Feminism - A force for good? [Archive]

Vlerchan

March 13th, 2014, 06:14 PM

I think the equality gap is incredibly small and I'm fed up of feminists complaining.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_womens_earnings_and_employment_by_industry_2009.png
Tiny.

Then there's pregnancy discrimination: woman being turned-down for promotion and in cases (such as after a marriage) being sacked (Example) (http://www.thelocal.de/20130905/51769) as they've the potential to become pregnant.

And the pressure placed on woman as opposed to men to stay at home and mind children: 40-ish% of woman work part-time in order to help rear children whilst only 3% of men will do the same (Source) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/wp/2013/08/13/why-women-still-earn-less-than-men-its-the-kids-fault/).

This is just examples of the glaring economic inequality. I can get started on social inequality in a moment if you're still in doubt. It's a lot broader.

There are loads of reasons why 'masculinism' is needed[1]: men are more likely to be put into prison for violent crimes and for gang related crimes[2]; men are less likely to report mental illnesses and domestic abuse[3]; men are more likely to kill themselves[4], or be homeless[5]; in family court, mothers are far more likely to get custody of a child[6] and loads more[7].

[1]: Enlighten me. I'm also presuming here that you mean the traits commonly associated with men but not actually inherent to men.

[2]: Please provide verifiable proof in support of this claim. Thanks.

[3]: This comes as a direct-result of the 'masculinism' that you proposed was needed. Feminists seek to crush this notion.

[4]: This comes as a direct-result of the 'masculinism' that you proposed was needed. Feminists seek to crush this notion.

[5]: This comes as a direct-result of the 'masculinism' that you proposed was needed. Feminists seek to crush this notion.

[6]: This is because the woman is commonly the figure who has done the majority of the rearing - it exists as a direct result of the imposed gender-values on woman. See the statistics that I presented above.

[7]: Don't be a afraid to keep going.

Sure feminism is important, but it should be about equality[8]- women are not the only ones with problems[9].

[8]: It is.

[9]: You'll find that the problems exist as a direct result of men fighting to maintain their dominance in a patriarchal society - something that requires the continued belief in gender and subsequently gender-roles.

Yonkers

March 13th, 2014, 07:01 PM

abcd

Vlerchan

March 13th, 2014, 07:53 PM

I'm not sure if you understand want feminism actually advocates.

[1]: I do not understand in what way you want me to enlighten you, maculinism is literally just the male-orientated version of feminism.Ah. I thought that you were mis-spelling masculinity here - the use of quotes didn't help. Regardless, I find 'masculinism' to be redundant if not down-right harmful: feminism seeks to eliminate the idea of gender and gender-difference and masculanism tends to undermine this by pitting the genders against each other and attempting to frame it as such that the genders have conflicting goals. The actual end-goal of feminism is the elimination of any notion pertaining gender or gender-difference - that's how equality will be reached.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Would you mind quoting the relevant passages?

The phone I use can't open PDFs.

[3 and 4]: Please give me an actual argument[1]. It is actually because men are expected to just 'deal' with their problems. Western culture unfairly dictates that men should hide their problems to remain 'tough' and 'masculine'[2].

[1]: The end-goal of feminism is to eliminate the idea of gender and gender-difference. If such where to happen the problems you outlined, which arise directly from the idea of gender and gender-difference, would be simultaneously eliminated.

[2]: Yes. Feminism aims to eliminate such expectations unfairly imposed on the sexes from birth. It will happen through the elimination of the idea of gender and gender-difference.

All I know is 70% of homeless people are male.
This issue directly rises from the modern male psych: one in which risk-taking and independence are perceived important and masculine traits. I'm presuming I don't need to elaborate on how the encouragement of such traits in men naturally lead to increased rates of homelessness - i.e., it's late (1 AM), I'm tired and honestly not really bothered.

This was once true. However, if women wish to reverse these gender-roles, then why does it still happen?[3] That fact is that 5 out 6 child custody cases are won by mothers and this is an equality that needs to be fixed for the good of men and women.
In addition, the 3% to whom you were referring are a minority because the idea of a stay at home dad is considered so ridiculous that these men are mocked in the media[4]. The same goes for men who want other traditionally female orientated careers such as primary school teachers and nannies[5].
[3]: Feminism aims to eliminate the idea of gender and especially its attachment to physical-sex.

[4]: Feminism aims to eliminate such expectations unfairly imposed on the sexes from birth. It will happen through the elimination of the idea of gender and gender-difference.

[5]: Feminism aims to eliminate such expectations unfairly imposed on the sexes from birth. It will happen through the elimination of the idea of gender and gender-difference.

Males perform more poorly than women in exams; more women have Bachelor's degrees than men; young men, including those from an ethnic minority, are more likely to drop out from school; male circumcision still happens; women actually earn more than men (http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html);[7] breast cancer (which generally affects women more than men) attracts than any other type of cancer; most work place deaths are males.
I presume it's acceptable for me to respond to all of the above at once: this is because in our gendered-society we've certain traits encouraged more-so in certain genders. This fuels inequality. This would end with the elimination of gender and gender-difference. I can answer each point individually if needs be.

[6]: Links broken.

Feminism was originally about equality, but men's issues are being ignored. So nope.
I hope you come to realise from the above as to how they're not.

Men feel pressured to maintain this dominance. It's not to do with the belief all men share that 'women are worse than men' attitude[7]. It's simply because men have brought up to believe this[8].
[7]: It's the 'men are inherently different (gender-wise) to women' attitude that's the current problem.

[8]: ... which is what feminism aims to change.

Who cares if the patriarchy is because traditionally men thought they were great?[8] We need to all move past these stupid concepts and focus on making everything equal for everyone[9].
[9]: It's the 'men are inherently different (gender-wise) to woman' attitude that is the current problem. As long as this attitude exists the issues both you and I outlined will remain.

[10]: This is only possible through the elimination of the idea of gender and gender-difference.

EDIT - to avoid confusion: This briefly outlines the difference between sex and gender and what I mean when I refer to both. (http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/)

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 03:07 PM

Hey guys,

Feminism is a topic that I have been getting more interested in of late but I am still somewhat un-educated in the area. I seem to think that certain types of feminism and some things that feminists campaign for are actually really good like equal pay, more action of the sexual harrassment of women, female circumcision and dare I say it, access to safe and legal termination of unwated pregnancies.

So what do you guys think? Is feminism something we need more of in this world, or in society or should the idea and/or concept be dropped?

Really keen to hear your views on this one!

Well it does have it's draw backs for example:

Due to radical feminism in the USA laws are written so that in the case of a divorce the mother automatically gets the child, no matter how good a parent the father is.
It's like the father has to prove not only is he a good parent but the mother is a bad parent ,while the mother really doesn't have to prove a thing!

PinkFloyd

March 16th, 2014, 03:15 PM

If it's feminists that are for EQUALITY and not prejudicing against men, then I'm for it.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 03:36 PM

If it's feminists that are for EQUALITY and not prejudicing against men, then I'm for it.

same here.

Also I think the radical feminists are destroying true feminism and even femininity...

Melodic

March 16th, 2014, 03:46 PM

I'm all for it, I think feminism equality is a good thing and I want that for me as a female.

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 03:46 PM

Due to radical feminism in the USA laws are written so that in the case of a divorce the mother automatically gets the child, no matter how good a parent the father is.
This is untrue.

Also I think the radical feminists are destroying true feminism and even femininity...
The aim of radical-feminism is to destroy the notion of femininity and lead the march to a post-gender society - because this is the only way equality will be achieved. I find that to be quite an admirable goal.

Though, I'm curious: what's true feminism.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 03:48 PM

This is untrue.

The aim of radical-feminism is to destroy the notion of femininity and lead the march to a post-gender society - because this is the only way equality will be achieved. I find that to be quite an admirable goal.

Though, I'm curious: what's true feminism.

post-gender society ? care to to explain what your talking about?

I looked up post gender society ands found something on postgenderism and it said:

Postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assistive reproductive technologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postgenderism

And I can say it's the stupidest most dehumanizing think I have ever heard off if that's what you mean by post gender society

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 03:55 PM

post-gender society ? care to to explain what your talking about?
I'm talking about a society where we've abandoned any notions of gender and/or gender difference. There'll need to be advances in reproductive technology for this to happen, of course, though that's a much lesser goal compared to having all individuals abandon the notion of genders connections to physical-sex or its existence altogether.

And I can say it's the stupidest most dehumanizing think I have ever heard off if that's what you mean by post gender society
This is a rather unconvincing argument if it was supposed to be one.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 04:04 PM

I'm talking about a society where we've abandoned any notions of gender and/or gender difference. There'll need to be advances in reproductive technology for this to happen, of course, though that's a much lesser goal compared to having all individuals abandon the notion of genders connections to physical-sex or its existence altogether.

( And you'd rather live in some Brave New World type of society?
Sorry there are natural diffrences in the genders,nature put them there and no denying them and coming up with such dehumanizing ideas as abandoning notions of gender is going to change that!

