If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
"well what is it that women want, as Id like toknow what to give them"
She says
"well what ever we want it isnt you"
I think she's being a hypocrit if that was a David Beckham lookalike had said that she wouldnt have givern the same reply, she seems to be respecting mens opinions if she finds them attractive Id noticed her doing this since.
Which isnt that one of the things that femanaist were very much against women being judged for their looks rather than the skills or intelegence.
Also the aspect of masculinity that they critisise, competativness, agresson seem to be the same aspects that they will find attractive I.E, being competertive and winning and being agressive when "standing up for your self"
Those guys that realy tried to live acording to femanist principles probably wouldnt be as attractive as those that that dont entirely.
Thats a large part of the reason why people are the way they are as women have selected those men who were more matcho, rather than it being entirely the fault of men opressing women.
women were opressed and didnt have the opertunities to acheive such things.
Then they will also say if women had been in charge there would never have been so many wars, slavery etc. because women are different or more caring than men.
Also if I was to say that part of the reason women earn on average les than men is in large part to the fact that they will want to devote more of their time and attention to their children than men and on average make different work life choices. Most femanists would say this was wrong and its only discrimination that stops women earning as much as men or being in senior positions.
However they dont complain when the courts make the decision that children should generally with their mothers, if you accept that that is generally the right decision then you must also accept that there are differences in work life choices that account for pay differences
Do you know how many types of feminist there are?
I think thats a general argument of most femanists Ive heard it a few times,
Wernt people earlier saying its just about equality ? wouldnt there just be one kind.
Well, to start you wore a blue romper suit. Your family bought you Action Man Marine and tin soldiers not Barbie. They bought you a mountain bike not a pink one with a wicker basket.
It's hard to find a "gender neutal" toy.
Your dad played football with you. Your grandad took you to the horses. And so on and so forth.
A certain amount of gender is inate- there was a study of a boy who lost his penis in a circumcision gone wrong and he was raised as a girl, and he was depressed and unhappy the whole time- and the plight of transexuals does illustrate that perfectly.
A lot of how genders interact is through socialisation, and that's the truth. Most socialisation is done long before you step foot in a school. You see how your dad talks and treats to mum, and 20 years down the line you talk to your wife in exactly the same way.
Or is the cart being put before the horse again?
An interesting question that never seems to be addressed is why, if women really are of equal worth and value etc, have they wound up being treated as second class citizens over and over again in almost all places and times throughout history?
What on earth are you wittering on about?
I've never seen a competitive spirit questioned- Germaine Greer is a very forceful woman too.
I have seen violence questioned and condemned- and rightly so. It's sometimes necessary, but not that often.
What is a "feminist principle" anyway? The core principle is treating women as people. Are you trying to suggest that if I beat my wife every now and again she'd love me more?
You are, in my most humble opinion, talking utter shite.
It's strange how its only the men getting confused between "equal" and "identical".
Most of the time children are better off living with the mother and visiting the father, for what I would consider obvious reasons. What's the problem with that?
Trying to argue that women earn less because of "career choices" is ludicrous. Unless you are trying to claim that manual labour and driving buses are high-paying jobs. They earn less because there isn't the access to the top jobs. I have several female friends in graduate schemes in various city firms- if any of them reach the top I will eat my hat, for the simple fact they have a pair of tits.
Nothing is "intrinsically" male.
But they all create a social matrix. Don't pretend they don't.
I'd suggest physical strength is the main cause. In the same way the poor have always been poor.
Why do you think it is?
I think the story of David Reimer ends the nature vs nurture arguement.
Click
I wasn't going to do. What i would suggest is that it's hard to tell where things like football are liked by men because of the football, or liked by men because they are already liked by other men.
The same logic applies to women. Are pink bikes with a wicker basket feminine because of some property they hold, and therefore more attractive to women or is it just a case of socialisation alone?
The socialisation must have started somewhere....
Also, we are using huge generalisations, as we must on this topic.
Most people I know that are poor are poor because of lower intelligence and/or an inability to delay their emotional gratification. Wealth is available to anyone who can intelligently plan ahead and stay disciplined.
Seems to me that the power we have amongst each other is our knowledge. If you are pregnant and raising kids, you are going to fall behind in knowledge accumulation and therefore be less useful to the wider group of people around you.
As we have got better birth control, so women's "place in the world" has risen. As jobs and roles that require physical strength and aggression have become less useful and replaced by machines, men's "place in the world" has fallen. Taking into account that social change doesn't come about from changing what exists, but mainly by people with out of date views dying off, the next decades might be interesting.
That's if Rolly is wrong and we aren't all going to be dead by christmas. :nervous:
Sure I do. The wider group don't though, which is why the pay for doing ti is shit.
And not just the pay, but the prestige of the job. For many on the right, "single mother" is an obscentiy just above "political correctness" and just below "right to choose".
So you base your opnion on an apocryphal anecdote, with no source and no context? Hmmm...
David Beckham? Eh?
Yes. What is your point? That Greer does it? I don't get what your trying to say.
Those guys that realy tried to live acording to femanist principles probably wouldnt be as attractive as those that that dont entirely.
Thats a large part of the reason why people are the way they are as women have selected those men who were more matcho, rather than it being entirely the fault of men opressing women.[/QUOTE]
got a chip on your shoulder about something?
Sorry, who says this?
So the pay differentials between men and women is the same positions is due to women having babies? How does that work exactly?
Who are "they" exactly?
Who says this? Which femininsts?
How so?
What klintock is obviously failing to take into account, is that what counts as "knowledge accumulation" (what an odd phrase, but never mind) is vey much socially determined and will change throughout history. Also what he misses is that in bringing up children, women (ignoring the fact that our current family structures are quite recent) do learn a lot about humans, relationships, emotions, bringing up kids blah blah etc.
Can you tell me if the Women's Institute has male members?
I am afraid since i have not studied Feminism for over 2 years now remember who wrote specific sections of the books i read is very difficult. They did have some 5 or more authors contributing to each book you see. I came to my conclusions through reading them and debating in class. The final conclusion we reached was that now it is so clear that there is no difference between men and women and niether is superior or inferior to the other that Feminism as it was created is not a workable ideology. Surely when its aims (speaking purely for this country not internationally i should have said) have been met, what is its purpose?
Aree women still paid less money and kept beneath the glass ceiling? Yes i think they are in some cases, but it is not Feminism that makes a difference to that, it is the women themselves acting. Feminist movements do not seemingly become involved now in the UK in such cases, or if they do, i would liek to be shown where and when because i can not recall a case at the moment.
By the way, who is hyper sensitive here? You freaked out over me saying something you didnt like and jumping down my throat. It is just a meaningless message board people have fun on you know.
Which feminist idealogy?
No, not at all. Theres just no one currently willing to put their hand into their pocket for those skills. I agree completely with everything you say about acquiration of skills, you are just missing the point that theres no one around in "the wider group" who thinks they are worth much.
If there was, there'd be money in it. There isn't. Unless, of course you count housewives who just stay at home looking after the kids rent/mortgage/food/board/insurance etc included for their husbands/partners.
What on earth are you on about?
Eh?
Feminism is women (and, hopefully, men) acting to change such things, it's not an independent life force.