Feminism and Other Discrimination - "Are we past feminism?"

Essentially, use this topic to debate about Feminism itself, or the issues that feminism encompasses.

Now, before this begins, don't be idiots about it, please. Not every feminist is a whiney man-hating ugly lesbian or whatever deplorable stereotypes you want to throw at it. I'm a guy, tend not to be whiney, don't hate men and am disqualified from being a lesbian on account of the man thing. Stereotypes are strawmanning and that's just bad argumentation.

Personally, I don't think we really are past feminism. Sure, laws are equal. But socially and practically, women are treating far differently to men. There's a far higher incidence of **** of women*, domestic abuse**, a pay gap*** and, because I'm running out of asterisks, a variety of other things, including normal social interaction.

Finally, I would like to define feminism and exclude radical feminism, just so there's no miscommunication. Feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men. It's not that women should rule the world, or anything like that. If you would like a primer on the topic, have a look around here.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**** (See second paragraph)
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_women
***http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2007/04/working_women_a.html

Why exactly did you choose feminism when there are so many other types of discrimination out there? I’m not saying feminism is not important but I think the topic is a bit too narrow to go into Feminism itself or the issues that it encompasses. I don’t even know how I would debate about Feminism itself.

I think all types of discrimination should be put into the mix because they all share a common problem and strive for a common goal.

Well, I've had billions of conversations about it. It's just that I'm most experienced with feminism, and I've noticed it's one of the discriminations that have the most misconceptions about it. There are two threads in the Debate Hall about it, and I wanted to argue the hell out of there because so many people were just plain wrong, but I settled for arguing here.

But yeah, argue racism or able-ism or discrimination against the transgendered or non-heterosexuals. I'm not one to make this an exclusive topic.

What exactly are we discussing? How feminism affects men?
I'll sit this one out, I get ill-tempered with these topics.

Hmmm...

How about (Substitute the specific anti-discrimination you want instead of Feminism, if Feminism doesn't float your boat) "Is Feminism Useful?" or "Are We Past Feminism?" or "What Should Feminism be Doing?".

Or maybe we could debate which topic to argue.

Ideally, once we've tackled one topic we can change. People'll get annoyed by a whole bunch of threads on

I completely agree with the feminist ideology; that men and women should be completely equal.

However, pretty much all of the "feminists" I have met simply take the "women should be treated better" part of it.

You know, the ones that get pissed if they see a girl wearing something indecent, but think you're a jerk if you don't pull out their chair and buy them flowers.

That's another thing; how can feminists be so upset by scantily clad females? Claiming that they objectify women. That's a negative stereotype in itself, claiming that men are apes that can be persuaded by naked women into seeing them merely as objects. The objectification of women is a serious problem, but to blame it on pornography is ignorant. I'm not saying that there are no males like this, but the cause isn't naked women. It's dumb men.

It really isn't a sound argument, especially in this day and age, where male strippers, porn stars, streakers, underwear models, etc. are incredibly common. Males could just as easily claim that they are being objectified, by the evidence provided.

I like the theme of "Are We Past Feminism", you should edit the OP to fit that question.
I'll make a better writeup once you fix this thread.

RazeveX said:

I completely agree with the feminist ideology; that men and women should be completely equal.

However, pretty much all of the "feminists" I have met simply take the "women should be treated better" part of it.

You know, the ones that get pissed if they see a girl wearing something indecent, but think you're a jerk if you don't pull out their chair and buy them flowers.

That's another thing; how can feminists be so upset by scantily clad females? Claiming that they objectify women. That's a negative stereotype in itself, claiming that men are apes that can be persuaded by naked women into seeing them merely as objects. The objectification of women is a serious problem, but to blame it on pornography is ignorant. I'm not saying that there are no males like this, but the cause isn't naked women. It's dumb men.

It really isn't a sound argument, especially in this day and age, where male strippers, porn stars, streakers, underwear models, etc. are incredibly common. Males could just as easily claim that they are being objectified, by the evidence provided.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there are some people who have double standards. They kinda suck. But there are jerks in every political group.

The thing about the scantily-clad women isn't specifically to do with the fact that they are scantily clad. It's generally the way that they are portrayed. Go look up porn on the internet. Women are treated terribly - it's all "Watch this b*tch begging for c*ck" or whatever. It's also almost exclusively male-gazey (Link). It assumes that the people watching are all heterosexual men, and thus excludes anyone else watching. Furthermore, within the industry, women are also treated terribly. And it's basically the same in most other media industries. The link covers the portrayal of women in advertising, for instance. Most feminists I know are okay with the idea of porn and scantily-clad women. It's just the society about it that makes them not like it.