Lets face it because i'm male i'm going to tend to be stronger then a female,not getting past that clear difference in the genders..plus I would not want to living in a gender blind society because theres no uniqueness among people it's all just a glorified way of creating sameness,and nature did not make humans to be the SAME and all a post gender society is aimed at is creating a drone society of SAMENESS.)

This is a rather unconvincing argument if it was supposed to be one.

No it was not an argument juts my thought on it.

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 04:15 PM

And you'd rather live in some Brave New World type of society?[1]
Sorry there are natural diffrences in the genders[2],nature put them there and no denying them[3] and coming up with such dehumanizing ideas[4] as abandoning notions of gender is going to change that![5]
[1]: It would be nothing like Brave New World. It would be an entirely conscious and deliberate abandonment of all ideas pertaining towards gender and gender-difference.

[2]: There's zero concrete scientific evidence supporting this claim.

[3]: Please present verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Note: I'm talking gender here and not physical-sex. I linked to definitions of both above.

[4]: Define: dehumanising. I'm unsure how it could apply by mine own definition.

[5]: Gender is a social construct. If we all decided it didn't exist - i.e., abandoned all notions of it - then it would cease to exist.

Lets face it because i'm male i'm going to tend to be stronger then a female[6],not getting past that clear difference in the genders[7]..plus I would not want to living in a gender blind society because theres no uniqueness among people[8] it's all just a glorified way of creating sameness,and nature did not make humans to be the SAME and all a post gender society is aimed at is creating a drone society of SAMENESS[9].)
[6]:. Key word: tend.

[7]: I'm honestly not sure you know what gender means.

[8]: Yes. There would.

[9]: Replace SAMENESS with EQUALITY and you are about right.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 04:24 PM

[1]: It would be nothing like Brave New World. It would be an entirely conscious and deliberate abandonment of all ideas pertaining towards gender and gender-difference.

( Still too Brave New World for my blood)

[2]: There's zero concrete scientific evidence supporting this claim.

( Just open your eyes. For one thing males are stronger then women,males can build more muscle then women)

[3]: Please present verifiable evidence in support of this claim. Note: I'm talking gender here and not physical-sex. I linked to definitions of both above.

( see number 2)

[4]: Define: dehumanising. I'm unsure how it could apply this by mine own definition.

( by deciding to ignore gender you are trying to make everyone the same and that's DEHUMANIZING)

[5]: Gender is a social construct. If we all decided it didn't exist - i.e., abandoned all notions of it - then it would cease to exist.

( gender is not a social construct..it is a natural construct and deciding it doe snot exist is like ignoring gravity..just because you say it's not there doe snot mean when you throw a ball up in the air it's going to keep going up instead of eventually falling down)

6]:. Key word: tend.

Well iwith most of todays do nothing males(can't say men) who want to set down and play video games of course they are not going to be much stronger then a woman,but you get guys and girls active lifting weights and stuff to build up strength,and very few women can match men in strength)

[7]: I'm honestly not sure you know what gender means.

( not the same thing as your psudeo-scinetic definitions of gender)

[8]: Yes. There would.

( no there wouldn't be)

[9]: Replace SAMENESS with EQUALITY and you are about right.

( you can have a society of equals without trying to erase gender)

:rolleyes: about number 5 thanks for making me laugh so hard I nearly choked while downing my Stomach Pounder.

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 04:55 PM

( Still too Brave New World for my blood)
Then we've both read two different books named Brave New World because there is nothing Brave New World about what I'm suggesting.

( Just open your eyes. For one thing males are stronger then women,males can build more muscle then women)
Please read the link I provided on the difference between physical-sex and gender.

( by deciding to ignore gender you are trying to make everyone the same and that's DEHUMANIZING)
I'd think it is a lot more dehumanising to start making assumptions about someone based on the fact that they've a penis or vagina.

gender is not a social construct [...] t is a natural construct
No. Ones physical-sex is a natural-construct. Ones gender is a social-construct. I'm not sure whether you're misunderstanding the term social-construct or gender now. I'm leaning more towards gender, though. Here's a lovely article on it - saves me having to go through it myself: thefeministagenda.blogspot.ie/2009/04/social-construction-of-gender.html?m=1

not the same thing as your psudeo-scinetic definitions of gender
My pseudo-scientific definition of gender is the definition accepted by organisations such as the UN and WHO as well as most modern dictionaries. Though, please; if I'm so wrong, feel free to offer your own definition.

( no there wouldn't be)
I'm not sure you realise how ridiculous you sound here. Are all men the same because we share the same gender? If not, what makes us different?

( you can have a society of equals without trying to erase gender)
I don't believe so. It's the existence of gender and the values associated with - and consequently promoted/encouraged within - both male and females that fuels inequality.

Aside: Please respond outside of my quotes. It just makes it difficult for me otherwise - because respond-with-quotes does show quotes quoted in message.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 05:02 PM

Then we've both read two different books named Brave New World because there is nothing Brave New World about what I'm suggesting.

Please read the link I provided on the difference between physical-sex and gender. Though, regardless, you're wrong: http://www.yourtango.com/2011104494/study-women-are-stronger-sex

I'd think it is a lot more dehumanising to start making assumptions about someone based on the fact that they've a penis or vagina.

No. Ones physical-sex is a natural-construct. Ones gender is a social-construct. I'm not sure whether you're misunderstanding the term social-construct or gender now. I'm leaning more towards gender, though. Here's a lovely article on it - saves me having to go through it myself: thefeministagenda.blogspot.ie/2009/04/social-construction-of-gender.html?m=1

My pseudo-scientific definition of gender is the definition accepted by organisations such as the UN and WHO as well as most modern dictionaries. Though, please; if I'm so wrong, feel free to offer your own definition.

I'm not sure you realise how ridiculous you sound here. Are all men the same because we share the same gender? If not, what makes us different?

I don't believe so. It's the existence of gender and the values associated with - and consequently promoted/encouraged within - both male and females that fuels inequality.

Aside: Please respond outside of my quotes. It just makes it difficult for me otherwise - because respond-with-quotes does show quotes quoted in message.

lets agree to disagree,you have your views and would like to live in a genderless world,and I have my views and most definiately would not want to live in a genderless world!

StoppingTime

March 16th, 2014, 05:40 PM

lets agree to disagree,you have your views and would like to live in a genderless world,and I have my views and most definiately would not want to live in a genderless world!

..Because he's proven you wrong in essentially all of your arguments? As mentioned, gender is indeed a social construct while one's biological sex is not: know the difference between the two, and then maybe you'll better understand what a "genderless" society would be.

Plus, there's absolutely nothing genderless about Brave New World. If anything, it would be arguing for differences in gender, and at the same time, a world of more open and shameless sexual relationships.

Zenos

March 16th, 2014, 05:43 PM

..Because he's proven you wrong in essentially all of your arguments? As mentioned, gender is indeed a social construct while one's biological sex is not: know the difference between the two, and then maybe you'll better understand what a "genderless" society would be.

Plus, there's absolutely nothing genderless about Brave New World. If anything, it would be arguing for differences in gender, and at the same time, a world of more open and shameless sexual relationships.

dude neither one of us was going to budge from our position which would have lead to needless bickering.So how about trying as a mod not to take sides?/

Karkat

March 16th, 2014, 06:54 PM

The aim of radical-feminism is to destroy the notion of femininity and lead the march to a post-gender society - because this is the only way equality will be achieved. I find that to be quite an admirable goal.

Though, I'm curious: what's true feminism.

No

No no

NO

Radical feminism is, on one end of the spectrum misandry and essentially encouraging female dominance/matriarchy/male genocide in some cases, and on the other end it's telling every woman who wants to wear a bra or makeup, or who WANTS to portray themselves as feminine that they're worthless.

TRUE feminism is essentially female-focused eglalitarianism. However, it does tend to water-down or exclude male and trans* issues.

I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with masculinity, or femininity- living in a world that's androgynous seems more oppressive and inane to me than the one we're living in right now.

It's just that OUR SOCIETY cannot handle these two things without putting rules and stigmas and stereotypes and blah blah blah, our world can make literally anything seem bad- it's just due to the ignorance of the masses.

I mean, I do not feel that I'm agender or nonbinary because I feel very much like a man AND a woman. It's not as fulfilling for me to feel androgynous. I do feel that way sometimes, and it's ok, but I want to express all aspects of myself. If you're suggesting that everything should be gender-neutral, that's one thing. (aside from things that very specifically pertain to biology. Tampons. Birth control. Certain vitamins. [though there is debate that those should be done away with period] Bras, for the most part. Some female and male clothing should still be made somewhat separate- or at least should be made by BODY TYPE, because biologically females and males are built differently. And so on.) But taking out the more feminine and more masculine things in general makes for a world I don't especially want to live in. I like color, variety, uniqueness. Also, the words themselves shouldn't be taken out, in my opinion, because they are part of language that is used to describe a characteristic. We just use the words themselves for evil on a large scale.

