|
| Thread: Did Feminists Lied/Over Exagerated Women's Victimhood? |  This thread is pages long: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 10 20 30 31 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 17, 2014 09:19 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 21:19, 17 Jul 2014.
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
but women are less equal than men.
This one goes to favorites. Which half do you want to take - the lesser one, or the bigger one?
Gender inequality being worse among women than men is the reason women get more attention. It doesn't mean men are neglected. Often, the men being portrayed as oppressors are themselves victims of social norms concerning the male gender role.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 09:27 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Orzie said:
Quote:
but women are less equal than men.
This one goes to favorites. Which half do you want to take - the lesser one, or the bigger one?
Gender inequality being worse among women than men is the reason women get more attention.
you still haven't given me any examples.
Also, correction. Feminists are giving them more attention. Organizations such as Men's Rights and CAFE are giving more attention to inequality against men.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted July 17, 2014 11:13 PM |
|
|
|
Did HC start accepting refugees from PUAHate?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 12:00 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
So, because men fought and died in war, the government thinks it would be unfair for men to die for their country and not have a say on who will run it.
So, that is why they allowed middle class men to vote.
So yeah, men paid the rights to vote with their lives.
This is a non-sequitur. Suppose I force you to fight for me, and when the fighting is done, I give you a donut. That doesn't mean you fought for a donut or paid for it by fighting for me - I decided to give it to you. The same applies here - the men weren't fighting for the right to vote, it was just given to them.
Also, abolition of property requirements for voting was largely done before the Civil War.Quote:
Give me examples of the social norms that is worst for women (compared to men).
Women are expected to take care of their appearance more (and are judged more by it), they're socially punished for being outspoken and being their own advocates, they're more likely to be raped, etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 12:09 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Women are socially punished for being outspoken and being their own advocates
wtf? where, mvass? and in regards to what? i know you're not talking about anywhere besides 3rd world countries... which have a MULTITUDE of other, more IMPORTANT issues, of which i have already addressed.
addressing feminism in 3rd-world countries, makes as much sense as throwing a glass of water into an ocean. 3rd-world countries are ****ed on pretty much EVERY LEVEL.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 12:38 AM |
|
|
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 12:42 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
not with me, they don't. the same attributes that make a woman a *****, is the same attributes that make a man an ***hole. they are one and the same, just different names for different sexes. the way i look at it, at least.
but i do understand a little better what you mean.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 02:09 AM |
|
|
I'm actually a little surprised sad that this is a topic of conversation in the 21st century.
If you can't see how people that are different than you are treated differently, then we can't really address the issue.
That's not an attack on you, just a general thought on change. You have to see the problem first.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 03:05 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
Not that it means a whole lot, but from my own anecdotal experiences, I just don't actively see this in my life. If a person is talking over people and never allowing opportunities to speak, it seems the response would be universally negative. The expletive grumbled towards them from a safe distance might shift from a word starting with D to a word starting with B, but apart from that I don't observe a double standard.
So, I disagree that this is "often". If it occurs, it is a rare exception to the norm.
According to my mother, female bosses from the babyboomer generation (her generation) are the foulest breed of bosses to be under, precisely because they see demons where none exist, and perhaps even latently thirst for them to still be there, because it gave them purpose and drive, analogous to a post-Great War general masochistically dreaming of bygone days of struggle and violence. This warlike mentality has greatly relaxed.
edit: admittedly, I work as a librarian and mentor in education at a private school. 80% of the people I work with are married women that pamper me with tenderness. In a more aggressive corporate setting or in a law office where people get paid to be miserable for 8 hours before popping 4 ibuprofen and having sex with their secretary after work, I suppose these instances might be more common. I'm quite happily planted in a female's profession, but if I chose to act discriminatory towards women, it would be like covering myself in maple syrup and corn in a nest of pregnant ostriches. It's suicide.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 03:52 AM |
|
|
I don't see this happening in my current life either, but I know I live in a bubble* and I've heard women (both my age and older) talk about this, so I assign a high probability to this being a real thing. I've seen a little bit more firsthand when I interacted with the general population more.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 03:53 AM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
it would be like covering myself in maple syrup and corn in a nest of pregnant ostriches. It's suicide.
LOL.  
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 06:39 AM |
|
|
Thanks mvassilev. You're the second open-minded feminist I've ever met in my life. However, I disagree with a lot of your reasons. Here are my arguments.