@Straked - I've retitled the thread and altered my words slightly to address the issue.

Aorist said:

Watch this b*tch begging for c*ck"

Click to expand...

Nice example, lol.

Yeah, I know what you mean; but my point was that many "feminists" rally against women simply being scantily-clad in pornography, rather than the inappropriate properties that come along with it (this is mainly targeted at internet pornography).

It really is a mystery to me why the internet is so disgusting. It is completely made up of data from people, people which seem perfectly normal walking down the streets; yet somehow we end up with things that one (I, at least) would think that no one would want or like.

I'm sure there are sick minded females as well as males, though.

I'm somewhat questioning of your sources. No right-minded feminist would be against porn merely because there are scantily-clad women in it. There has to be actual reasons.

Can you give me a quote or something?

Especially because there are so many good feminist reasons to be against the current state of internet porn. It's not just a small minority of porn that treats women badly. It's the vast majority. It's apparently very hard to find woman-positive porn. (And by that, I don't mean anti-men. Since women are by and large treated as inferior, when they are treated positively, it can, and should, be to the same level as men).

Also, it is possible for people to contribute to themselves being treated as inferior.

This is all off-topic, but it's as good a feminism topic as any until Straked (or anyone) says something on the actual topic.

...questioning my sources?

I'm talking about people I have met; I couldn't give you a quote.

Funnily enough, though, the episode of "That 70s Show" I'm watching now is an extremely good example (I know, it's television, but it really does frame the kind of person I'm talking about).

Red opened a muffler shop, and made a calendar to promote it. However, this calendar contained women in bikinis on cars. So Donna, on her radio show, got very upset, claimed it was objectifying women, and asked all women to boycott it with her. Also, her radio name is Hot Donna, and she likes it because it makes her feel pretty. So...

Yeah, really off topic, sorry about that, but it really does encapsulate the personality. Obviously it's a TV show, but the writers were obviously poking fun at the same kind of incidence/person that I have experienced/met. If i had any sources I could transfer over the internet I would.

But I'll tell you what; next time I meet someone like that, I'll get their details and you can call them up.

Alright, I'm questioning your interpretation of the sources. I just cannot believe that that is the only reason that they'd do it. I mean, odds are that if you pick a random photo of a bikini-clad women from a magazine or calendar or whatnot, it'll be objectifying the women in it. That's just how our society is. It's a tricky issue.

And, wow, media representing feminism in a derogatory fashion? I'm sure I've never come across that before </sarcasm>.

Even having said that, I doubt that "Hot Donna" explicitly said that it was only because they were scantily-clad. She could've just looked at the photos and seen that they were objectifying women, then asked that the muffler shop be boycotted. But then again, I'm probably attributing too much thought to the writers.

I'm not talking about devoted, clear-minderd feminsts, I'm talking about people that I have met whose behaviour ended up surprising me, probably much like it is surprising you now. The ones who associate the term feminists with themselves for no reason other than "girl power".

This wasn't really meant to be a debate topic, simply a statement on some people I have met who thought that they were feminists, when they really weren't. As I said before, I agree with the feminist ideology. To me, though, that just means live normally; I wasn't born with any sexist quirks, nor have I developed any.

Also, the media represents everything in a derogatory fashion at one point or another, so i wouldn't get too worked up about it.

but hey, thanks for doubting me.

Okay, so what you're saying is, some people are crazy and use things to their advantage? Thanks, but that's irrelevant.

Actually, you'll find that you have developed sexist quirks, it's just that they're ingrained by society. For example, when hiring, people subconciously choose people who are given the definition of "normal", by society. They will tend towards white, male, straight people, assuming everything else is near equal. It's the "Well, Joe seemed like a cool guy, you know?" type thing. For instance, as soon as they started doing blind auditions for orchestras, the number of females shot straight up.

Despite this, when asked, the hirers will assume they chose equally. Society ingrains things like these without you even knowing it.

Everyone is sexist. I can guarantee you that even though I'm a feminist, I contribute towards sexist stereotypes and subconciously favour guys and so on, even though I try not to. It's just how society is.

Aorist said:

Okay, so what you're saying is, some people are crazy and use things to their advantage? Thanks, but that's irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Umm...what?

No....no that's not what I said...at all...

Crazy? Really? That's harsh...

Even if had said something remotely similar to that, aren't you ignoring the fact that we spent 5 or so posts talking about it? Can't be that irrelevant then, can it?