I feel feminism is good, however, I do not feel any movement designed to be exclusive and oppressive of free will for something that can and will not hurt anyone else (Like, say, wearing makeup, or nail polish), or that doesn't take REALITY into account isn't one I support, in fact, it'd be one I stand against.

HOWEVER, being discriminated against, raped, sexually and physically assaulted, among many other things does make me partial to feminism, because in a world where it still happens JUST because someone has a vagina is not a world I want to live in.

HOWEVER, male sexual assault as well as LGBT sexual assault happens as well. Women can be misogynists as well as misandrists. Men can be misandrists. Some are transphobic. I feel these are very much issues that need to be addressed, and I only support feminism when it does not overshadow the issues of the other genders.

I'm talking about a society where we've abandoned any notions of gender and/or gender difference. There'll need to be advances in reproductive technology for this to happen, of course, though that's a much lesser goal compared to having all individuals abandon the notion of genders connections to physical-sex or its existence altogether.

In my mind this seems anti-sex, and that bothers me.

Sure, not everyone will want to have sex, however, sex is not something that should be eliminated. It's part of human nature, for god's sake- what are we going to do? Make everyone asexual by performing partial lobotomy or GOD KNOWS WHAT?? Tamper with hypothalamuses?? I can guarantee you that would lead to people who would refuse to eat, or wouldn't be able to sleep, or god knows what horrendous results that could have.

I'd rather move on to a more inclusive society- not just another oppressive one with a different story behind it.

Gender is not a social construct..it is a natural construct and deciding it doe snot exist is like ignoring gravity..just because you say it's not there doe snot mean when you throw a ball up in the air it's going to keep going up instead of eventually falling down

you can have a society of equals without trying to erase gender

SEX is a 'natural construct', gender is a social construct. Are you trying to tell me that transgender people don't exist? What about intersex people- what are they supposed to do? I'm personally bigender, does that mean I'm some sick person or something??

And no, it's not pseudo-scientific. In fact, gender really has nothing to do with 'science' at all- as in biology. Gender is anthropological and psychological. Sex is biological. Some countries even have a third gender, where the youngest male in a family becomes sort of a mix between male and female (different from bigender) as far as a societal role- they're treated more as women, however they can marry either women or men if I remember right... This isn't really gender-identity, this is a social construct as well, but they're BIOLOGICALLY MALE but they are treated as something else entirely- how do you explain that if gender and sex are the same thing?

However I do agree that erasing gender could cause more problems than it would solve...If handled right it could be OK, but still not something I'd root for- to me it's just a way to dumb down society for the ignorant so that everyone's more equal by way of default- and that doesn't really solve the underlying issue at hand...

I'm talking about a society where we've abandoned any notions of gender and/or gender difference. There'll need to be advances in reproductive technology for this to happen, of course, though that's a much lesser goal compared to having all individuals abandon the notion of genders connections to physical-sex or its existence altogether.

This is a rather unconvincing argument if it was supposed to be one.

dude neither one of us was going to budge from our position which would have lead to needless bickering.So how about trying as a mod not to take sides?/

He was just agreeing with Vlerchan- nothing wrong with that. Aside from that, you ARE wrong about gender and sex. Like, this has nothing to do with the science you're even thinking of, and besides, it's widely-accepted as fact. So essentially you're holding your own position over the opinions of dozens of people who quite frankly know more than you on the matter. (and aside from that, physics and biology are entirely different as well- trying to compare being born with a penis or a vagina to an object being affected by gravity isn't even on the same page. That's like trying to compare a variable to an adjective, though gravity and biological sex ARE closer in the fact that they're both scientific in nature but other than that you couldn't really get further apart. Lol.)

StoppingTime

March 16th, 2014, 07:30 PM

dude neither one of us was going to budge from our position which would have lead to needless bickering.So how about trying as a mod not to take sides?/

There's no reason why I need to stay neutral in a debate and not disagree with incorrect opinions just because I'm a mod...I'm simply disagreeing.

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 07:31 PM

Radical feminism is, on one end of the spectrum misandry and essentially encouraging female dominance/matriarchy/male genocide in some cases, and on the other end it's telling every woman who wants to wear a bra or makeup, or who WANTS to portray themselves as feminine that they're worthless.
No.

These are vocal-fringes of radical-feminism. Radical-feminism is mainly to-do with the idea that gender is a social-construct and a post-gender society is favorable. It also aims to do this through the destruction of what it needs to be instruments of patriarchy - which is where they sorta start to lose me but the rest is good; I'll need to read-up on that at some stage.

TRUE feminism is essentially female-focused eglalitarianism. However, it does tend to water-down or exclude male[1] and trans*[2] issues.
[1]: I explained on the previous page how eliminating the idea of gender would benefit males more than any legislative changes - all male's (and female's) issues arise directly from the idea of gender.

[2]: This is because trans* people reinforce the idea of gender-binaryism.

I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with masculinity, or femininity- living in a world that's androgynous seems more oppressive and inane to me than the one we're living in right now.
I don't think there is either.

The actual end goal is for individuals to be able to develop traits that we'd consider masculine or feminine today without pressure from society at large to do so/not to do so. It would not involve a completely uniform society as Zenos seems to (strangely) believe.

I mean, I do not feel that I'm agender or nonbinary because I feel very much like a man AND a woman[3]. It's not as fulfilling for me to feel androgynous. I do feel that way sometimes, and it's ok, but I want to express all aspects of myself. If you're suggesting that everything should be gender-neutral, that's one thing. (aside from things that very specifically pertain to biology. Tampons. Birth control. Certain vitamins. [though there is debate that those should be done away with period] Bras, for the most part. Some female and male clothing should still be made somewhat separate- or at least should be made by BODY TYPE, because biologically females and males are built differently. And so on.) But taking out the more feminine and more masculine things in general makes for a world I don't especially want to live in. I like color, variety, uniqueness[4]. Also, the words themselves shouldn't be taken out, in my opinion, because they are part of language that is used to describe a characteristic[5]. We just use the words themselves for evil on a large scale.
[3]: Why does it have to be like a man or like a woman. Why can't it just be like yourself?

[4]: This wouldn't happen. There would just be no pressure on people to do X because they are perceived to be Y.

[5]: They also reinforce the idea of gender-binaryism; that there's a difference between a man and woman (for example) working the part of an actor.

I feel feminism is good, however, I do not feel any movement designed to be exclusive and oppressive of free will for something that can and will not hurt anyone else (Like, say, wearing makeup, or nail polish), or that doesn't take REALITY into account isn't one I support, in fact, it'd be one I stand against.
This wouldn't be the case.

It would actually be about restoring you your free-will when it comes to this decision (- I'm implying here that various social-codes force us into X, Y, Z, etc.).

[...] and I only support feminism when it does not overshadow the issues of the other genders.
I explained on the previous page how eliminating the idea of gender would benefit males more than any legislative changes - all male's (and female's) issues arise directly from the idea of gender.

Sure, not everyone will want to have sex, however, sex is not something that should be eliminated. It's part of human nature[6], for god's sake- what are we going to do? Make everyone asexual by performing partial lobotomy or GOD KNOWS WHAT??[7] Tamper with hypothalamuses?? I can guarantee you that would lead to people who would refuse to eat, or wouldn't be able to sleep, or god knows what horrendous results that could have[8].
[6]: There's no such thing as Human Nature - though perhaps it would be best not to get caught up in that technicality for the sake of saying on topic.

[7]: I can't think of a reason why we'd need to. Sexual Orientation and Gender are entirely independent.

[8]: Thankfully, it won't come to that.

I'd rather move on to a more inclusive society- not just another oppressive one with a different story behind it.
The abandonment of the idea of gender in a post-gender society would be deliberate and voluntary. There'd be nothing oppressive about it.

Karkat

March 16th, 2014, 08:07 PM

No.

These are vocal-fringes of radical-feminism. Radical-feminism is mainly to-do with the idea that gender is a social-construct and a post-gender society is favorable. It also aims to do this through the destruction of what it needs to be instruments of patriarchy - which is where they sorta start to lose me but the rest is good; I'll need to read-up on that at some stage.

[1]: I explained on the previous page how eliminating the idea of gender would benefit males more than any legislative changes - all male's (and female's) issues arise directly from the idea of gender.

[2]: This is because trans* people reinforce the idea of gender-binaryism.

I don't think there is either.

The actual end goal is for individuals to be able to develop traits that we'd consider masculine or feminine today without pressure from society at large to do so/not to do so. It would not involve a completely uniform society as Zenos seems to (strangely) believe.

[3]: Why does it have to be like a man or like a woman. Why can't it just be like yourself?

[4]: This wouldn't happen. There would just be no pressure on people to do X because they are perceived to be Y.

[5]: They also reinforce the idea of gender-binaryism; that there's a difference between a man and woman (for example) working the part of an actor.

This wouldn't be the case.

It would actually be about restoring you your free-will when it comes to this decision (- I'm implying here that various social-codes force us into X, Y, Z, etc.).

I explained on the previous page how eliminating the idea of gender would benefit males more than any legislative changes - all male's (and female's) issues arise directly from the idea of gender.

