|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 10 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:19 PM |
|
|
Once again, you seem to be confusing historical privilege with "already existing rights." Maybe, concepts like historical privilege automatically rings a bad tune to your ear, with being a Russian and having the Leninist past of the Soviet Union and all... Mainstream feminism is a movement of balance, not privilege, it fights not the existing rights but historically established privileges.
And dont twist my words please, I said YOU started to act like giving replies just for the sake of giving replies, I never implied I have to have the last word.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:19 PM |
|
|
Orzie, you do not see the quota point. Women complain that they are underrepresented in jobs where they are as qualified or even better qualified than their male counterparts.
The point is, they don't get an equal share of jobs where they SHOULD get one due to their QUALIFICATION.
YOU says, they should only get that if they voluntarily try to get their share in those fields where they are UNDERqualified. That makes no sense.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Women complain that they are underrepresented in jobs where they are as qualified or even better qualified than their male counterparts.
But how do they determine/prove if they are more skilled?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:25 PM |
|
|
|
How does a man prove he is more skilled than an other? Job interview, test scores, trial period etc etc...
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:41 PM |
|
|
So how does the woman prove that she has passed all the tests, but evil and sexist employer did not employ her only because she's woman?
You know, even in places where women are in chief, they often take mostly male assistants and advisors.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:47 PM |
|
|
|
That question doesn't even make sense.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 10:49 PM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 22:50, 26 Jul 2014.
|
As well as the pretension.
A wise employer will employ a person which will bring the best benefit to his/her enterprise. If he/she does not realize it, his/her enterprise will not prosper.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 26, 2014 11:37 PM |
|
|
Orzie said:
So how does the woman prove that she has passed all the tests, but evil and sexist employer did not employ her only because she's woman?
You know, even in places where women are in chief, they often take mostly male assistants and advisors.
She doesn't need to prove it, it's simply a question of statistics or probability.
The actual reason is, of course, that women can get pregnant and men cannot.
However, that's just the free market. Women are also underrepresented in political institutions - they don't climb the ladders as well as men - now what may be the reason for that one?
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 05:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Women are also underrepresented in political institutions - they don't climb the ladders as well as men
How so? There are a lot of female presidents and prime ministers. Only in Russia women didn't climb that high, but there are reasons for that unrelated to women.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 05:34 AM |
|
|
You see, this is what I mean when I say you just reply for the sake of replying. He's talking about a ratio and you are giving him singled out examples. Similar examples have been already put into context in this very thread, here and here.
You switch from telling us there is a patriarchy (and to the core) to telling us there is no patriarchy and women can even be president etc etc... Just give it a rest.
|
|
orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 08:30 AM |
|
Edited by orzie at 08:50, 27 Jul 2014.
|
You don't get it. I just pointed out that even in a patriarchal country there is a disbalance in rights towards men, and feminists don't care about it. You can ignore my words and still point out that women are victims in 100% of cases, but if you will keep a position like that, there would be no surprise that your arguments will be considered just as your personal opinion.
If you address to my answers to JJ - it is another subtopic. If you noticed, we discussed some examples of oppression of women, but the argument about working places. Statistics are statistics - there is no surprise that women are less valuable on jobs where their pregnancy can ruin the work. A no-children contract could solve this problem, probably.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 09:11 AM |
|
|
Okay, now you just switched to plain demagogy and outright inconsistency. Somebody asked you why women are UNDERREPRESENTED (a question regarding the imbalance between their representation in politics and their ratio in population), you applied to a logical fallacy and replied they can be presidents or prime ministers (cherry-picking exceptional examples). And now that it is pointed out, you claim "I just pointed out that even in a patriarchal country there is a disbalance in rights towards men, and feminists don't care about it."
(So you edit your post and say: "If you address to my answers to JJ - it is another subtopic". It is not another subtopic, it is OBVIOUSLY what I'm talking about, you have no satisfactory answer as usual and it is where the discussion was currently left.)
And nowhere have I said women are 100% victims all the time but that does not mean the PRIORITY of feminists isn't or shouldn't be the cases in which women are the victims. If you are a representative of the farmers union, you will focus on farmers, feminists will focus on women.
You are simply arguing with your egotistical emotions and you haven't got the slightest logical consistency. Have a nice day and consider your MESS of an opinion ignored by me on the rest of the thread.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 03:31 AM |
|
|
this is interesting. i read this link, describing sexual harrassment at comic-con.
then, i read this link, which discusses nude models walking around in the street.
quick question...
what the ****?
am i the only one who sees something wrong with the picture that these two links paint? because apparently sex sells(and it is allowed), but reacting to it is sexist? am i missing something? apparently, many guys at comic-con are a lot like:
what exactly did the females expect(from the first link)? from what i understand, the guys who attend these kinds of events, aren't really with too many women(and that is possibly an understatement). at least, i would think that that would be the general opinion... am i wrong?