Aorist said:

Actually, you'll find that you have developed sexist quirks, it's just that they're ingrained by society. For example, when hiring, people subconciously choose people who are given the definition of "normal", by society. They will tend towards white, male, straight people, assuming everything else is near equal. It's the "Well, Joe seemed like a cool guy, you know?" type thing. For instance, as soon as they started doing blind auditions for orchestras, the number of females shot straight up.

Despite this, when asked, the hirers will assume they chose equally. Society ingrains things like these without you even knowing it.

Everyone is sexist. I can guarantee you that even though I'm a feminist, I contribute towards sexist stereotypes and subconciously favour guys and so on, even though I try not to. It's just how society is.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to go into a massive post, so I'll dotpoint:

- I don't think you should make personal statements about anyone unless you can be completely sure, which you definitely can't. For all you know, I might have taken offence to that (none taken)

- You made bold statements without any source or reference. You simply said "they will tend to do this" and "this is what happens". Even if you'd linked me to a study, does that really give you enough confidence to say these things without any room for doubt?
I read a study that suggested that instead of favouring the "norm" (white, male, etc.), employers would favour the person who closest matched their racial heritage. There we go; two studies that directly contradict each other.

- I don't think we should consider something that, according to you, is inevitable (must be if you're guaranteeing it) and unfixable as discrimination. That's like saying the no armed guy who didn't open the door for you was being rude.

C'mon, having beliefs with no logical basis, or pretending to have beliefs for getting benefits is a little crazy, right?

Saying that a small percentage of feminists hold certain illogical or "evil" beliefs is as irrelevant as talking about people who perpetrate fraud in a discussion on capitalism. We talked about it for five posts as I assumed that the people we were discussing had reasons, and reasoned, mainstream feminism is the topic under discussion.

There are countless studies on gender bias in hiring. There's a link to one in every word in this sentence.

Keep in mind that becoming a manager or hirer doesn't instantly imbue you with sexism. These are normal people. Is it really so hard to believe that it extends to you?

And your study doesn't really contradict my message. You cannot deny that the proportion of white hetero males in managerial positions is much higher than any other group. So in effect, it'll practically amount to the same thing - a gender (and orientation and race) bias.

We are completely, 100% past feminine discrimination.* However, men and women are not and never will be equal. Physically, men and women are different. This is fact. If anyone tells you men and women are equal in, say, average heights, they'd be an idiot.

Emotions also vary within the sexes. Men can be more aggressive, which can lead to female abuse. This is not because men hate women or disregard them in any sense.

*In the Western world. Some Islamic countries can be pretty backwards if you ask me.

Aorist said:

C'mon, having beliefs with no logical basis, or pretending to have beliefs for getting benefits is a little crazy, right?

Click to expand...

No, not by the definition of crazy.

Aorist said:

Saying that a small percentage of feminists hold certain illogical or "evil" beliefs is as irrelevant as talking about people who perpetrate fraud in a discussion on capitalism. We talked about it for five posts as I assumed that the people we were discussing had reasons, and reasoned, mainstream feminism is the topic under discussion.

Click to expand...

Ok, ok, you've made your point. Lets move on from our little misunderstanding.

Aorist said:

Keep in mind that becoming a manager or hirer doesn't instantly imbue you with sexism. These are normal people. Is it really so hard to believe that it extends to you?

And your study doesn't really contradict my message. You cannot deny that the proportion of white hetero males in managerial positions is much higher than any other group. So in effect, it'll practically amount to the same thing - a gender (and orientation and race) bias.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but my point was that we can't just take statistics and studies as fact. My point was that, in at least one facet, one of our studies must be wrong. So should we really quote them as absolute fact? With enough confidence to make statements about each other?

anyway, for the first time in a while, BACK ON TOPIC:

It would seem that we are not past feminism, as there are still aspects of feminism that are not yet at the level desired. However, some of the changes that would need to be made in order to achieve complete equality do not seem likely to occur anytime soon.

EDIT: SORRY, THIS WAS DIRECTED AT DELORTED. I DIDN'T REALISE YOU'D POSTED, RAZE.

Did you read the links in the first page? Or any links I've supplied since then?

There are an enormous variety of examples of societal sexism. I'll relink them from the first page. Pay Gap. Domestic Abuse. ****. Media Portrayal. Job Hiring. And I've barely scratched the surface. Even among your friends, I bet there's some. If a girl sleeps around, you call her a sl*t, right? But if a guy does that, you'll call them a "playa" or something, correct? Think about the dynamics of any group you're in that has a girl that you don't fancy. Can you honestly say you give her as much attention as everyone?