[6]: There's no such thing as Human Nature - though perhaps it would be best not to get caught up in that technicality for the sake of saying on topic.

[7]: I can't think of a reason why we'd need to. Sexual Orientation and Gender are entirely independent.

[8]: Thankfully, it won't come to that.

The abandonment of the idea of gender in a post-gender society would be deliberate and voluntary. There'd be nothing oppressive about it.

1. (I'm not going through and quote-unquoting everything you said. I'll just take this in bullets.)
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'radical' as a social term.

"having extreme political or social views that are not shared by most people" (Merriam-Webster)

And here's extreme, to clear up any further misunderstanding.

"1ex·treme adjective \ik-ˈstrēm\
: very great in degree

: very serious or severe

: very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people : not moderate" (Also Merriam-Webster)

Radical=fringe element. They are literally synonymous in social and political debate.

And also a fundamental misunderstanding of the term feminism.

"fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
: the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities

: organized activity in support of women's rights and interests" (Also Merriam-Webster)

Nothing whatsoever about post-gender. If anything, it's very much gendered.

2. See point #1, you're mistaken in general.

Also, nonbinary and agender peoples fall into the trans* spectrum. You're forgetting the * outright. So once again, you're mistaken.

Trans* as a blanket term is simply those who are not cisgendered. In other words, those who don't identify with their parts at all, or entirely.

If anything else cisgender people reinforce the gender binary.

3. Honestly I was with him because that's not even close to what I got out of your argument.

4.I feel a little offended by the use of the word "it" to describe something very intimate about myself that has caused me both more joy and pain than almost anything else in my life.

Was there something wrong with the word "you" in this situation?

Once again, that's not what I inferred from your argument/s.

I'm talking about nonhuman objects. Like lace is feminine, steel is masculine, etc. Not PEOPLE, things. And really, even then, people. Gender isn't a bad thing, it's just used as a bad thing. If people could HANDLE it the right way, that'd be a different story.

5. You seem to act like I was talking about the whole 'post-gender' thing you keep preaching. This was a general statement.

6. No, they arise, like every other problem, from ignorance, miscommunication, misinformation, and hate. Gender is a neutral thing that has been twisted for good or for evil.

7. I was talking by fact of functions of the brain. You cannot deny that brains are going to do a certain things because brains are KNOWN to do that thing.

FINE. If you MUST have a more scientifically accurate word, I will use instinct.

Well then what's all this tripe about reproduction??

8. I don't get how telling someone it's wrong to feel like a man or a woman is any less oppressive than telling someone it's wrong not to.

Vlerchan

March 16th, 2014, 08:36 PM

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the word 'radical' as a social term.

[...]

Nothing whatsoever about post-gender. If anything, it's very much gendered.
The re-order of society I call for is deemed radical by the majority.

That is why radical-feminists are called radical feminists. Here's an extract from the Wiki page:

Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that focuses on the hypothesis of patriarchy as a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women. Radical feminism aims to challenge and overthrow patriarchy by opposing standard gender roles and oppression of women and calls for a radical reordering of society. Early radical feminism, arising within second-wave feminism in the 1960s, typically viewed patriarchy as a "transhistorical phenomenon" prior to or deeper than other sources of oppression, "not only the oldest and most universal form of domination but the primary form" and the model for all others. Later politics derived from radical feminism ranged from cultural feminism to more syncretic politics that placed issues of class, economics, etc. on a par with patriarchy as sources of oppression.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

Take note of the use of the words 'standard gender roles' and 'radical re-ordering of society'. That's what I'm talking about.

Trans* as a blanket term is simply those who are not cisgendered. In other words, those who don't identify with their parts at all, or entirely.
Ah.

I didn't know this now. I thought trans* was the same as transsexuals. I'm wrong here.

I feel a little offended by the use of the word "it" to describe something very intimate about myself that has caused me both more joy and pain than almost anything else in my life.

Was there something wrong with the word "you" in this situation?
Yes.

The word 'it' was referring to your choice and not actually yourself. It wouldn't have made sense to use 'You' in such a case.

Regardless, I'm sorry if I've offended you; didn't mean it.

I'm talking about nonhuman objects. Like lace is feminine, steel is masculine, etc[1]. Not PEOPLE, things. And really, even then, people. Gender isn't a bad thing, it's just used as a bad thing. If people could HANDLE it the right way, that'd be a different story.[2]
[1]: Ah. Well I'd be against this too. The items seem to be placed in one camp or the other (male or female) as they reflect a value traditionally associated with either camp - i.e. steel is 'strong'; men are stereotypical 'strong'. Though perhaps I'm just being presented with bad examples - bad in that they're a poor reflection of why the objects are gender-sensitive - and I'm wrong here.

[2]: To me it reinforces the idea of gender-binaryism which is something I wish to see eliminated.

You seem to act like I was talking about the whole 'post-gender' thing you keep preaching. This was a general statement.
I've no idea what this is in response to:/

No, they arise, like every other problem, from ignorance, miscommunication, misinformation, and hate. Gender is a neutral thing that has been twisted for good or for evil.
Let me put it this way: problems that affect specific genders as a result of them being such genders are a direct result of society-at-large recognizing the existence of aforementioned genders. I believe that if we eliminate gender then we eliminate the root of gender-based discrimination.

I was talking by fact of functions of the brain. You cannot deny that brains are going to do a certain things because brains are KNOWN to do that thing.
Would you mind expanding on this? I'm not so sure about what you're getting at.

Well then what's all this tripe about reproduction??
I presume you're referring to my previously-mentioned wish to see an advancement of reproductive technology - such as 'womb tanks' - as so that the redundancy of physical-sex can be more-so solidified.

I don't get how telling someone it's wrong to feel like a man or a woman is any less oppressive than telling someone it's wrong not to.
I'm not saying it's wrong.

I'm saying your belief that declaring as a man or woman is in any way important supports the idea of an (inherent) difference between the genders - which there is not.

Synyster Shadows

March 16th, 2014, 09:01 PM

If it's feminists that are for EQUALITY and not prejudicing against men, then I'm for it.

Rob, my friend, you are great with simplicity :P Feminism for equality is fine. Feminism that prejudices? Not okay

Karkat

March 16th, 2014, 10:17 PM

The re-order of society I call for is deemed radical by the majority.

That is why radical-feminists are called radical feminists. Here's an extract from the Wiki page:

Take note of the use of the words 'standard gender roles' and 'radical re-ordering of society'. That's what I'm talking about.

Ah.

I didn't know this now. I thought trans* was the same as transsexuals. I'm wrong here.

Yes.

The word 'it' was referring to your choice and not actually yourself. It wouldn't have made sense to use 'You' in such a case.

Regardless, I'm sorry if I've offended you; didn't mean it.

[1]: Ah. Well I'd be against this too. The items seem to be placed in one camp or the other (male or female) as they reflect a value traditionally associated with either camp - i.e. steel is 'strong'; men are stereotypical 'strong'. Though perhaps I'm just being presented with bad examples - bad in that they're a poor reflection of why the objects are gender-sensitive - and I'm wrong here.

[2]: To me it reinforces the idea of gender-binaryism which is something I wish to see eliminated.

I've no idea what this is in response to:/

Let me put it this way: problems that affect specific genders as a result of them being such genders are a direct result of society-at-large recognizing the existence of aforementioned genders. I believe that if we eliminate gender then we eliminate the root of gender-based discrimination.

Would you mind expanding on this? I'm not so sure about what you're getting at.

I presume you're referring to my previously-mentioned wish to see an advancement of reproductive technology - such as 'womb tanks' - as so that the redundancy of physical-sex can be more-so solidified.

I'm not saying it's wrong.

I'm saying your belief that declaring as a man or woman is in any way important supports the idea of an (inherent) difference between the genders - which there is not.

Rob, my friend, you are great with simplicity :P Feminism for equality is fine. Feminism that prejudices? Not okay

1. Wikipedia? Really? Honestly, you're going to have to get me a more convincing source if you want me to even go there.

2. I understand how you could've misunderstood that, sorry.

Though I see nothing wrong with transsexuals- some people just don't feel comfortable with their genitals. Sure, they're just genitals, but all in all the female body behaves differently from the male body to begin with. So it's really more complicated than that.

3. Wow, really? This is like saying homosexuality is a choice. Also- sexuality IS affected by gender- not in the gender of the person involved but by gender as a CONCEPT.

We'd all be pansexual if gender didn't exist, really. (I mean sexuals, obviously not talking about asexuals because they're irrelevant to the case of sexual attraction by gender.)

I mean, there would still be potential for attraction to one set of genitals or another, however, sexual orientation as we know it would be turned on its head, and honestly more exclusive...

Back to the point at hand, I feel the way I feel regardless. My inner feelings are not a choice. My outer expression and what I label those feelings are. But that's honestly not for you to decide either way.

4. Um, yes and no. I think a lot of the reason I feel the way I do is my background knowledge of interior design, where feminine/masculine can be for either men or women for the most part. They're just adjectives in that sense.

