their rape claims are being taken seriously, is surely to be encouraged.

    The banking crisis is not the fault of men, its the fault of irresponsible lenders and people irresponsibly lending money including women.
    Yes, and the vast, vast majority of these are men - as suggested in the statistic above, 97% of bankers are men. The vast majority of people instrumental in facilitating the credit crisis were men. Of course, whether women would have done things differently is a far more debatable question I agree.

    The reason women may not be represtned on boards is because women notoriously are willing to work less hours, with less travel and take less risk. Women may go to university yet they often study soft courses like social science whereas men predominantly study tough courses like engineering, economics and science.
    Fair enough to a degree, but still an overgeneralistation. While it is true that more men than women study Engineering, Maths and Physics, though with all of these the gaps are closing, women hold the lead on Medicine, Biology, English, Law and Modern Languages, and numerous others in current univeristy courses - none of these exactly 'soft subjects'. (Bit of a generalistion to suggest that all social sicences are soft subjects - subjects like law and politics are rarely soft, but that's another debate).

    In schools boys should be taught maths, science, english etc... not some indoctrination by liberal feminists. Young boys are already lagging behind girls at GCSE level why make their chances even smaller and harder.
    Its a fact that men face a lot more violent crime than women. If anything we should ahve classes that teach violence against anyone is bad if anything at all. This is typical of feminists to pull out their victim card and claim they have it hard, 40 percent of domestic violence is comitted against men
    .
    I hardly think feminist indoctrination is a problem in schools. Most boys, in fact most young people, seem to think the battle has already been fought, and accept most forms of sexism as the norm, and anyone who raises an agenda with a remotely feminist ressemblence faces widespread scorn and derision - as is obvious from the Harman case.

    Men are more often the victims of violent crime than women, but this fact obscures two key considerations - firstly; men are far more often the perpertrators of violence, and are statistically far more likely to fight with each other, secondly conviction rates for male violence against men are far higher than conviction rates for violence against women; for various reasons, some of which are stated above; difficulty of proving a rape case - often women encounter a lack of understanding from the police and don't go ahead with a prosecution, often they are too emotionally traumatised by the experience to speak of it, etc. With domestic violence, I don't know where you got that 40% statistic from, but the fact remains that 1 in 4 women will be the victims of domestic violence, which is far higher than that of men's - and that's ignoring things like the severity of the violence and whether or not its repeated.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    ...Harriet Harman can suck my balls.
    But you don't have any
 
 
 
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: August 17, 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.