Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Has Feminism Gone Too Far?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
28 replies to this topic

#1    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 07 April 2005 - 02:24 AM

Debate suggestion by Walken.

Has Feminism gone too far? Have women reached equality with men, or is there still lot of work ahead to acheive that goal? Walken and Raistlin Majere will be arguing that it has; and I am looking for two participants to debate that it hasn't.

This will be a formal, 2v2 debate. Each team will post a total of one introduction, six body posts and one conclusion.

Any questions, please PM myself or Lottie.


#2    Kerkido

Kerkido

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Auckland

  • To be or not to be

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:52 PM

I'd be happy to comprise the opposing team.

Kérkido
Chris

#3    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:56 PM

Excellent!

We currently have Walken and Raistlin Majere ready to debate that we have acheived gender equality in today's society.

And kerkido will be debating on the side that feminism still has a lot of work ahead. We are still looking for one more participant to join this side of the debate.


#4    Mr. Fahrenheit

Mr. Fahrenheit

    Catcher in the Pumpernickel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined:10 Apr 2005
  • Location:Far above our heads, on the icy heights that contain all reason

  • All your flesh are belong to zombie
    ~ Burnside

Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:16 PM

Can I be on the hasn't team?


Posted Image


~  Check out The Fray  ~


Proud Animator of the Animated Avatar Workshop


#5    Kerkido

Kerkido

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 817 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Auckland

  • To be or not to be

Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:24 PM

UniversalParadox.. Bear in mind.. You will have to hi-5 with me tongue.gif

Kérkido
Chris

#6    Mr. Fahrenheit

Mr. Fahrenheit

    Catcher in the Pumpernickel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined:10 Apr 2005
  • Location:Far above our heads, on the icy heights that contain all reason

  • All your flesh are belong to zombie
    ~ Burnside

Posted 16 April 2005 - 02:27 PM

Hmm... Sounds risky. ok.


Posted Image


~  Check out The Fray  ~


Proud Animator of the Animated Avatar Workshop


#7    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 16 April 2005 - 03:37 PM

Excellent!

Now just to recap:

We currently have Walken and Raistlin Majere to debate that we have acheived gender equality in today's society.

And kerkido and UniversalParadox are debating on the side that feminism still has a lot of work ahead.

Each team will post a total of one introduction, six body posts and one conclusion. Remember to quote your sources, and please remember to post within the 7 day time frame. Should this not be possible, please let Lottie or myself know.

Any questions, please PM me.

Good luck!

Edited by Disinterested, 19 April 2005 - 03:38 PM.


#8    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 19 April 2005 - 08:34 AM

Okay folks. This should be good. I've already spoken with you all, or at least one person on each team, and so it's already been privately established that I will write the intro.

Just a fore-word; I notice that I'm debating two guys. Shame, as I was hoping to take to the debates with a modern day feminist, however it should be equally good

Okay doke. Time to get this underway. Good luck everyone

Introduction

Less than one hundred years ago the suffragettes finally reached their goal, what had only been a dream since the dawn of democracy. Woman had the right to vote. It was considered a mile-stone in history, and still is, and gave birth to feminism.

But where did it go from there? Or course, after World War one woman, who had been takeing over the manual labour jobs in mens absence in munitions factorys, began their new quest; equal pay.

And found it. Back in the sixties the pay equality act was passed. The gap between the average annual salary of a man and average annual salary of a woman has closed at such a rapid rate that if it were to continue in this way for just five more years woman would be earning more pay than men.

So there we go. Woman now are completely equal to men. They have just as much freedom, money, and all points inbetween.

Sometimes even more

Heres a thought. Men's social clubs are now outlawed. They can be sued if they deny a woman entry. In fact, they've nearly all been closed down or changed to public houses and social clubs to avoid this. Private mens clubs are illegal, subject to lawsuit. But aren't womans clubs protected, encouraged? Did you know that men's-only health clubs are legal by federal law and men's-only are not? And what about the woman community buildings, paid for with taxes, paid by men and woman.

Heres a thought. Woman get the child in nearly 90% of contested custody cases. Strange, seeing as more commonly the man will be the one with the job and steady income. Then again, won't he lose one third of his income in a divorce, 75% of which are initated by woman? (stats from 2003)

Heres a thought. Men are statistically twenty times more likely to get the death penalty than woman for the same crime.

Heres a thought. The draft laws only apply for men and only men have to register. Many argue that it doesnt matter, as it's highly unlikely that there will be a draft in the next twenty years. But what if there is? How quickly will they be able to change the law before the fighting starts, I wonder.