But before that, let's go to our draft discussion first
mvassilev said:
This is a non-sequitur. Suppose I force you to fight for me, and when the fighting is done, I give you a donut. That doesn't mean you fought for a donut or paid for it by fighting for me - I decided to give it to you. The same applies here - the men weren't fighting for the right to vote, it was just given to them.
Also, abolition of property requirements for voting was largely done before the Civil War.
Yeah, I guess you can look at it that way. Still, bottomline is that men earned their rights to vote. Women didn't.
mvassilev said:
Women are expected to take care of their appearance more (and are judged more by it)
I don't think that's the case. My friends never talk about anyone's appearance, rather, what she has to say, men or women. But that's because most of my friends are intellectuals.
See my point here? Intellectuals would talk about what the person has to say. Normal people would talk about appearance. That's regardless of gender.
Well.. actually, unless she's hot. My friends would fall inlove with her because she's smart AND hot. So, being good looking is actually just a bonus.
mvassilev said:
women are more likely to be raped
true, if you don't count prison rape.
If you count prison rape, more men are actually raped than women.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
Not only that, men are also much more likely to be victims to what I consider the greatest crime a human being can ever commit. Murder.
fred said:
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
I don't think so. Like fred, I don't really see this in my everyday life. Men who are assertive but being bossy are called douchebags. Same as bossy women for being snowy.
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 07:26 AM |
|
|
JeremiahEmo said:
fred said:
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
I don't think so. Like fred, I don't really see this in my everyday life. Men who are assertive but being bossy are called douchebags. Same as bossy women for being snowy.
Men who have multiple sex partners are players and are considered successful, while woman who have had multiple sex partners are considered snows. Apparently the norms for sexual behaviour are different for man and woman and there are more such examples.
|
|
JeremiahEmo
Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 08:10 AM |
|
|
ok, I'll give you that. By the way, they are considered successful by fellow men, not by women. Women advise fellow women to avoid players.
But yeah, every female players are considered snows by both men and women.
Anyway, since the topic is about women being more oppressed than men, I will counter that with virginity for women being valued. I mean come on, let's be honest here. Female virgins are considered saints while male virgins are losers. amiright?!
|
|
Steyn
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 08:26 AM |
|
|
Yes, that is the other side of the same medal.
Men are supposed to have many sex partners, so if you have had none at all you are a loser. For woman this is the other way around.
Of course when people get older they want commitment and security, so then the players are not preferred any more, but for teenagers, especially the less educated one, both man and woman better respect the player guys (except of course for the non-players, although most of them probably envy the players).
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 09:22 AM |
|
|
Regarding the "none of my friends do it" point - I used to not be a feminist, because I thought that my friends' and my attitudes were representative of the general population. Feminists talk about how horrible some people are, but that's just a few bad apples, right? I thought so myself, until I heard enough women talk about their experiences and realized that not everyone is nice and gender egalitarian (and even if they say they're gender egalitarian, it doesn't mean they actually are), and that many people are part of social circles where sexism is acceptable. There are also general societal things (like in the media) that seem small in isolation but combine to encourage sexism.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 11:26 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 11:27, 18 Jul 2014.
|
Orzie said:
Quote:
It's been mentioned several times that feminism is about gender inequality in general, but that the focus is on women.
I don't get this statement. It might be a language barrier, but both parts of the sentence seem to be contradicting with each other.
There is no contradiction and nothing not to get, if a certain group is under extra pressure or oppressed more, a movement may specifically focus on THEIR condition based on the premise that ALL are equal. For example, if women can't vote in a country, you fight for their right to vote NOT BECAUSE they are superior, but because they are equal.
Quote:
It is not equality. It is giving women more rights than they had before. Feel the difference. The word "equality" might be used for justifying this or that change in the law, but no change that tweaks only one side can be called a step to equality.
That is the most BS thing ever said on this thread. Since women had significantly less rights than men before, correcting the situation accordingly IS about equality, if only blue-eyed people are not allowed to buy property, fighting for blue-eyed people's right to buy property is not tweaking it to one side, it is correcting a previous error.
Quote:
Depends on the sect. I don't think it's necessary to specify - they all say they are for equality (except radical feminists), and all of them practically fight with their lack of rights in some spheres of life instead. It's not the same. Can you even define what is gender equality?