How does any average physical difference justify discrimination across an entire gender?

Just because women are meant to be treated equally under the law (and sometimes women don't even get that), doesn't mean that society has fixed itself.

Physical differences aren't important (well, they are - sexytiems would be difficult otherwise), to be honest. What you don't understand is that things should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Just because guys are stronger than girls, on average, doesn't mean you should instantly choose guys for a profession than girls. I know girls that can pick a heavy guy up over their shoulders and spin. I couldn't do that without a serious exercise regime. Clearly they're a better choice for being a firefighter (or whatever) than I am.

You can't blame the **** on aggression. There is a world of difference between being angry and wanting to force someone to have intercourse with you. And do you really think that the aggression can account for the fact that, according to my above link, women experience 5 times as much domestic abuse as men?

And what's more, does that even make it right?

I can't find ordinary physical assault statistics that compare by gender, so I don't know about that.

In my humble opinion, we're past racism toward women in places of business.
You're obligated to respect your fellow human, but by all means do you have the right to have an opinion on a group of people. There's always been something that bugged me when it came to women. A few of my friends have even brought this up. A girl says that women can do anything a man can do. That's generalizing, because many women can't actually do things like heavy-lifting. Not saying that women can't be body-builders, but they still generalize about men as well.

A few girls that I tried to have an intelligent argument said the same thing. "Oh, by nature, women are smarter."
While I agree with this to an extent, there are many intelligent men in this world. A woman can say this, with no actual drawbacks. If a man were to state his crass opinion that men are stronger, he can be accused of being an anti-feminist, racist, or whatever you'd call it.

I've actually seen several stories on the news about this. And every time, it's always some crazy woman devoted to equal rights sueing for no good reason. But never once have I seen a man sue because he was treated unfairly by the female sex. This makes me stand firm in my belief that feminism is alive and well.

And it also seems that only white men can't be discriminated against.

I find it quite amusing that you say we're past discrimination when in the first line of your post you refer to women as a distinct race from men. The word is "sexism".

Everyone has the right to an opinion about a group of people. The problem occurs when that translates into actual preferential treatment for or discrimination against a certain type of person.

Actually, to be honest, I'm not sure I understand your post at all. You begin by saying that we're past sexism in places of business, but the rest of your post is just about how women can say things that men can't. Can you offer examples of how sexism is no longer prevalent?

I can offer an explanation for the reason that you never see men suing women for discrimination on TV. Hell, I can give you a couple.
1) The previously linked facts that women are discriminated against in the workplace socially, in pay and even in initial hiring. When people are discriminated against more, there tends to be more complaints.
2) Large businesses are more often than not owned by men.

Taking into account those proportions, it's not unlikely that you'll see many women suing and not many men.

I can't deny the fact that it is possible to discriminate against white men. The thing is, it rarely happens in society. Racism, sexism, transphobism and so on are rife in our society, and are somewhat systemic. The fact of the matter is that you will probably not see white men being discriminated against in any large number, whereas it is common to see that occur to other groups.

To finish off, I would like to mention that I disagree in principle with generalisations. As I have mentioned previously, one should assess people on an individual basis rather than due to their belonging to a group.

I think you should wait a while. In a decade or so, the percentage of successful women will undoubtedly rise dramatically. We already see more way more women in university than men - it's only a matter of time.

Women were oppressed. They aren't anymore. Women have the right to do everything men can do. However, this doesn't mean they're equal. The genders will never be equal.

Also, it doesn't matter that more women get ***** than men. The male sex drive can be incredibly proactive - it can make them do very extreme things. Not so for the female, typically.

By the way, if you disagree "in principle" with generalizations, you lack basic survival skills, I'm sorry to say. (not to mention you generalize the sun will rise every morning and act on this assumption)

Massive typo on my end. I seriously get into so many debates about this, I get the two confused.

Well, yes. In any area where someone can be sued, they make sure there's nothing sexist. I'm not saying that this isn't possible, but chances are, nobody's gonna discriminate against women if their jobs are on the line.

It's a terrible thing, but sadly it happens. It can't really be helped, because not all men see women as equals. But take into account that the men that run big businesses are very intelligent, and have good reason to lower the pay for certain women, or anything related to that. There will always be people that try to fight for equal rights, but there's only so much the law can do.

Heha. Australia.
The women's rights activists are still guilty to this day guilty of generaliz/sing about all men.
Many of them are quick to get defensive, and react in a negative way. If they had more time to think about this, they might realize that having that individual basis would make their efforts much easier.