Heres a thought. Men die earlier from all eight major causes of death. Yet there's never been a federal study as to why. Isn't that funny? But there's an office of Women's Health. None for men yet, maybe one day.

Heres a thought. Isn't breast cancer federally funded 14 times as much as prostate cancer? But aren't both lethal? And don't both genders pay taxes?

Heres a thought. Why is it that women can hit men in the movies, even knock them unconscious, but men can't hit back? Funny how there's so much attention on kicking men in the groin in movies and TV now. Isn't that legally sexual assault? Sure is a big joke.

Heres a thought. How about that Violence Against Women act? It's created an entire industry of lawyers, social workers, and counsellors. Funny that men never objected to this kind of law that is gender-specific, that only protects women. Yes, it's skewed the idea of justice and created kangaroo courts, and yes, it's based on the idea that women must receive special protection from men and privileges from the government.

Heres a thought. Why do woman have the only say in whether to abort their child or not? Why don't men have a say? Isn't it there child too?

Until my opponents can go over that entire list, proving me wrong point by point and providing suitable counter-arguments for each thought I gave them, I'll be sure that gender equality has failed, and the tables have turned; that woman (thanks to modern day 'feminism') now have more rights and more bias from the law. And unless not just men, but woman too, begin to embrace that and come up with a solution for precise equality between both genders, I don't think it's going to change.

Edited by Walken, 19 April 2005 - 08:37 AM.

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#9    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 19 April 2005 - 09:20 PM

Hi guys!

Just a quick note that the point deductions if you go over the 7 day time frame to post will apply in this debate. If for any reason you cannot post within this period, please PM myself or Lottie.

Thank you. thumbsup.gif


#10    Mr. Fahrenheit

Mr. Fahrenheit

    Catcher in the Pumpernickel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined:10 Apr 2005
  • Location:Far above our heads, on the icy heights that contain all reason

  • All your flesh are belong to zombie
    ~ Burnside

Posted 19 April 2005 - 10:55 PM

INTRODUCTION
In the 1950's and before, women were confined to the house,
cooking and cleaning as their obligations, and they were
treated as inferior, unintelligent beings. This was wrong.
The women of the world needed to step up and speak for themselves.
They did. The feminists refused to be the underlings of the race. They've got most of the work done. But definitely not all of it.  
As to the answer of the debate question, it has not gone far enough.
Women are still looked down upon and excluded from many things,
professional sports leagues, church activities (such as being a bishop, priest, or pope), and women never seem to get past the first step when trying to be president (Hmmm, THERE'S A THOUGHT tongue.gif)
It is a well known fact that women are still paid twenty-five cents less than men an hour for the exact same position.
It is such discrimination that so clearly shows that men and women are not yet looked upon as equals. There are generally excepted generalities and stereotypes, such as ‘all women love shopping’, and ‘all men love sports’ (I don’t) that cannot and would not exist if our society was truly an equal one.  
Feminists should only stop at impartiality, and they're not there yet. If prejudice exists, there is no equality.
QUOTE
Heres a thought. Men are statistically twenty times more likely to get the death penalty than woman for the same crime.

Heres a thought. The draft laws only apply for men and only men have to register. Many argue that it doesnt matter, as it's highly unlikely that there will be a draft in the next twenty years. But what if there is? How quickly will they be able to change the law before the fighting starts, I wonder.

Thank You! I was going to use those points in our argument!
Men murder OVER 20 times more than women do (Statistically), and even if that doesn’t factor into the statistics, that point is prejudice AGAINST women. It shows that women are thought of as too fragile to be executed, and also that they don’t have to take full responsibility like the men do.  An Eye for an Eye, except if you are a woman, right? (Well, I don’t believe in an eye for an eye [or the death penalty]but it makes the point. )

The draft was going to be one of my major points. It shows that the government thinks that women aren't 'tough' enough to fight in a war without prior training, but men are. If that's not prejudice, nothing is.  Again, you made one of my arguments for me. I don't think the draft should exist at all, but that's my opinion.
QUOTE
Back in the sixties the pay equality act was passed. The gap between the average annual salary of a man and average annual salary of a woman has closed at such a rapid rate that if it were to continue in this way for just five more years woman would be earning more pay than men.

ERM? Have you read the news lately? It's still, as I said, an average quarter less an hour for the same position for women(Many a much larger ammount).  11- .25 Does not equal 11, unless I'm doing the math wrong.
QUOTE
Heres a thought. Men die earlier from all eight major causes of death. Yet there's never been a federal study as to why. Isn't that funny? But there's an office of Women's Health. None for men yet, maybe one day.