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 07:51 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 08:14, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
If you are a representative of the farmers union, you will focus on farmers, feminists will focus on women.
But the farmers union wouldn't say that they struggle for the good of all, like feminists do. They will admit that they struggle only for farmers. Your example is plain wrong. If feminism said that it struggles for the affected women's rights, I would be fully okay with that. But 'equality' is just too beautiful word to be used in this case. Equality means that all the aspects must be taken into account, not the "high-priority" ones. The equality achieved will be too one-sided otherwise.
I have been oppressed by men and I have been oppressed by women. I will always oppose the point of view that men's rights are dominating on every front. This may be native to Russia and the tradition of family relations there, but feminism is the same everywhere, and its adepts don't take the geographical differences into account as well.
Quote:
And nowhere have I said women are 100% victims all the time but that does not mean the PRIORITY of feminists isn't or shouldn't be the cases in which women are the victims.
You didn't say it, but all your arguments express the same idea - you ignore the men's rights oppression examples I wrote down saying that they are "not so harmful in comparison to women's right oppression" or even "flimsy", thus nullifying the fact that men's rights must be also taken into account. I didn't write down single or rare examples. They are widespread and considered as ubiquitous in our country. You, however, state that they are either rare or flimsy.
Feminists state that they want gender equality, but care only about women's rights "because it is their priority". This practically means (if you use logic) that they think that women's rights are the only ones affected and possible men's rights oppression is not that big to be ever considered. I didn't see the argument to oppose this point of view except "you say bullsnow" and "you write plain demagogy".
As for the women misrepresentation - you still didn't answer me why their lack in the parliament or other well-paid jobs can be considered oppression proven only by plain statistics. With the generation of women which were educated in the atmosphere of inequality, there is no surprise than not so many women are trusted, capable or willing to take these seats. The root of the problem is not in the jobs, but in the education starting from childhood - only there the prejudices can be detected and eliminated in their prematural stage - the children's minds. Of both genders.
What you propose (as I was able to guess - simply increase the necessary percent of women in well-paid jobs) is a total BS, sorry. I don't know how you determine the competence of an employee better than the employer. It is employer's right to choose employees. And if you put an additional remark in a law, saying that "you MUST choose at least 50% of your employees to be female, we don't care about the rest" - it is not the right way to go.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 09:10 AM |
|
|
Orzie, you continuously claim that men's rights are violated. I read back - and actually I didn't find even one example where men's rights are violated.
Or do you want to point out, that since men are ON AVERAGE physically stronger than women, they should have the right to use that superiority to their advantage? Beat the weaker? Can't be, can it, because that would not be a gender-specific thing - it would be the loss of all weaker people and the gain of the stronger ones.
Then you speak very dismissively about maternity leave. Question: if there was no such thing - why should women want to have children? Go to school, get an education, struggle for a job and financial independency - only to give it all up?
It would seem, though, that a society needs children in order to survive: who's going to care for the elderly who can't work anymore? Who's going to pay their pensions, if not the children?
There is also the paternity leave - in many countries the father can do the infant care while mum goes back to work.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 09:39 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 10:07, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
There is also the paternity leave - in many countries the father can do the infant care while mum goes back to work.
That seems like a nice idea, but we don't have it unfortunately, even the 1-year army recruitment committee (which is obligatory in Russia for the wide masses of population, male gender of course) doesn't care much about it.
I actually am not against the maternity leave. I just pointed out that it is over-abused by many women to get money for nothing in Russia, because they have rights for it and no one can regulate it properly. Many our office workers do like that. They attend the job being on a 7th month of pregnancy, work for a little, and then spend a year in a maternity leave.
My mother, a university professor, won a huge govt grant for the scientific research while sitting at home with my newly born sister in 2005. She is a counter-example of it, but I cannot name a lot of such counter-examples.
Quote:
Orzie, you continuously claim that men's rights are violated. I read back - and actually I didn't find even one example where men's rights are violated.
I stated that in the first post. These cases may be native to Russia though, and I admit that most of them come from the gender roles. Artu, however, said that he doesn't recognize most of these cases as even necessary to mention. Of course the similar list for women would be much bigger, but I just decided to note that these cases are necessary to mention in my home country, thus the argument about "even in a such patriarchal country as Russia, we have some deviations from the strongly male-centered model of society which I would like to point out". Men also have responsibilities, like the obligatory army recruitment. Women can be involved in the army recruitment only in case they have an education degree in medicine. That's how it is in Russia.