DeLoRtEd1 said:

Also, it doesn't matter that more women get ***** than men. The male sex drive can be incredibly proactive - it can make them do very extreme things. Not so for the female, typically.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I can take you seriously after this.

**** of women doesn't matter? That's the most awful thing I've heard a person say in seriousness, ever. The only reason I'm not swearing at you is because the filters would make it look comical.

Despite your lack of sources, I tracked one down, and yes, men have a higher sex drive than women.

THIS. MEANS. NOTHING.

So what if men have higher sex drives than women. That doesn't make you more likely to **** people. **** is more about anger, power and sadism than it is about sexual gratification (Link). Having a higher sex drive has almost nothing to do with it. Even if it did, would you estimate that men have more than ten times the sex drive of women? Women comprise 91% of **** victims. (Link)

You're trying to justify ****, do you realise this? This is precisely the thing that contributes to a **** culture (a culture that ignores ****, justifying it and therefore, in effect, contributing to it).

I think I'll just stop there. Too angry to reply properly.

Straked said:

Massive typo on my end. I seriously get into so many debates about this, I get the two confused.

Well, yes. In any area where someone can be sued, they make sure there's nothing sexist. I'm not saying that this isn't possible, but chances are, nobody's gonna discriminate against women if their jobs are on the line.

Click to expand...

There are countless ways that sexism gets past the law. Inequal gender hiring practices isn't really something you can accumulate enough evidence by yourself to sue for. Societal sexism is something that happens all the time, and isn't specific to the workplace. The pay gap can be excused by women having different jobs. It's hard to stand up against your employers. Laws can be unsexist while still encouraging sexism in practice. So on and so forth.

Straked said:

It's a terrible thing, but sadly it happens. It can't really be helped, because not all men see women as equals. But take into account that the men that run big businesses are very intelligent, and have good reason to lower the pay for certain women, or anything related to that. There will always be people that try to fight for equal rights, but there's only so much the law can do.

Click to expand...

I could understand it if only certain women were having their pay lowered, for some good reason. But the problem is that it occurs systemically, and that it occurs often enough to be gender discriminatory. And yes, while there is only so much the law can do, there is more that feminists can do than just alter laws.

Straked said:

Heha. Australia.
The women's rights activists are still guilty to this day guilty of generaliz/sing about all men.
Many of them are quick to get defensive, and react in a negative way. If they had more time to think about this, they might realize that having that individual basis would make their efforts much easier.

Click to expand...

"Many" of them are, huh? Most feminists are just normal people. People who want equal rights. Radical feminists, those portrayed in mass media, are but a miniscule percentage of all feminists. To be honest, anyone who says that "women are smarter on average than men" like it means anything are just as bad as those who assert that "men are stronger than women on average" means anything. But you have to understand that they are, again, a small percentage of feminists. You are, ironically, generalising that feminists generalise. See my post above, in which I said:

Aorist said:

Saying that a small percentage of feminists hold certain illogical or "evil" beliefs is as irrelevant as talking about people who perpetrate fraud in a discussion on capitalism.

Click to expand...

Moreover, even if there was a large percentage of feminists who held these beliefs, that wouldn't matter. We'd still need feminism even if the feminists are doing it wrong. Starving people in Africa would still need aid even if the aid workers were hilariously incompetent.

@Razevex - Sorry, I didn't see your last post. It's great to see that you're coming around. D'you think you identify as a feminist now? And though it'll take ages and ages to stop institutionalised sexism, we have to keep trying. Also, I'll relink you to http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/ in case you're curious.

A good debater knows when he's beat, but I think it's more or less the fact that I'm too tired to reply to these threads. I'm at my worst when it's late. I'll sit this one out now, since you'll always give me something to reply to, and I just don't have the patience to keep up with you /at the moment./

Good stuff. It does make me regret getting involved, though. I've done this so many times, heard the same things, replied with the same stuff.

Aorist said:

I'm not sure I can take you seriously after this.

**** of women doesn't matter? That's the most awful thing I've heard a person say in seriousness, ever. The only reason I'm not swearing at you is because the filters would make it look comical.

Click to expand...

Watch it buddy. You're putting words in my mouth. This is called a straw man argument.

In regards to relevancy, no. The **** of women does not matter in this situation. Do you actually think for one second I take **** nonchalantly? You're an idiot if so.

Aorist said:

Despite your lack of sources, I tracked one down, and yes, men have a higher sex drive than women.

THIS. MEANS. NOTHING.