So, you bring prejudice and no valid examples, although I have brought many to the table. There is nothing wrong about practically fighting for your lack of rights, for the reasons mentioned above.
Gender equality is not sameness of course. Simply put, it is about having the same options, opportunities and standards, both legally and socially. While it's very obvious that developing countries face harder issues, Muslim theocracies on an infamous level, saying in developed countries, it is a closed case can't be further away from the truth. If we are talking about U.S. in specific, one must remember that some areas of U.S., especially on the country, are very puritan and religious conservatism is one of the main reasons of gender discrimination, especially if the issue directly involves sexuality itself.
Another standard matter regarding sexuality would be, women being blamed for achieving a position or a raise etc. by using their sex appeal, even if they had deserved what they get. A lot of men are eager to assume women get things done by simply seducing their seniors and as already mentioned, they get labeled as snows while males get labeled as players.
|
|
Orzie
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 11:56 AM |
|
Edited by Orzie at 11:59, 18 Jul 2014.
|
Quote:
There is no contradiction and nothing not to get, if a certain group is under extra pressure or oppressed more, a movement may specifically focus on THEIR condition based on the premise that ALL are equal. For example, if women can't vote in a country, you fight for their right to vote NOT BECAUSE they are superior, but because they are equal.
Quote:
Since women had significantly less rights than men before, correcting the situation accordingly IS about equality
No, you don't get it. You try to pose women as ultimate victims in every situation, while it is not like that. If we would take that as an axiom - than yes, your arguments made sense. Otherwise - I'm afraid you are short-sighted on this topic, calling bullsnow everything that goes outside your world model. Your example with the eye color shows it. The situation with rights and opportunities is more complex than you try to make up.
Quote:
Gender equality is not sameness of course. Simply put, it is about having the same options, opportunities and standards, both legally and socially.
Feminism seemingly doesn't do anything to decrease women's rights in some (yet, more rare) situations when women prevail. That is why feminism is not about equality, but uses it as an excuse to make their statements sound more convincing. The 'equality' feminism struggles for is the equality 'when women are more equal than men', to rephrase Xerox. They would be fully satisfied with this turn of events, leaving the headache of fighting for some men's rights (left after the victory of feminism) to another social movement.
Quote:
Since women had significantly less rights than men before, correcting the situation accordingly IS about equality, if only blue-eyed people are not allowed to buy property, fighting for blue-eyed people's right to buy property is not tweaking it to one side, it is correcting a previous error.
Like I said, all your statements and arguments make sense only if we take the ultimate victim status of women as an axiom. It is convenient to say like that and don't think on your own, but the real life has much more facts to take into account. Saying that "we struggle for equality" argumenting that "well, we struggle for woman rights because in the past they were more oppressed and now they are more oppressed than men" is not the right way to go, artu. I don't think you will get my point as I have already read your conversations with Fred. But regardless I will say to you that the problem cannot be dealt only from one front.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 12:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:44, 18 Jul 2014.
|
Once again, there is absolutely nothing substanial in your post but the logical fallacy of "appeal to ridicule." I never said women are always the victims, I even asked you to present an example to validate your opinion and you failed to do so. I also mentioned some demands of certain femminist lobbies can be wrong. What I basically said was that we still live in a patriarchal world, the religions from much more patriarchal times are still in practice reproducing those values and anybody who has a little observational skill can testify to that.
All you do is throw around sentences like "it's not that simple" etc etc. What's not that simple, just check the ads I linked, some of them are as recent as 1970's. Do you think the world has completely transformed into something else entirely in the last 40 years? It didnt and a critical eye for social norms is enough to see that. But of course, if you interiorise the situation, you'll think there is nothing wrong with it and keep asking yourself "what the hell is the problem with those chicks," you would have done the same in the 19th century.
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 18, 2014 01:30 PM |
|
Edited by fred79 at 13:32, 18 Jul 2014.
|
JeremiahEmo said:
fred said:
Often, the behaviors that would make a man be labeled as "assertive" would make a woman be labeled as "snowy". Asserting their own preferences in the way that men do, not letting themselves be talked over, etc.
Perhaps "socially punished" brings to mind something harsher than what happens, but they are regarded negatively for it.
i didn't post this. mvass did.
|
| |
|
|