They can still be stereotypical, but CONSIDERABLY less so than in most normal uses from what I've seen.

Once again, having a label for something isn't a bad thing. Having a word for something isn't bad. It's the CONCEPT that needs changed in my opinion, not the system entirely.

Education works better than just changing the rules, because attitude and knowledge (or lack thereof) are the roots of the problem here- not the ideas themselves.

Men are bound to be a little different in some respects than women biologically. That's where gender started. Hormones and other biological factors make certain things happen differently.

This modern world is really just deluded and ignorant to begin with, so you really have to put the blame where it lies- the general public. (Sad but true)

If a child hurts themselves on say, a fork or something, do you immediately remove all forks from the house to protect them? No, you tell them that the fork can be dangerous, and you explain to them how to use it.

It wouldn't do any good to take away something that CAN be a cause of oppression and such without explaining why the attitudes behind oppression, hate, etc. aren't ok. In my opinion, bandaging the problem is not curing it.

5. "Originally Posted by WisenUpJanetWeiss
I feel feminism is good, however, I do not feel any movement designed to be exclusive and oppressive of free will for something that can and will not hurt anyone else (Like, say, wearing makeup, or nail polish), or that doesn't take REALITY into account isn't one I support, in fact, it'd be one I stand against.
This wouldn't be the case.

It would actually be about restoring you your free-will when it comes to this decision (- I'm implying here that various social-codes force us into X, Y, Z, etc.)."

Bolded is your response.

6. Once again, this is the wrong approach, in my opinion.

It's not the act, it's the attitude behind it that needs changed, for without the attitude, the act wouldn't happen.

Dad teaches his son that women are disgusting and is abusive physically and sexually to women in plain light of his son to teach him a lesson.

Mom left dad for some sleazy chick/dude, as a result, dad becomes a misogynist.

Dad passes his misogyny onto his son very vocally and actively, as a result son becomes a misogynist.

Son is a misogynist, as a result, he starts to rape and kill women.

You COULD argue that the fact that mom was a 'WOMAN' caused this, no

It's hate. That's what it boils down to.

If mom left dad on an amicable basis because their relationship just wasn't working and it was a relatively mutual deal and they acted like mature fucking adults, dad does not become a misogynist (unless by another reason), son does not become a psycho.

Psychology and anthropology go hand in hand- as the individual, and how they 'tick' results in how societies work- a society being made up of many individuals.

So to understand why society is one way, you have to understand why a product of society is that way. (Which is kind of ironic and paradoxical, but the point being that the society is built on the individual is built on the society.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

...Holy cow, was that really a metaphor all along???)

ANYWAYS, the point being that hate is triggered by many things, and none of them are an object or an event independent of a cause or reason. Something CAUSES someone to react that way, and it's made up of a ton of different negative events in a chain reaction.

A few examples:

1. Indoctrination/misinformation- someone is indoctrinated with the idea that a specific group should be hated. This is all they've ever known, or what they've been lead to believe by misinformation, so they hate these people for this reason.

2. Association/stereotyping/prejudice- Say a black boy was beat up by a white man. Later, he's bullied by white children. After that, his white girlfriend cheats on him with a white guy and becomes pregnant with that white guy's child. One day, a racist white guy gives him the stinkeye in the grocery store, and he beats the crap out of him, because he's had bad experiences with racist or idiotic white people, and not enough GOOD experiences with white people to negate the bad ones, and WHITE PEOPLE ARE HORRIBLE PIECES OF SHIT NOW.

This isn't really his fault, he's just misinformed and he's jumped to conclusions and had some pretty shitty things happen to him because he lives in a society that puts up with that sort of thing.

Then, on the other hand, the media portrays the hispanic teenagers as thugs. A girl avoids and hates hispanic men because of stereotypes.

A young boy is told that women are bad people. He's constantly getting reminded of this fact, and knowing no better, now he hates women.

(The major difference between these two examples is that one is the product of the system in general, the other is blatant propaganda...)

Hate comes from somewhere, either because it can benefit someone else, or someone else is misinformed/etc. Just because something is hated doesn't mean that it's a product of hate. If you rewire the system to be against hate and for understanding and (fucking intelligence!!) acceptance, logical thought, etc., you take out the root of the problem.

Taking away the toy the kids fight over just bandages the problem- they'll go fight over another toy.

7. Well, for instance, the hypothalamus controls sex drive. Sex drive isn't a social construct or something, it is literally part of the brain.

8. Er, I have to argue that physical sex isn't redundant. If one doesn't wish to have sex, but wants children, that's one thing, but I'm pretty sure sex isn't redundant from a psychological standpoint...

For so many reasons.

For reproduction? Yes, and no. I don't see why people who want to make babies the traditional way shouldn't be allowed to do so or anything, but at the same time, sex is no longer needed to make a baby. There's still a surrogate required (right? This is not my field of expertise nor would I like it to be) but not necessarily a penis in direct action. Like, there doesn't need to be any hands-on activity by the sperm donor. (As George Takei would say, "Oh myy!")

But I'd hardly call sex redundant. However, I do see what you're getting at, and I agree that it'd be a good thing- it could even help infertile male+female couples where the female is infertile, or can't carry to term. (Safely or just in general.)

I've actually had a miscarriage, and my family has a history of fertility problems, so this would actually be a useful advancement for ME- if not a bit queasy- nature and scientific advancement do not always go hand in hand. Hell, NATURE doesn't always go hand in hand with nature (being that nature can seriously mess ITSELF up at times- on a small scale. [Congenital defects, etc.])

But test tube babies, as a concept, make me a little leery.

9. Well that'd be like saying that declaring ANY differences as important should be done away with. Talent, physical attributes, mental attributes, ethnicity, culture, anything.

You'd literally have to make everyone so uniform that there'd be nothing TO hate if you took everything that COULD be hated away, and not the hate itself.

And I'm on the same page with there not being an inherent difference between the genders, as gender is a social construct and the differences implied by society are tired and obsolete roles, but in my opinion, once again, it's not the system that needs changed, it's the way the system is viewed.

I don't like nor do I believe in gender stereotypes, however, if stereotypes could be seen for what they are- prejudiced generalizations, and the adjectives remained as general 'rules', but all were viewed as equal (which, nothing is. Period. Fucking music genres are discriminated against. This is what I mean when I say we need to change the attitude.) and sex was independent to gender- a male could be a woman, and so on, or even just portray themselves as a woman but still feel like they're a man, etc.

As a form of describing personality, and self, and self-expression. Not some sort of sick social code. Like goth or jock or something.

Almost like a fashion sense. I know that's a really awful thing to compare it to, however I couldn't think of anything closer to it.

Like a fashion sense of the soul, sort of. Like a culture of oneself.

But with a word to describe it. Language is good. Alexithymia is dreadful. We, as humans, like to use adjectives.

PinkFloyd

March 16th, 2014, 10:59 PM

Rob, my friend, you are great with simplicity :P Feminism for equality is fine. Feminism that prejudices? Not okay

You know the type though, right? "I'm a proud feminist! Equality for all! Men must suffer what we have suffered!"

Synyster Shadows

March 16th, 2014, 11:01 PM

You know the type though, right? "I'm a proud feminist! Equality for all! Men must suffer what we have suffered!"

Yeah i know. That kind of thinking would just cause a vicious cycle of suffering

Karkat

March 16th, 2014, 11:40 PM

You know the type though, right? "I'm a proud feminist! Equality for all! Men must suffer what we have suffered!"

When I hear this, I think "I can hit you, and you won't be able to say a thing about it, because I have a vagina onhonhonhon

Equality means women making women suffer too, bitch."

But seriously I just want to drink bleach when I see those types.

Yeah i know. That kind of thinking would just cause a vicious cycle of suffering

Exactly.

Vlerchan

March 17th, 2014, 12:47 AM

Christ. This is a lot of writing.
1. Wikipedia? Really? Honestly, you're going to have to get me a more convincing source if you want me to even go there.
Radical feminists are critical of gender itself. [b]We are not gender reformists–we are gender abolitionists. Without the socially constructed gender roles that form the basis of patriarchy, all people would be free to dress, behave, and love others in whatever way they wished, no matter what kind of body they had.

Source: http://www.deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/radical-feminism-faqs[Radical] Feminism: women organize to overthrow male power and thus the entire gender system. (For radical feminists, the ideal number of genders would be… none.)

Source: http://www.troubleandstrife.org/new-articles/talking-about-gender/

This is like saying homosexuality is a choice[1]. [...]Back to the point at hand, I feel the way I feel regardless. My inner feelings are not a choice. My outer expression and what I label those feelings are[2]. But that's honestly not for you to decide either way.[...] sexuality IS affected by gender
[1]: No. It's not. It's entirely different. You're choosing to place yourself within the binary when you decide that you're male or female whilst a homosexual does not choose to place himself anywhere but rather just is. I understand that you can't choose your feelings and am rather disputing the point that the feelings you are feeling can be accurately described to be male or female.