The whole thing about feminism, is that they don't ask for additional responsibilities for women and/or tweaking men's rights to achieve equality. I don't believe in equality which is a result of tweaking rights of only one side.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 10:33 AM |
|
|
I don't see where RIGHTS are violated in the cases you list in your first post.
Note that women not allowed access to the armed forces is considered an inequality indeed, but once again one that works against women.
This is a pretty instructive read.
Note also, that Norway is drafting women as well.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 10:57 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:01, 28 Jul 2014.
|
Women are allowed to. It's just not obligatory. See the difference?
I know about Israel, and I can guess the possible reasons for that - they are in a constant war.
Quote:
I don't see where RIGHTS are violated in the cases you list in your first post.
Do you consider RIGHTS only those which are written in the book? You know, there are a lot of situations which are not regulated by the book. For example, it is common in Russia for husbands to be bashed after they hide some money from salary instead of giving it to the "family budget". Wives are strongly dominating in many Russian families. They decide what to buy, they control the salary of the husbands, they get the children after the divorce. It is even featured in common "wedding jokes" in Russia where the bride wears white suit, while the groom wears the black one.
The Russian society is built around such cases. If that is not an argument to you, I don't know how to convince you. You'll have to probably live a life in Russia to understand what I am talking about, and to be oppressed by women without an ability to say words back because they are women and it is condemned in our society to talk back - men must be gentle. No one cares that the ladies are not like they were before anymore. When we are criticized, we are expected to keep our mouths shut. When we try to criticize our women, we meet the incomprehension and even aggression "how dare you?!", and it is considered normal. These are the social norms and education norms which have become norms in the latest 30 years.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 11:16 AM |
|
|
Yes, RIGHTS, is what you can sue for, not what you consider unfair advantages or disadvantages or simply standard behavior.
Just because something may be the rule, it's not a violation of rights, if you are allowed to break the rule, that is, if there is no law dictating it.
If you wouldn't be biased you'd see the advantages for the men to make women's draft voluntarily. You've read the Israeli article - and doubtlessly about the rampant sexual harassment there.
As long as draft is voluntarily, you may say that it's women's own fault, if they venture into the lion's den of a male dominated army. However, if there is a draft for everyone, there is an obligation to look into all those cases that will happen, simply because an army is no kindergarden and a couple of other reasons. You might also say, when you are burdened with equal duties, you can sue for your rights. If something you do is voluntary and something untoward happens - well, you were warned it wouldn't be easy!
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 11:31 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:07, 28 Jul 2014.
|
You twist my words like some small town politician:
Orzie said:
You didn't say it, but all your arguments express the same idea - you ignore the men's rights oppression examples I wrote down saying that they are "not so harmful in comparison to women's right oppression" or even "flimsy", thus nullifying the fact that men's rights must be also taken into account. I didn't write down single or rare examples. They are widespread and considered as ubiquitous in our country. You, however, state that they are either rare or flimsy.
Feminists state that they want gender equality, but care only about women's rights "because it is their priority". This practically means (if you use logic) that they think that women's rights are the only ones affected and possible men's rights oppression is not that big to be ever considered. I didn't see the argument to oppose this point of view except "you say bullsnow" and "you write plain demagogy".
As for the women misrepresentation - you still didn't answer me why their lack in the parliament or other well-paid jobs can be considered oppression proven only by plain statistics. With the generation of women which were educated in the atmosphere of inequality, there is no surprise than not so many women are trusted, capable or willing to take these seats. The root of the problem is not in the jobs, but in the education starting from childhood - only there the prejudices can be detected and eliminated in their prematural stage - the children's minds. Of both genders.
What I called flimsy was you complaining about not being able to wear a hat in your work place. If you still cant see how funny that sounds I can't help you with it. Work places have dress codes and since men and women dress differently, such cases will occur. Will you also complain about not being able to wear a skirt to the office?
Just take a look at your own posts, you admit there is a patriarchy to the core, you admit to the inequality disadvantaging women starting from basic education, you try to "balance" such issues with not being able to wear hats indoors or people getting a little disapproving if you don't give your seat on the bus and you think the problem is with feminists prioritizing on women. What kind of a joke is this!
I don't live in Russia yes, but although mostly from 19th century, I've read many Russian novels, I know Russians who live in Istanbul, I am not alien to Russian culture. And looking at the things you write, I say it's very safe to assume the problem lies mostly within you rather than the Russian feminists.
|
| |
|
|