So what if men have higher sex drives than women. That doesn't make you more likely to **** people. **** is more about anger, power and sadism than it is about sexual gratification (Link). Having a higher sex drive has almost nothing to do with it. Even if it did, would you estimate that men have more than ten times the sex drive of women? Women comprise 91% of **** victims. (Link)

Click to expand...

Mm, I don't really care about any of this. I never wanted to discuss **** in the first place. You're placing an importance on it that does not exist. Perhaps I should rephrase that to prevent you from freaking out on me. You're placing an importance on it in a sexist context. You're cute when you're angry.

Aorist said:

You're trying to justify ****, do you realise this? This is precisely the thing that contributes to a **** culture (a culture that ignores ****, justifying it and therefore, in effect, contributing to it).

Click to expand...

I'm trying to JUSTIFY ****?! Do you even know what a justification is? I said **** isn't relevant in this discussion - and you think I'm trying to justify it!?

Aorist said:

I think I'll just stop there. Too angry to reply properly.

Click to expand...

If you can't take the heat, get the **** outta the Proving Grounds. Don't ever make such a ridiculous straw man again. This one takes the cake.

No, see, a strawman is where I make up an argument for you and then proceed to attack that instead of your actual argument. I was arguing against what you actually said, and it's not my fault that you didn't communicate what you meant. There are some utter idiots on the internet, so you can't blame me for assuming you were one of them.

DeLoRtEd1 said:

Mm, I don't really care about any of this. I never wanted to discuss **** in the first place. You're placing an importance on it that does not exist. Perhaps I should rephrase that to prevent you from freaking out on me. You're placing an importance on it in a sexist context. You're cute when you're angry.

Click to expand...

Ah, cunning. You make a point and then suddenly don't care about it.

If I understand correctly from this clarification, you are saying that **** is irrelevant as a factor in determining whether women are treated inferiorly, because men have a higher sex drive and are thus more inclined to ****. This is still refuted by my points - it can't be attributed to the sex drive because sexual gratification is rarely a motive in ****, and the small amount that it is a motive for cannot account for the fact that women are more than ten times likely to be ***** than men.

I feel obligated to reply to this, for some reason.

Here we go!

Aorist said:

Did you read the links in the first page? Or any links I've supplied since then?

Click to expand...

Yes, very interesting, thankyou.

Aorist said:

There are an enormous variety of examples of societal sexism. I'll relink them from the first page. Pay Gap. Domestic Abuse. ****. Media Portrayal. Job Hiring. And I've barely scratched the surface. Even among your friends, I bet there's some. If a girl sleeps around, you call her a sl*t, right? But if a guy does that, you'll call them a "playa" or something, correct?

Click to expand...

I'm quite polite, so I only call close friends those words jokingly; but hey, thanks for making more personal assumptions about me. What is that,3?

You've pretty much missed the mark on most of them, aswell. Playa? Didn't know I came off that gangsta; who still says that, anyway?. Yes, I may jokingly call a girl a ****. In our group, the equivalent for males is the always classy "manslut". If you say that that is sexist, I'd find it hard to believe.

Aorist said:

Think about the dynamics of any group you're in that has a girl that you don't fancy. Can you honestly say you give her as much attention as everyone?

Click to expand...

I would give her as much attention as that guy I don't fancy...and I still fail to see where you're going with this.

Aorist said:

How does any average physical difference justify discrimination across an entire gender?

Click to expand...

No one said it did; from what I recall, others just made the point that we are separate genders.

Aorist said:

Just because women are meant to be treated equally under the law (and sometimes women don't even get that), doesn't mean that society has fixed itself.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Aorist said:

Physical differences aren't important (well, they are - sexytiems would be difficult otherwise), to be honest. What you don't understand is that things should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Just because guys are stronger than girls, on average, doesn't mean you should instantly choose guys for a profession than girls. I know girls that can pick a heavy guy up over their shoulders and spin. I couldn't do that without a serious exercise regime. Clearly they're a better choice for being a firefighter (or whatever) than I am.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the problem is when you're quoting statistics of the female/male emplayment ratio, you're failing to see that there are (very likely) going to be many more males applying for heavy lifting jobs than females. Again, no one is claiming that women cannot do these things; there just happen to be more men doing it.

Aorist said:

You can't blame the **** on aggression.

Click to expand...

He didn't.

Aorist said:

There is a world of difference between being angry and wanting to force someone to have intercourse with you. And do you really think that the aggression can account for the fact that, according to my above link, women experience 5 times as much domestic abuse as men?

Click to expand...