[2]: The problem I'm attempting to put across is the idea of labeling one set of feelings male and another female. This reinforces the idea of gender-binaryism in that it pays respect to the idea that certain feelings are inherent or at least linked to certain sexes.

[3]: Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.

Here's mine before you go wasting time: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/

Um, yes and no. I think [...] bandaging the problem is not curing it.
The solution I have suggested gets at the very root of the problem.

It seems obvious to me that maintaining gender and thus gender-based valuing will not solve the problems inherent to our gendered-society. As long as gender remains we'll still have men and woman (physical-sex) being pressured into certain roles by society-at-large. As I said earlier: "It's the existence of gender and the values associated with - and consequently promoted/encouraged within - both male and females that fuels inequality."

It's not the act, it's the attitude behind it that needs changed, for without the attitude, the act wouldn't happen.
I propose eliminating the attitude.

I'll also point out that this all has largely nothing to do with combating the most highlighted forms of misogyny but rather all forms of gender based discrimination - with emphasis placed on gender-difference. That's why I am not responding to your father-turns-son-into-woman-hater analogy. I'm attempting to end sexism in its most major and minor forms - which I don;t believe can occur within a gendered society.

Taking away the toy the kids fight over just bandages the problem- they'll go fight over another toy.
There's always going to be some form of conflict in society.

I don't see why ending one basis for it is any less beneficial in that case however.

Well, for instance, the hypothalamus controls sex drive. Sex drive isn't a social construct or something, it is literally part of the brain.
It's like 5am here so excuse me for missing the point. What's your point?

but I'm pretty sure sex isn't redundant from a psychological standpoint...
I mean sex as in male or female though I realize how easy it must have been to misinterpret that.

Well that'd be like saying that declaring ANY differences as important should be done away with. Talent, physical attributes, mental attributes, ethnicity, culture, anything.
No. We'd simply be doing away with any differences considered inherent with zero proof whatsoever.

And I'm on the same page with there not being an inherent difference between the genders, as gender is a social construct and the differences implied by society are tired and obsolete roles, but in my opinion, once again, it's not the system that needs changed, it's the way the system is viewed.
I probably should have asked you this earlier - and I'm too lazy to go back and edit it in now - but how exactly do you believe the system should be reformed? I'm all ears here.

[...] but all were viewed as equal (which, nothing is. Period. Fucking music genres are discriminated against. This is what I mean when I say we need to change the attitude.)
I understand full-well that we'll never all be equal. I understand full-well that there will always be differences. I simply seek a society in which we don't go-about actively promoting/encouraging difference that doesn't exist. This is what happens every single day in our current gendered society.

Almost like a fashion sense. I know that's a really awful thing to compare it to, however I couldn't think of anything closer to it.
It'd be like a fashion sense in a society where you don't get judged for not aiming to fit in with either the jocks or the goths but are rather allowed to choose your own style unpressured by the expectations of those about you.

If you think there's a part I left out that needs to be responded to then feel free to bring it up. There was just so much ...

Plasma

March 17th, 2014, 01:07 AM

If it's feminists that are for EQUALITY and not prejudicing against men, then I'm for it.

I couldn't agree with this more.

Karkat

March 17th, 2014, 02:59 AM

Christ. This is a lot of writing.

[1]: No. It's not. It's entirely different. You're choosing to place yourself within the binary when you decide that you're male or female whilst a homosexual does not choose to place himself anywhere but rather just is. I understand that you can't choose your feelings and am rather disputing the point that the feelings you are feeling can be accurately described to be male or female.

[2]: The problem I'm attempting to put across is the idea of labeling one set of feelings male and another female. This reinforces the idea of gender-binaryism in that it pays respect to the idea that certain feelings are inherent or at least linked to certain sexes.

[3]: Please present verifiable evidence supporting this claim. Thanks.

Here's mine before you go wasting time: http://itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2011/11/breaking-through-the-binary-gender-explained-using-continuums/

The solution I have suggested gets at the very root of the problem.

It seems obvious to me that maintaining gender and thus gender-based valuing will not solve the problems inherent to our gendered-society. As long as gender remains we'll still have men and woman (physical-sex) being pressured into certain roles by society-at-large. As I said earlier: "It's the existence of gender and the values associated with - and consequently promoted/encouraged within - both male and females that fuels inequality."

I propose eliminating the attitude.

I'll also point out that this all has largely nothing to do with combating the most highlighted forms of misogyny but rather all forms of gender based discrimination - with emphasis placed on gender-difference. That's why I am not responding to your father-turns-son-into-woman-hater analogy. I'm attempting to end sexism in its most major and minor forms - which I don;t believe can occur within a gendered society.

There's always going to be some form of conflict in society.

I don't see why ending one basis for it is any less beneficial in that case however.

It's like 5am here so excuse me for missing the point. What's your point?

I mean sex as in male or female though I realize how easy it must have been to misinterpret that.

No. We'd simply be doing away with any differences considered inherent with zero proof whatsoever.

I probably should have asked you this earlier - and I'm too lazy to go back and edit it in now - but how exactly do you believe the system should be reformed? I'm all ears here.

I understand full-well that we'll never all be equal. I understand full-well that there will always be differences. I simply seek a society in which we don't go-about actively promoting/encouraging difference that doesn't exist. This is what happens every single day in our current gendered society.

It'd be like a fashion sense in a society where you don't get judged for not aiming to fit in with either the jocks or the goths but are rather allowed to choose your own style unpressured by the expectations of those about you.

If you think there's a part I left out that needs to be responded to then feel free to bring it up. There was just so much ...

Yeah, still don't agree with radical feminism.

Well for one thing, sexual attraction is typically not only based on another person's genitals. It has to do with gender expression as well. Genitals may or may not have SOME to do with it, but generally you do not get attracted to a person's genitals, you are attracted to their appearance.

You can be attracted to their personality, however, you don't look at a picture of someone and go "they have a hot personality". Sometimes, people are attracted to someone only to find out they are or were the sex opposite what they are attracted to. So yes, I used the wrong word- sexual ATTRACTION is what I meant. However, sexual attraction is hand in hand with sexuality- which I believe to be an unnecessarily strict set of labels to begin with- at least as far as how people use them.

Yeah, no, you glazed over what my opinion on the matter is, so I'm not even going to bother. I'm done. I'm not going to stop calling myself bigender, I don't agree with you, you don't seem to even care about what I have to say on the matter, let's just agree to disagree.

rprsupercar

March 27th, 2014, 10:03 AM

Feminism has to yet to come up strong. I believe that both women and men have to be treated equally.

Spook

March 27th, 2014, 10:42 AM

All of the people on this world will never, in our entire existence; agree on a single opinion.
If we were to live in a genderless society; a cult of gender-proud people would arise.
In the world we live in now, sexes are warring for dominance.
Back when, women were oppressed and fought against that oppression.
As long as we are alive the opinions of humanity will clash....nobody can create a balance no matter how hard they try. Too many people, too many opinions.
That's why countries exist. xD

britishboy

March 27th, 2014, 01:53 PM

While feminists are stereotyped as being crazy, looking the things that and simply over reacting I do not believe every feminist is like that so one must not put them all in group, there's a difference between radical feminists and normal women wanting equality.

Plane And Simple

March 27th, 2014, 02:01 PM

I'm going to hijack this debate a bit to, if you want, discuss 2 concepts within the topic. I've always been told feminism is Man<Woman, and HEMBRISM is Man=Woman. What are your thoughts on the definition?

Vlerchan

March 27th, 2014, 05:43 PM

[...] there's a difference between radical feminists and normal women wanting equality.
Please: do tell.

I've always been told feminism is Man<Woman[1], and HEMBRISM is Man=Woman. What are your thoughts on the definition?
You have it the wrong way around.

I've only ever seen Hembrism used in reference to female supremacists.

Feminism refers to the strive towards sex- and gender-equality.

Gamma Male

March 27th, 2014, 07:08 PM

Whoa. That's a hell of a lot of writing.
Ill just try to state my opinions as clearly as possible.
Im all for gender equality, and abolishing stereotypes. I think women should have equal pay, and that if a dad wants to stay at home and take care of the children, and a mom wants to work, or vice versa, that's great. But I think a lot of feminists are really hostile and condescending toward women who actually want to wear revealing clothes, or be a homemaker, or adhere to certain gender stereotypes because thats what works for her. I'm not saying women have to do those things, but some really want to. And there's nothing wrong with that. However, a lot of the more radical feminists I've come across seem to think any women who's comfortable with that sort of lifestyle is inherently stupider. And that's ridiculous.

Elvalight

March 27th, 2014, 11:09 PM

Um, I'm not exactly educated in types of feminism, but I've always regarded it in the same light as sexism. Females had to take a whole lot of crap back in the old days, girls the ages of 13-15 usually had to marry men ages 20+ and didn't get much education because they had no need for it. Also, most of cultures made women unable to get divorces even in an abusive marriage, they weren't considered full citizens( Roman women had it realllly bad) and basically, rape was an almost everyday thing( 0_0) so yeah, that being said, just as many disputes have happened over race, women hold on to such grudges. Saying a man is less than a woman is just as bad as saying a woman is less than a man.