Ah, so the lack of a study means inequality? There's never been a study to see why women die later, so you can't really use that as an example.  There's a bill that was just submitted to establish an office of men's health, it doesn't mean anything that the women's office came first. (And just to stop you from saying what I know you were going to say, If the Men's Health Office had come first, and there was a bill out for establishing a Women's office, I would not be complaining.)  And no, it's not all that funny.

QUOTE
Heres a thought. How about that Violence Against Women act? It's created an entire industry of lawyers, social workers, and counsellors. Funny that men never objected to this kind of law that is gender-specific, that only protects women. Yes, it's skewed the idea of justice and created kangaroo courts, and yes, it's based on the idea that women must receive special protection from men and privileges from the government.

You think that they had a reason to object? All the law does is prevent Spousal Abuse, it was gender specific because women were ,most of the time, the ones being abused.
QUOTE
Heres a thought. Woman get the child in nearly 90% of contested custody cases. Strange, seeing as more commonly the man will be the one with the job and steady income. Then again, won't he lose one third of his income in a divorce, 75% of which are initated by woman? (stats from 2003)

I find the highlighted part offensive.  Women have a job pretty much as often as men do in these cases.  Women get the kids because they were seen more fit to take care of them.  Even if that sexist statement were true, I could just as easily say that the father had less time to spend with the children, since he's the 'only one' with a job.

QUOTE
Heres a thought. Why do woman have the only say in whether to abort their child or not? Why don't men have a say? Isn't it their child too?

Because it doesn't have to grow inside of the man's body, or rip out of it for that matter , in fact, after conception, it has nothing to do with the man's body. Many situations of abortion are when the father isn't in the picture, or the woman was raped. If you were a woman, could you imagine having the man who raped you force you to carry and deliver his baby?  
I  guess you can scratch those of the list!  (Sorry, I couldn't wait to debunk them)
P.S: Dis, it was funny with the extra Excellent!
P.P.S. It gets really annoying after a while when you keep saying "Here's a thought." (espicially since it doesn't make sense with a period) I know you were trying to make a point, but it comes off as a bit pompous.
I wasn't trying to be insulting with anything in this post, so I'm sorry if you thought I was.
C’est a toi.


Posted Image


~  Check out The Fray  ~


Proud Animator of the Animated Avatar Workshop


#11    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 20 April 2005 - 03:05 PM

Great Introduction thumbsup.gif

Main body post 1

In this post, the first of my main body posts, I will dispell many of the myths my opponent has put fowards in his introduction


QUOTE
Women are still looked down upon and excluded from many things,
professional sports leagues, church activities (such as being a bishop, priest, or pope), and women never seem to get past the first step when trying to be president (Hmmm, THERE'S A THOUGHT )


Now there is a myth. Woman have professional sports leagues. In fact I do believe the British womans football premiership had more succsess last year than any previous.

So why isn't there live coverage on televison? Why aren't the football players stars, appearing on newspapers and magazines? It's quite simple really, and obvious when you consider it. It's the same reason televison shows get cancalled; they don't pull in as much of an audience. The managers of the football league can hardly be expected to spend millions more on the womans football league if they aren't going to profit from it. Of course the next question a feminist will ask is 'Well why can't the men go and see the womans football instead?'

Because they'd rather see the teams they've grown up supporting, as have they're fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers (all before womans football). Also, mens football, due to it being much more publicised and having much larger audiences, will have a much better atmosphere than womans football. When I then put foward the question to my 'feminist friend', why doesn't she go and see a womans football game, she replied "'cause I'm not interested in football", hardly a valid argument. She then further ruined what was once a fair statement by saying 'Well surely men would want to see the womans legs and stuff'. rolleyes.gif

Church activities? Hardly. There are no woman bishops or, more topical, popes, because that is considered against gods will. It is thought this because Jesus had 12 disciples, men, and no woman, who travelled with him. If feminists fighting for a woman pope knew this then they would also know that they're fighting an entire church, one of the worlds best established, along with it's holy books and central beliefs. Whether or not this is sexist, it is an issue of religion, not feminism.

And a woman for president? Well, Hilary Clinton is certainly on the right path. In fact, she seems two or three steps higher than her husband was at this time. Woman are not never elected as president or prime minister because they're woman, just as Margaret Thatcher was not hated because she was a woman. The United States of America will have a woman president one day, possibly soon, however whether or not she will be successful remains to be seen.

So there is a thought. You just haven't thought it through.

QUOTE
It is a well known fact that women are still paid twenty-five cents less than men an hour for the exact same position.