5 times? Hmm, that interesting. What's your point?
Again, all you're suggesting is that there are more abusive men than women out there. Maybe if the majority of women could overpower the majority of men you'd see a different statistic.

Aorist said:

And what's more, does that even make it right?

Click to expand...

No one said it did.

Aorist said:

I can't find ordinary physical assault statistics that compare by gender, so I don't know about that.

Click to expand...

Ok.

All done

Sorry, that was all directed at DeLoRtEd. I believe you will find that his post is the stimulus for pretty much everything that I said.

The thing about more men applying for it and so on is covered by the idea of affirmative action, which is difficult to argue until your opponents accept the need for feminism (if it was only us discussing it, Raze, this would get fairly lonely).

The thing is, even if you don't do it (and, by the way, the female marginalisation thing is sneaky. You have to focus to catch yourself at it, so it is possible that it occurs), the things I mentioned are things that a good portion of society does.

Aorist said:

No, see, a strawman is where I make up an argument for you and then proceed to attack that instead of your actual argument. I was arguing against what you actually said, and it's not my fault that you didn't communicate what you meant. There are some utter idiots on the internet, so you can't blame me for assuming you were one of them.

Click to expand...

No johns. You assumed something entirely unrelated to my point and then said I was trying to justify ****. I'm sorry - it's a straw man.

Aorist said:

Ah, cunning. You make a point and then suddenly don't care about it.

Click to expand...

I didn't make any point - another straw man. Raze said it best - it doesn't matter that there are more abusive men than there are women.

Aorist said:

If I understand correctly from this clarification, you are saying that **** is irrelevant as a factor in determining whether women are treated inferiorly, because men have a higher sex drive and are thus more inclined to ****. This is still refuted by my points - it can't be attributed to the sex drive because sexual gratification is rarely a motive in ****, and the small amount that it is a motive for cannot account for the fact that women are more than ten times likely to be ***** than men.

Click to expand...

If sexual drives aren't a factor, then why are they getting *****?! The abusive male can still assert his dominance and anger through other means. This is such a stupid tangent; one we wouldn't be on if you would just let it go.

Here's the breakdown:

1. Men and women have equal rights, powers, freedoms.

2. Men and women are not equal physically or emotionally. Neither is right nor wrong; they are simply different.

3. Certain emotions, hormones, and other physical properties govern the faculties of their respective sex.

I agree with the breakdown you posted. I know they should have equal rights, and they should, but we ARE different, and people need to understand that and not have hissy-fits whenever someone gets denied a job based on gender, gets tagged because of a gender. There's no masculinism is there? Nope, men don't get offended if they get tagged based on gender.

DeLoRtEd, I'm not going to continue arguing about whether or not me arguing against what you said is a strawman, as that is tangential to our current discussion.

Delorted said:

If sexual drives aren't a factor, then why are they getting *****?! The abusive male can still assert his dominance and anger through other means. This is such a stupid tangent; one we wouldn't be on if you would just let it go.

Click to expand...

I explained this earlier. It is more about gaining power, anger and sadism. Sure, it is possible for said abusive male to assert his power through other means, but they don't. Otherwise they wouldn't be ******.

But this isn't a tangent at all. We're arguing whether we still need feminism. I posited a reason for why we need it. You are questioning the validity of the reason.

Delorted said:

Here's the breakdown:

1. Men and women have equal rights, powers, freedoms.

2. Men and women are not equal physically or emotionally. Neither is right nor wrong; they are simply different.

3. Certain emotions, hormones, and other physical properties govern the faculties of their respective sex.

Click to expand...

1. I agree with you that women have these legally. The problem isn't legal, as I have said.

2. Also correct, if you add "on average". But you are generalising, and really people have to be assessed on an individual basis. It would maybe be alright if women were only ill-represented in, say, construction work, because not as many are good at heavy-lifting. But there is gender bias in hiring procedures and pay right across the board, in jobs that don't need any physical strength.

3. Yes.

So I agree with your breakdown. The problem is, it's not what matters.

GwJumpman said:

There's no masculinism is there? Nope, men don't get offended if they get tagged based on gender.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are men's rights activists. The thing is, men don't get discriminated against nearly as often as women, so they aren't as prominent. Seriously, Google "men's rights activism".

EDIT: Sorry, DeLoRtEd, I've had a look back through the thread and turns out that I shouldn't post so much late at night or in the wee hours of the morning, especially with a crappy university sleep schedule. What I did was in fact a strawman - I omitted the word "more" when I was reading it. If you only read from about halfway through this post (http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=6842954&postcount=27) onwards in regards to your personal arguments, it should stop the stupid.