Plane And Simple

March 28th, 2014, 01:06 AM

Please: do tell.

You have it the wrong way around.

I've only ever seen Hembrism used in reference to female supremacists.

Feminism refers to the strive towards sex- and gender-equality.

At least here its used as I posted. Feminist is an insult over these lands. Weird to see it's different on the states.

Camazotz

March 29th, 2014, 10:16 AM

Feminism is an important social campaign to bring equality to women. But I'm tired of seeing Facebook posts complaining how they're sick of sandwich jokes and saying they have it worse in America than Muslim women have it in the Middle East (because we never had a woman president while some Middle Eastern countries have, therefore women have it better over there).

Modern feminists have many valid points about equal pay, victim-blaming in rape cases, slut-shaming, etc. But radical feminists claiming that sexist jokes are the equivalent to derogatory slurs (when obviously intent is totally different) or that men are the cause of evil or silly things like that. Feminism is a force for good, the problem with feminism is that some people use it as a tool to gain advantages over other people, which isn't a feminism's fault.

EddietheZombie

March 30th, 2014, 03:56 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvBBBdZlEDA

Ill use one of my favorite youtubers as my answer to this.

darkangel91

April 2nd, 2014, 12:01 PM

The way I see it, gender is something totally artificial, invented by society - there are known biological differences in the brains of men and women, but they are unnecessarily exaggerated by culture. I think people shouldn't even realize that there's much of a difference between the sexes until they're old enough to decide their own sexual identity. I don't like the concept of feminism expressed as anti-male sexism (ooh, men are evil and trying to keep women down, blah blah) but as egalitarianism, a sense that gender identity as a whole should be a matter of personal choice rather than imposed by societal expectations, I thoroughly agree with that.

Vlerchan

April 2nd, 2014, 04:11 PM

The way I see it, gender is something totally artificial, invented by society - there are known biological differences in the brains of men and women[1], but they are unnecessarily exaggerated by culture. I think people shouldn't even realize that there's much of a difference between the sexes until they're old enough to decide their own sexual identity. I don't like the concept of feminism expressed as anti-male sexism (ooh, men are evil and trying to keep women down, blah blah)[2] but as egalitarianism, a sense that gender identity as a whole should be a matter of personal choice rather than imposed by societal expectations, I thoroughly agree with that.
[1]: Would you mind linking me to evidence supporting this claim? Thanks.

[2]: It's not man as much as the exaggerated value that society places on stereotypically masculine values that feminists have an issue with, believing that it's such that is the root-cause of a number of social-ills.

I personally don't agree all that much with this view, and can outline the reasoning if need be, so I'm about not going to tell you that you are wrong in criticizing feminists this way, though.

Miserabilia

April 5th, 2014, 06:28 AM

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 06:46 AM

Men and women are actualy biologicaly[1] and psychologicaly[2] very different.
[1]: I accept this. Though I believe that biological differences are going to become more and more negligible as science advances.

[2]: I'd love to see some verifiable evidence supporting this claim.

Miserabilia

April 5th, 2014, 06:49 AM

[1]: I accept this. Though I believe that biological differences are going to become more and more negligible as science advances.

[2]: I'd love to see some verifiable evidence supporting this claim.

http://www.livescience.com/20011-brain-cognition-gender-differences.html

http://www.2knowmyself.com/psychological_differences_between_men_and_women

Furthermore, there are still a lot of unconscious remains of gender differences in the brain, for seeking a mate or parenting children

workingatperfect

April 5th, 2014, 08:11 AM

Feminism is very important, when done right. There is a big difference between true feminism and misandry. It's important for men as well. Men are seen as weak when they cry because emotion is equated to sensitivity and sensitive = feminine. Feminism seeks to abolish two things. 1. The idea that men>women and 2. The ideal that males are masculine and females are feminine and anything other than that is wrong. It's not necessarily the main focus I admit, but it's a big issue nonetheless. Feminism is very complicated and covers so many things that all intersect with each other (gender binaries, hetero-normality, women's rights, trans* rights, to name some general concepts) that I couldn't even begin to cover it all. But it is NOT all about girls. (Unless, once again, it's misandrist radical feminists. Other than that, it's pretty much about human rights.)

Also, as for getting rid of gender, it's not really about having an androgynous society where everyone is in the middle. Girls can still wear bows and dresses and glitter and men can still be athletic and tough - or vice versa - and there will be no stigmas about it, or terms for it. It's just how they are, it's what they like. It would be something as unimportant as what kind of books you read. At least, that's been my understanding of it.

One last little thing. The reason why feminism is so important is because patriarchal ideals are SO ingrained into us from an early age. I'm sure we've all heard little boys making fun of each other because they "throw like a girl." That's not just highly offensive to women by assigning undesirable traits to girls; it's also shoving boys into a box and teaching them from young ages that being a girl must be a bad thing.

Edit: Ok, THIS is my final point. The reason anti-male feminism doesn't work is because women are JUST as guilty of bringing down other women as men are. We're taught to act certain ways. Most men don't decide that they're superior, it's what they're taught. Men aren't the enemy. Our patriarchal society as a whole is.

Lovelife090994

April 5th, 2014, 08:27 AM

Feminism is fine but I do not like all of it. Feminists scare me sometimes with the idea of men being the cause to all of the world's problems, how men have no heart, and how men cannnot be better parents. I don't like it all that much. Regardless of my lack of masculinity I don't like feminism or masculinism, I'd rather stay out of all of it. It seems too troublesome.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 09:05 AM

Link1 (http://www.livescience.com/20011-brain-cognition-gender-differences.html)

Link1 (http://www.2knowmyself.com/psychological_differences_between_men_and_women)
Link1:

The ones that have been consistently found across cultures, life spans and even across species are the most likely — but by no means guaranteed — to have some biological underpinning.

Regardless, I'm not about to deny such overwhelming scientific support for men having superior visual-spatial skills and woman having superior speaking skills because it conflicts with my world view. Though, putting more thought into it I'm not so certain that such a revealation causes so much a disturbance to my world-view.

The one issue I might identify with it is that these studies were undertaken in gendered societies, who whilst might be considered bastions of gender-equality, still uphold gender-binaryism. It's also quite laughable that Ireland was placed 7th on the top genderless-societies list linked in-source, which has only raised my doubts.

Link 2: I hold a number of issues with what is presented here. I do not believe claim [2] and [4] to be true based on the research into it I've myself done. I am also quite skeptical of claim [5].

Also, as for getting rid of gender, it's not really about having an androgynous society where everyone is in the middle.
I didn't do all that great a job in putting across the whole idea of a genderless society. I don't mean that I strive for an adrogynous society where everyone is some third-gender, but rather a society in which we no longer recognise the idea of gender and its connection to physical-sex - i.e., what you outlined.

Feminists scare me sometimes with the idea of men being the cause to all of the world's problems.
I explained how this is not the case above: it's society over-emphasising the strength of stereotypically masculine traits as opposed to men or masculinity itself that some Feminists disagree with.

Miserabilia

April 5th, 2014, 09:10 AM

Link1:

The ones that have been consistently found across cultures, life spans and even across species are the most likely — but by no means guaranteed — to have some biological underpinning.

Regardless, I'm not about to deny such overwhelming scientific support for men having superior visual-spatial skills and woman having superior speaking skills because it conflicts with my world view. Though, putting more thought into it I'm not so certain that such a revealation causes so much a disturbance to my world-view.

The one issue I might identify with it is that these studies were undertaken in gendered societies, who whilst might be considered bastions of gender-equality, still uphold gender-binaryism. It's also quite laughable that Ireland was placed 7th on the top genderless-societies list linked in-source, which has only raised my doubts.

Link 2: I hold a number of issues with what is presented here. I do not believe claim [2] and [4] to be true based on the research into it I've myself done. I am also quite skeptical of claim [5].

I didn't do all that great a job in putting across the whole idea of a genderless society. I don't mean that I strive for an adrogynous society where everyone is some third-gender, but rather a society in which we no longer recognise the idea of gender and its connection to physical-sex - i.e., what you outlined.

I explained how this is not the case above: it's society over-emphasising the strength of stereotypically masculine traits as opposed to men or masculinity itself that some Feminists disagree with.

The one issue I might identify with it is that these studies were undertaken in gendered societies, who whilst might be considered bastions of gender-equality, still uphold gender-binaryism. It's also quite laughable that Ireland was placed 7th on the top genderless-societies list linked in-source, which has only raised my doubts.

True, good point.
I do however beleive there is alwas at some level a psylogoical difference in men and women because of their biological roles, but that as humans we can see past those instincts. (But not always)
Lust (As in lust for a mate) is pretty interesting in men and women,
on a subconscious level.