This is the second biggest myth associated with modern feminism; its a lie, it's misleading and it has been discredited on hundreds of occasions. The 75 cent figure is terribly misleading. This statistic is a snapshot of all current full-time workers. It does not consider relevant factors like length of time in the workplace, education, occupation, and number of hours worked per week. (The experience gap is particularly large between older men and women in the workplace.) When economists do the proper controls, as have been done many times before since this figure was first released, in a feminist book might I add, the so-called gender wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.


QUOTE
There are generally excepted generalities and stereotypes, such as ‘all women love shopping’, and ‘all men love sports’ (I don’t) that cannot and would not exist if our society was truly an equal one.
Feminists should only stop at impartiality, and they're not there yet. If prejudice exists, there is no equality.


Indeed, neither do I. A recent study showed that men actually spend more on their wifes/girlfriends than they do on football.

Not to relevant, but it is some interesting reading is you're interested.

I wonder how long it will be until the feminists begin to fight for equality on mens behalf? I wonder how long it'll be until the modern day feminist allies itself with fathers for justice? Excuse me if I'm still waiting in a decades time. I predict a huge up-hill struggle, comparable to that of the suffragettes, in the near future for the fathers 4 justice. I also wonder why feminists are campagening that genetic screenings and DNA tests cannot be performed on their child without the permission. Did you read that study that up to one-third of fathers aren't really the child's father? Of course, if the man finds out that he isn't really the father, he still has to pay child support--after all, what's most important is the child. Maybe thats why, hmm?

QUOTE
Men murder OVER 20 times more than women do (Statistically), and even if that doesn’t factor into the statistics, that point is prejudice AGAINST women. It shows that women are thought of as too fragile to be executed, and also that they don’t have to take full responsibility like the men do. An Eye for an Eye, except if you are a woman, right? (Well, I don’t believe in an eye for an eye [or the death penalty]but it makes the point. )


Firstly, You're right. That is in no way a factor of the statistics I put fowards.

Secondly, I don't see feminists campaining against this. Do you? Are their feminists outside your local courtroom yelling 'Kill her!' and sporting signs that say 'Execute her like you'd execute him!'? So much for equal rights, I guess.

QUOTE
ERM? Have you read the news lately? It's still, as I said, an average quarter less an hour for the same position for women(Many a much larger ammount). 11- .25 Does not equal 11, unless I'm doing the math wrong.


By the time you read this part of this post you would already know the truth about that feminist myth.

QUOTE
Ah, so the lack of a study means inequality? There's never been a study to see why women die later, so you can't really use that as an example. There's a bill that was just submitted to establish an office of men's health, it doesn't mean anything that the women's office came first.


Of course there hasn't. Womans life expectancy is no problem. It's all of the men that will die eight years earlier. I hardly see how twisting my argument and asking for a study into the opposite weakens this argument.

As for the office of mens health, I'm glad to see that. Of course, perhaps now they'll be a little more actual equality. I wonder how the feminists will react to this?

QUOTE
You think that they had a reason to object? All the law does is prevent Spousal Abuse, it was gender specific because women were ,most of the time, the ones being abused.


Of course, gender stereotypes mean that a man who was abused by his wife is a lot less likely to report it. Think this is a shallow argument? Funny, because don't the feminists frequently argue that 'a lot more woman have been sexually assaulted or raped than will report it'?.

QUOTE
I find the highlighted part offensive. Women have a job pretty much as often as men do in these cases. Women get the kids because they were seen more fit to take care of them. Even if that sexist statement were true, I could just as easily say that the father had less time to spend with the children, since he's the 'only one' with a job.


I'm sorry if I offended you, but surely that statistic cannot be denied? More men have jobs than woman; Proven statistically. More woman stay at home as housewifes and look after the children during the day than men do; Proven statistically. I really doubt that, and I'd like to see you debate that at the next fathers for justice rally. Perhaps the woman had spent more time with the children why the father was at work, but I don't really see how that makes the father any worse of a parent.

And don't ever try arguing that woman make better parents again, please. The strength of a parent depends on outside influence, it is not genetic.

QUOTE
Because it doesn't have to grow inside of the man's body, or rip out of it for that matter , in fact, after conception, it has nothing to do with the man's body. Many situations of abortion are when the father isn't in the picture, or the woman was raped. If you were a woman, could you imagine having the man who raped you force you to carry and deliver his baby?


If a father doesn't want his baby but the woman does, the father still has to pay child support. And rightly so. He made the decision to gratify himself sexually, just like the woman did. So why should she alone have to bear the burden of raising the child for the rest of her life? Consequently, the father will pay child support.