Aorist said:

Personally, I don't think we really are past feminism. Sure, laws are equal. But socially and practically, women are treating far differently to men.

Click to expand...

Under your, "different" mindset, this is equal. We are just being treated differently, so it's fine. Girls don't have to pay tickets for a movie, they can wear jeans, they be hookers. We can't. You can't compare differences.

Under a realistic mindset, the government should have nothing to do with social interactions. I don't even know what you're asking in this thread.

Maniclysane said:

Under your, "different" mindset, this is equal. We are just being treated differently, so it's fine. Girls don't have to pay tickets for a movie, they can wear jeans, they be hookers. We can't. You can't compare differences.

Under a realistic mindset, the government should have nothing to do with social interactions. I don't even know what you're asking in this thread.

Click to expand...

My "different" mindset? Can you explain what you mean?

I sorta understand what you're trying to say with the next bit. We should be treated with equality, not be treated equally. This is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp. A good example is marriage. You can say that every man is allowed to marry a woman (or vice versa), but is barred from marrying a man. Sure, everyone's being treated equally. But it's clearly unfair on homosexuals. In the same vein, allowing men pregnancy support and IUD's is clearly silly, as they won't need them. But there's a line. You can be treated differently, but still be treated with equality. That's all women need, and what they aren't getting.

I'm a little confused by the next line. As far as I know, girls do have to pay for movies, they don't get in free. Men can wear jeans too, as well. And, well, there are male hookers, if you're really worried about your right to sell your body.

And since when was I ever talking about the government?

The topic of conversation is whether we need feminism. We need feminism if women are being treated worse than men. Therefore, I'm aiming to prove that women are.

When I said that, I meant when they're together, on a date. That is part of life, right? I was not clear on that. That was my fault. I thought the topic was about giving women more equal rights, even though they have the same rights. I did not know, it was about proving women are treated worse than men.

Could you provide some examples, as to when women are treated unfairly?

There are several examples throughout the thread. Again, I shall repost them, but it would be nice if people would read the thread.

The incidence of **** of women is far higher than the incidence of **** of men.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/****-prevention/statistics.html (See the section on **** and Gender)

Domestic abuse of women is far higher than that of men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#Violence_against_women

There is a significant pay gap between similarly qualified men and women in the same work areas.
http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2007/04/working_women_a.html

Media portrayal of women is almost unilaterally objectifying.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-“male-gaze”/

Similarly qualified women are hired far less often than men.
http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2005/17/gorman.html

And there are more social discriminations as well. A man who sleeps around a lot is referred to a "playa" or "Casanova" or whatever, whereas women are referred to as "sluts" or "the town bike". Men are often perceived as the "breadwinner", whereas women more often stay at home and look after kids, etc.

Aorist said:

Media portrayal of women is almost unilaterally objectifying.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-“male-gaze”/

Click to expand...

The potrayal of women in the media is also extremely altered, making women far too skinny in the pictures they show. And in various commercials I've seen, they always talk about women watching their weight and going on diets. But of course they photoshop and airbrush images, making them seem far greater than the actual thing, having perfect complections. I find those images and commercials far from entertaining.

That's true, and that accomplishes the twin evils of objectifying the women further, and altering the perceptions of what a woman should look like.

After reading those links... I hate saying it, but, I see what you're talking about. ._.

As far as the pay gap goes, the article is from 2007, and most of the links are out of date, and the sources do not have much evidence. There is a phone number, but I'm not sure what to do with that. Lol. (http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2007/04/working_women_a.html)

I don't see what the media has to do with womens rights. They portray a character in a sexual way. The character is a girl, because the audience is male, especially since one of the examples was from a comic book, which statistically, males read more often than females.

For the most part though, I think you're right, that girls really aren't treated as well as men, but is the gap really that big that it needs to be argued? Is there anything anyone can really do to fix this?

The male gaze is most prevalent in advertising, which is something that reaches both genders about equally. However, even if the audience is mostly men, you don't treat them all as men, disregarding the rest. A similar situation would be insulting God in a congregation of mostly atheist.

The gap may look small to you, but that's because you're not on the recieving end of the injustices. There are things that can be done. If you are hiring, try and account for your subconscious biases. Go to feminist rallies. Don't treat guys any differently to girls. Inform people about gender discrimination. By ourselves it would be hard to institute any change. But the more people we inform, the more chance we have of overturning it.

On a side note, I see that a feminism thread has been created in Debate Hall, seemingly at least partly in response to this. It annoys me reading it without being able to argue against the OP.