But what about the father who fervently wants his unborn child to live? Does he have the right to stop the mother from having an abortion? No. So, then, fathers have to pay child support, but have no say in the abortion decision.

Equal rights, I guess.

Equal as in, the father has no say, but still has to pay. The father will have his child killed, and not even get a choice.

I don't see many feminists campaining against this, do you?

QUOTE
I guess you can scratch those of the list! (Sorry, I couldn't wait to debunk them)


I guess I can put them back on there. Thats unless you wish to challenge the counter arguments put fowards in this debate?

QUOTE
I know you were trying to make a point, but it comes off as a bit pompous.
I wasn't trying to be insulting with anything in this post, so I'm sorry if you thought I was.
C’est a toi.


I guess it does. I'll remember that.

That concludes my first main body post. I look foward to the reply.

That was fun. I can tell I'm going to enjoy this debate.

Edited by Walken, 20 April 2005 - 03:09 PM.

Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#12    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 30 April 2005 - 03:31 AM

Since we've had 2 participants (one on each team) drop out of the debate, this will now be a formal 1 vs 1 debate.

We have Walken who is debating against feminism in today's society;
And UniversalParadox who is debating for feminism.

So we're now looking for UniversalParadox's first body post.

PM me with any questions.  thumbsup.gif


#13    Mr. Fahrenheit

Mr. Fahrenheit

    Catcher in the Pumpernickel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined:10 Apr 2005
  • Location:Far above our heads, on the icy heights that contain all reason

  • All your flesh are belong to zombie
    ~ Burnside

Posted 02 May 2005 - 09:56 PM

A few notes before I begin my post:
I never said that women make better parents. What I said was that, when mothers win, it was because they were the better parent. They don't win for no reason.
Can you prove that the  $.75-1 fact is a myth?

BODY POST ONE
Challenge accepted. I will dispute what you said.
QUOTE
So why isn't there live coverage on televison? Why aren't the football players stars, appearing on newspapers and magazines? It's quite simple really, and obvious when you consider it. It's the same reason televison shows get cancalled; they don't pull in as much of an audience. The managers of the football league can hardly be expected to spend millions more on the womans football league if they aren't going to profit from it.



That statement is pretty much self-defeating.  Women's sports aren't on TV because no one watches them when they're on TV. Hmm. Also, one of the reasons so many people watch the sports is because of how much funding is put in to advertise it. So, if there isn't as much promotion, how are as many people going to watch it, or know it exists? Anyway, my point was, there aren't Co-ed teams in the proffesional leagues. Women aren't even considered for the teams, no matter how talented they are.
Where you said that no one ever said "kill her", that would be irrelevant if it was true. Just because not a lot of people fight for it doesn't mean it's not wrong. I'm against the death penalty in general,
QUOTE
Because they'd rather see the teams they've grown up supporting, as have they're fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers (all before womans football). Also, mens football, due to it being much more publicised and having much larger audiences, will have a much better atmosphere than womans football. When I then put foward the question to my 'feminist friend', why doesn't she go and see a womans football game, she replied "'cause I'm not interested in football", hardly a valid argument. She then further ruined what was once a fair statement by saying 'Well surely men would want to see the womans legs and stuff'.

Again, self-defeaty-ness.
QUOTE
Church activities? Hardly. There are no woman bishops or, more topical, popes, because that is considered against gods will. It is thought this because Jesus had 12 disciples, men, and no woman, who travelled with him. If feminists fighting for a woman pope knew this then they would also know that they're fighting an entire church, one of the worlds best established, along with it's holy books and central beliefs. Whether or not this is sexist, it is an issue of religion, not feminism.
This carries one of the theories that bothers me the most. It goes like this: "Well, they've been doing things wrong for a long time, so it's like tradition to do things wrong, so they should." The reason that Jesus the Great Magician had  just men following him was becuase women weren't allowed to go anywhere back then. Sexism justifies Sexism? I think not. Also, at the beginning of this paragraph, you said they aren't excluded from church activities, but then went on to admit that they are.

QUOTE
Of course there hasn't. Womans life expectancy is no problem. It's all of the men that will die eight years earlier. I hardly see how twisting my argument and asking for a study into the opposite weakens this argument.

As for the office of mens health, I'm glad to see that. Of course, perhaps now they'll be a little more actual equality. I wonder how the feminists will react to this?

As far as twisting your argument goes, I didn't. I just said that just because people haven't got around to studying why men die earlier as opposed to oh, say, cancer, doesn't show sexism. But anyway, what are you implying with that last sentence? That feminists will react badly to giving men a health office? Why would they?They were  lucky enough to get one first.
QUOTE
Heres a thought. Why is it that women can hit men in the movies, even knock them unconscious, but men can't hit back? Funny how there's so much attention on kicking men in the groin in movies and TV now. Isn't that legally sexual assault? Sure is a big joke.

Yes it is a BIG JOKE. That's all it is. The whole thing is.  Men murder women in movies all the time. Does that mean it's sexist? No. blink.gif

I don't know how anyone can look at today's society and think it's an even playing field. You can look at anything and see the prejudice. Girls are 'taught' at an early age that they should be playing with barbie dolls and dream houses. Any time that a toy involves clothes, accessories, cooking or cleaning, it is always marketed towards girls. But all the toys that involve construction, bulldozing, or weapons always have a little boy on the cover and playing with the toy in the commercial. Disturbingly, sometimes they will have the boy with his arm around the girl, sending the message that the boy should rule the girl at a very early age. Surely you can't dispute that this is an extremely sexist world when there are commercials on TV every ten seconds that say or show something like "Mama's got the magic of Clorox" or a woman dusting, washing clothes, or cleaning dishes. Did you ever notice that whenever it's a man doing any of these things, they always show him confused about what to do? There's a thought, huh?



Posted Image


~  Check out The Fray  ~


Proud Animator of the Animated Avatar Workshop


#14    Walken

Walken

    Deus ex Machina

  • Banned
  • 10,249 posts
  • Joined:07 Dec 2004
  • Location:The Mothership

  • "I've done everything you wanted me to do; so why did you do this to me?!"

Posted 03 May 2005 - 06:55 PM

Sorry Uni, this is going to be a very long one. But hopefully you'll think it was worth it when you get to 'The Vote'.

Main body post 2

In this post I intend to reply to my opponents last, and give some more examples of gender bias

QUOTE
Can you prove that the $.75-1 fact is a myth?


Of course I can. Read my source- Why men earn more. It is a very intresting book that clearly outlines how woman below a certain age and unmarried will on average earn slightly more than men, where as older woman will earn slightly less than older men due to the experience gap, which is now closing.

To summerise the books contents, woman below the age of 29, unmarried and without children, will earn 106 cents for evrey dollar a man of the same age and positon earns. Men above this age will make just below that more than a woman each year. The book clearly explains how at the moment, on average, woman are earning more than men, but only just, therefore the margin of area from the study overlaps the even marker.

QUOTE
That statement is pretty much self-defeating. Women's sports aren't on TV because no one watches them when they're on TV. Hmm.


Actually they were on televison. They were shown on ITV here in the UK before they were cancalled. The viewing figures were appuling. If evrey feminist who ever complained about a lack of coverage of womans sports watched it, it'd be a ratings high. Of course, they didn't.

QUOTE
Where you said that no one ever said "kill her", that would be irrelevant if it was true. Just because not a lot of people fight for it doesn't mean it's not wrong.


Then when will someone start doing something about it? When will the feminists, with their cries of equal rights, start working for mens rights? When will they start working for rights in favour of others? When will they start working towards true equality?

We've established that it is wrong that woman are 20 x less likely to get the death penaltey for the same crime as a man. So now let's establish why it is wrong.

Because it is sexist. It is sexual discrimination, in that which men are judged and treated more harshly than woman, for the one reason that they are men. But do feminists, who do, afterall, want equal rights, campagin against this?

No. Because the movement is not about equal rights. It is about womans rights; the empowerment of woman above that of men. That is what feminism is.

QUOTE
Again, self-defeaty-ness.


Not really. As clearly explained, their used to be coverage. It stopped because the ratings were so terrible. But the feminists do not then go to the games do they?

Lack of coverage in womans sports is just another excuse for feminism. If feminists wanted they could have live coverage of womans sports back on the menu simply by going to a game. But no. Rather than do something about it, they will blame men and decleare it an act of sexual discrimination.

QUOTE
This carries one of the theories that bothers me the most. It goes like this: "Well, they've been doing things wrong for a long time, so it's like tradition to do things wrong, so they should." The reason that Jesus the Great Magician had just men following him was becuase women weren't allowed to go anywhere back then. Sexism justifies Sexism? I think not. Also, at the beginning of this paragraph, you said they aren't excluded from church activities, but then went on to admit that they are.


Firstly, statistics show woman are becoming more involved (and sucsessful, where relavent) in schools, church, socially. I never said woman were excluded from religeon, I said they could not be popes or bishops in the catholic faith. Once again, this is just one faith. If you find it sexist that you cannot be a pope or bishop because you're a woman then you're not a fundamentalist catholic anyway.

Other faiths provide the same oppertunitys for woman and men. Some, such as Pagan and Wicca, even provide more.

Therefor if it is sexist that you cannot be a pope or bishop in the catholic faith, or that you cannot be a god in the Mormon faith, it is sexist that you cannot be a god in the Pagan faith if you're a man.

QUOTE
As far as twisting your argument goes, I didn't. I just said that just because people haven't got around to studying why men die earlier as opposed to oh, say, cancer, doesn't show sexism.


Actually it does. Men die earlier of all eight major causes of death, yet there has never been a study as to one. Further more study into breast cancer receives fourteen times more federal funding than prostate cancer. Why is this, considoring both genders pay taxes? And men pay more into social security taxes than woman...  innocent.gif

QUOTE
...hey were lucky enough to get one first.


They wern't lucky, they were grateful, because it was men who gave it to them and men and woman alike payed for it. This leads me to my next section.

Woman- Oppressed by men for 2000 years

This is the lie we constantly see spinning from newspapers and spewing from the mouths of a million feminists. Thats what it is; A lie.

2000 years ago? Why is it that I am the only one who questions this? After the death of Jesus Christ was the earth suddenly launched into a woman-bashing phase? Of course not! Woman have never been the oppressed Gender.

What about 500-600 years ago? Did woman start being oppressed then?

Hardly. They received more consideration than  anyone.

From about 1430 until 1832 the first of the political reform Acts some four hundred years, very few people indeed were able to vote. If my instinct is correct, in today's terms you would need to have been something like a cash millionaire to be able to vote, or, which is more likely an extremely high standing in society. We are talking lord of the manor here. Catholics weren't able to vote and neither were Jews. Parliament which is nothing like it is today was mainly made up of land owners and Vast swathes of the country had no representation at all.

There isn't really any mention that a woman of great standing was not allowed to vote but in the year 1831 and census was conducted and it was determined that in 1832 with passing of the first reform act, roughly 2% of the whole of the UK population was eligible to vote. The whole system was still corrupt.

Alrighty, so what happened after this?

The 'oppressed' gender received the first ever peice of consideration of it's kind. In 1844 women and children under 18, working hours, were limited to 12 hours. No such restriction on men.

So which groups of people rights were considered first, Men or women and children ?

...So which gender was oppressed....? innocent.gif

Okay, but the female oppression myth must have come from somewhere, right?

1847 and yet another reduction in working hours for women and children, this time to 10 hours. No such restriction on men.

So which groups of people rights were considered second, Men or women and children ? So much for female oppression, I guess.

Okay, so where did the oppresion myth come from? What happened next?

1867-1914

The 1867 Reform Act gave the vote to about 1,500,000. Roughly 6%. The 1884 Reform Act added about 6,000,000 voters. Roughly 24%. I'd like to stress that there is still no mention of woman not being given the vote. It has nothing to do with gender.

But we already know at some point, woman didn't have the vote. They had to fight and sacrafice for it. But how much did they truly sacrafice? And what about the common man? When did he get the vote?

The Great war.

The grewat war begins and propaganda emerges from all sides. A scheme is thought up in which woman would give any man not serving in the army a white feather to show he was a coward. This scheme was then led by the goverment, the millitary, and the feminists. Some of the leading feminists at the time such as Emmeline Pankhurst, Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney played a leading role as speakers at meetings to shame young men into the army.

Instead of volunteering to go to war themselves, or being thankful for the sacrafices these young men were making, feminists stayed at home complaining about how they didn't have equal rights in areas that suited them and shaming men into joining the army.

When this war had finally ended there were some 10,000,000 men dead, 21,000,000 wounded and 7,000,000 prisoners or missing.

And look who were some of the main activists in forcing men to die.

The vote

This is it. The big Shin-dig. The ultimate arguement for feminism and the proof of oppresion from men, inflicted upon woman one hundred years ago. The vote.

So, I ask you this. Do you know how long after common man got the vote, common woman did? 100 years? 80? 50?

Ten.

It took Ten years.

Can you beleive that? I couldn't at first.

As a reward for there sacrifices, had they lived to 1918 all men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote. Common man had the vote.

And as a reward for the efforts the feminist and women's movement in sending so many of our men to their death women over 30 were given the vote.

So, hang on...woman were never denied the vote, right? Men and woman both got the vote in 1918. Men just got the right to vote 9 years younger than woman as their reward for their work in the war.

A typical feminist type response with regard voting rights that if it wasn't for Emily Wilding Davison who threw herself under the King's horse, Anmer, as it rounded Tattenham Corner women wouldn't have had the vote.

My response to the typical feminist on this issue now, is your forbearers helped to commit genocide to get the vote.

Women got the right to vote at 21 in 1928 some 10 years later at the cost of 10,000,000 lives and one martyr.

The actual difference was 10 years not a 100 or 2000, but 10.

The only difference in voting rights throughout this time was that men could vote 9 years earlier than woman. Thats 2 general elections.

Read evreything from 'The vote' again. Take it all in.

Woman got the vote at the same voting age as men thanks to one martyr.

Men got the right to vote at a lower age than woman after 10,000,000 deaths, and countless wounded and missing.

So much for woman being the oppressed sex.


Posted Image

Finish The Fight - November, 2007.


#15    Mr. Fahrenheit

Mr. Fahrenheit

    Catcher in the Pumpernickel

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined:10 Apr 2005
  • Location:Far above our heads, on the icy heights that contain all reason

  • All your flesh are belong to zombie
    ~ Burnside

Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:29 AM

All those words and really nothing to say.
BODY POST TWO
QUOTE
oppression myth...oppression myth...myth of oppression...oppresion myth

Walken, now you have gone to far. To say that women were Never oppressed, to go so far as to say that there was but one sacrifice, to say that women were the cause of every single casualty, injury, and missing person in the 'great war ', is to go where I never thought you would. Insulting the very base of feminism. Maybe you should read the name of the debate. 'Has feminism gone too far?'. It's not 'Feminism: Should it ever had existed?'
QUOTE
No. Because the movement is not about equal rights. It is about womans rights; the empowerment of woman above that of men. That is what feminism is.

Wow. In this post, you have said, basically, that women were NEVER thought of as lesser, that feminists never wanted equality, but in fact superiority, and that men, in fact, are the suppressed ones. There's also the fact that I can dispute your theory that women were never excluded from voting. While your argument is based on inferences, mine is based on fact.
The ammendments of the constitution which go over voting (except the one which
gives women the right to vote) say that men are given the rights to vote. They don't mention women, and it's clear that it wasn't meant in the way of the species of man. Even the Civil Rights Movements, which gave African Americans (African American MEN, that is) the right to vote, did not apply to women. In some states it was actually ILLEGAL, meaning you could and would be arrested, to vote if you were a woman.
QUOTE
    Actually it does. Men die earlier of all eight major causes of death, yet there has never been a study as to one. Further more study into breast cancer receives fourteen times more federal funding than prostate cancer. Why is this, considoring both genders pay taxes? And men pay more into social security taxes than woman... 


QUOTE
...hey were lucky enough to get one first.


They wern't lucky, they were grateful, because it was men who gave it to them and men and woman alike payed for it.
.

Oh. Men pay more into social security? I thought women made more money than men. Strange.  Oh and by the way: Just because it says it in a book, doesn't mean it's true. Or else we'd all see hobbits and dementors everywhere.
Oh, right. Men gave them the health offices because, you know, women aren't in congress or senate or anything. It's the big strong men with their big-strongness that makes the real decisions, right? Just leave the little decisions like, what to feed that man for breakfast. Unbelievable.
QUOTE
The 'oppressed' gender received the first ever peice of consideration of it's kind. In 1844 women and children under 18, working hours, were limited to 12 hours. No such restriction on men.

So which groups of people rights were considered first, Men or women and children ?
Another point that you twisted to put on your side.  See the word 'restriction'? Can you hear yourself talk sometimes?

QUOTE
Because it is sexist. It is sexual discrimination*Right, Right*, in that which men are judged and treated more harshly than woman, for the one reason that they are men*OH OH OH, Wait a second, didn't I have a valid argument which you said nothing about right here? Who can tell which, though, since you ignored  everything except my rebuttals to your statements in my last post*.. But do feminists, who do, afterall, want equal rights, campagin against this?


   Women can be degraded constantly on telivision or in movies, but if they 'dare' to say a derrogetory term about men, it usually ends up on the cutting room floor. A woman can be called a .female dog. to her face, but a woman calls a man a pig on cable and it's  bleeped out.
So, I guess since we can just say anything we want is a myth now, you're a myth, I'm a myth, EVeryone's a Myth MYth. I'm sort of sorry if I seemed harsh, but it was worth it, right?
P.S.: So this wasn't sexist either, right? [attachmentid=14372] (A poster for the US Navy) If you can't read it, It says:"GEE! I wish I were a man so I could be in the navy!"

Attached Files



Posted Image


~  Check out The Fray  ~


Proud Animator of the Animated Avatar Workshop





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users