This video is just a few little experiments and have no certainty or controll and on a very small scale, but still kind of interesting, just so you know what I mean.
n1K1yugo0Xo

Rallo

April 5th, 2014, 01:32 PM

equal pay
Minimum wage is equal for both sexes where i live.
Discrimination laws require set wages to be equal across the board and may only be altered based on skill level, etc. (usually judged by qualification if trialed in court)

more action of the sexual harassment of women
This really wouldn't be equal now would it? When's the last time you heard ANYWHERE of a man winning a sexual harassment case? This is already majorly unfair in the direction of woman, this would be going completely against the whole 'EQUAL' rights.
For this to changed, they would need to first level it out across the bored, followed by harsher penalties for any sex whom commits a sexual harassment crime.

access to safe and legal termination of unwated pregnancies.
This I some what agree with.
I agree there's a problem, i don't agree this is the solution.
The fact is, many guys won't wear a condom because he can physically distance himself if the woman becomes pregnant after. Woman, for some odd reason, believe this means they should then have the right to 'run away' from it in term as well.
The fact of the matter is man do not have the right, morally or legally. I'm not sure where on earth woman get this idea from.
Then there's the "oh well he wouldn't wear a condom", there's so many things in place to solve this already that if were used, this would not be needed in the first place. The pill, the bar, etc. Hell, there's even a pill you can take the day after if it ends up inside you.
The way I look at it, it's just creating a work around instead of using the methods already in place to solve the problem almost completely. Sometimes it's as simple as not trusting guys so much. Don't trust him to keep a condom on, put your own prevention measures in place.

I do however see the advantages of it, i mean, if a woman is already pregnant, they're quit F'ed in a lot of cases right now. However, i still believe the answer is simply investing a bit of extra money into safe sex advertisement.

Miserabilia

April 5th, 2014, 02:23 PM

Minimum wage is equal for both sexes where i live.
Discrimination laws require set wages to be equal across the board and may only be altered based on skill level, etc. (usually judged by qualification if trialed in court)

This really wouldn't be equal now would it? When's the last time you heard ANYWHERE of a man winning a sexual harassment case? This is already majorly unfair in the direction of woman, this would be going completely against the whole 'EQUAL' rights.
For this to changed, they would need to first level it out across the bored, followed by harsher penalties for any sex whom commits a sexual harassment crime.

This I some what agree with.
I agree there's a problem, i don't agree this is the solution.
The fact is, many guys won't wear a condom because he can physically distance himself if the woman becomes pregnant after. Woman, for some odd reason, believe this means they should then have the right to 'run away' from it in term as well.
The fact of the matter is man do not have the right, morally or legally. I'm not sure where on earth woman get this idea from.
Then there's the "oh well he wouldn't wear a condom", there's so many things in place to solve this already that if were used, this would not be needed in the first place. The pill, the bar, etc. Hell, there's even a pill you can take the day after if it ends up inside you.
The way I look at it, it's just creating a work around instead of using the methods already in place to solve the problem almost completely. Sometimes it's as simple as not trusting guys so much. Don't trust him to keep a condom on, put your own prevention measures in place.

I do however see the advantages of it, i mean, if a woman is already pregnant, they're quit F'ed in a lot of cases right now. However, i still believe the answer is simply investing a bit of extra money into safe sex advertisement.

Minimum wage is equal for both sexes

Minimum wage, yes.
But in general men still get payed much more than women for the same things.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 02:29 PM

When's the last time you heard ANYWHERE of a man winning a sexual harassment case?
Is this a serious question? If it is I can start linking examples.

The way I look at it, it's just creating a work around instead of using the methods already in place to solve the problem almost completely
I highlighted the key word in the quotation above: protection doesn't always work. Even if it did, however, I'd still support woman holding domineering control over their own bodies - though, I'm not going to expand on the reasoning here when I don't think the thread was created for such.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 02:41 PM

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 02:48 PM

Feminists make no sense! How is all PIV sex rape?!
You'll find that it is only a very small minority-subset of feminists who hold this view. I have no idea why you're bringing it up here since no feminist or pro-feminist here has alluded to such being the case this entire thread.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 02:54 PM

You'll find that it is only a very small minority-subset of feminists who hold this view. I have no idea why you're bringing it up here since no feminist or pro-feminist here has alluded to such being the case this entire thread.

So? If a member of the left wing loonies or otherwise known as Labour party was saying how brilliant Labour was but made no mention of the reality, I would bring up the reality.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 02:57 PM

So? If a member of the left wing loonies or otherwise known as Labour party was saying how brilliant Labour was but made no mention of the reality, I would bring up the reality.
Lol. Just, lol.

Please try stick on topic. If you want to create another thread attacking Labour then feel free to do so.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 03:01 PM

Lol. Just, lol.

Please try stick on topic. If you want to create another thread attacking Labour then feel free to do so.

You asked me why I brought it up if it had not been mentioned, I brought it up because feminists also think that.

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

It's why they're stereotyped as being crazy. Every little detail is a huge problem, from video games to models.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 03:11 PM

You asked me why I brought it up if it had not been mentioned, I brought it up because feminists also think that[1].

It's why they're stereotyped as being crazy[2]. Every little detail is a huge problem, from video games to models[3].
[1]: And I explained that such feminists are a minority-minority subset of the feminist movement. The views expressed by such feminists are in no way representative of the feminist movement as a whole or feminism in general.

[2]: By incredibly ignorant people, yes.

[3]: I find both modelling culture and outdated perceptions of woman (and men!) in videogames as problems that society must deal with, too. Though I guess that's to be expected considering I'm also a crazy feminist.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 03:21 PM

[1]: And I explained that such feminists are a minority-minority subset of the feminist movement. The views expressed by such feminists are in no way representative of the feminist movement as a whole or feminism in general.

[2]: By incredibly ignorant people, yes.

[3]: I find both modelling culture and outdated perceptions of woman (and men!) in videogames as problems that society must deal with, too. Though I guess that's to be expected considering I'm also a crazy feminist.

You made fair points for one and two but I must disagree on three. If video games contained a real mans life nobody would play it so instead games with a seven foot action man that gets all the perfect women are made. Gamers know it is not accurate, a clue would be the wars that don't exist; the aliens and the zombies.

Another point is that feminists want the bonuses of being a man, not the negatives as well as failing to recognise the differences between male and females, emotionally, physically and how we like to act.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 03:43 PM

If video games contained a real mans life[1] nobody would play it so instead games with a seven foot action man that gets all the perfect women are made[2]. Gamers know it is not accurate, a clue would be the wars that don't exist; the aliens and the zombies[3].
[1]: I never said it should.

[2]: The problem is that such video-games serve to reinforce (negative) stereotypes about men and woman - the 'Damsel In Distress' trope being arguably the most damaging. It's entirely possible to create a good game without being overtly sexist about it: the Mass Effect and The Elder Scrolls series' spring immediately to mind here.

For the record, I don't mind if a game reinforces gender-roles and whatnot because it is an essential part of the setting. It's rarely all that essential, however.

[3]: This is a Strawman.

Another point is that feminists want the bonuses of being a man[4], not the negatives[5] as well as failing to recognise the differences between male and females, emotionally, physically and how we like to act[6].
[4]: I'm already a man.

[5]: No, we don't.

[6]: I've already been over this in this thread. Please read the thread.

Harry Smith

April 5th, 2014, 03:51 PM

So? If a member of the left wing loonies or otherwise known as Labour party was saying how brilliant Labour was but made no mention of the reality, I would bring up the reality.

It's funny you think the labour party are left wing-they haven't been left wing since 1994. I thought you followed British Politics

Gamers know it is not accurate, a clue would be the wars that don't exist;

Another point is that feminists want the bonuses of being a man, not the negatives

Ah sigh-that's probably the worse way I've ever seen anybody describe feminism. As Vlerchan said, and as I've said you don't have to be a women to be a feminist... do you know that?

Rallo

April 5th, 2014, 04:35 PM

Minimum wage, yes.
But in general men still get payed much more than women for the same things.

But this assumption, when you put into play the anti discrimination laws, man are doing more(/harder) work than woman or work in a higher paid field?

Harry Smith

April 5th, 2014, 04:49 PM

But this assumption, when you put into play the anti discrimination laws, man are doing more(/harder) work than woman or work in a higher paid field?

That's wrong

Rallo

April 5th, 2014, 05:08 PM

Is this a serious question? If it is I can start linking examples.
Yes, though no, it was rhetorical.
The statistics still sit around the 16.3% mark. 16.3% of all sexual harassment claims, are made by males made in the us, in 2011.

I highlighted the key word in the quotation above: protection doesn't always work. Even if it did, however, I'd still support woman holding domineering control over their own bodies - though, I'm not going to expand on the reasoning here when I don't think the thread was created for such.

The majority would still be caused by unprotected sex though (mathematically anyway, you could assume 1/1000 have regular unprotected sex (ofc, the more likely would be at different times some out of the thousand would, not just a single 1), then it would still be the majority, assuming 99.9% success rate on protection. That becomes the majority of the problem in that case. Focus on the majority of the problem first, then solve the rest as needed.

Rallo

April 5th, 2014, 05:33 PM

That's wrong
Explain further?
There's discrimination laws which protect from the exact situation of a female being paid less due to their gender happening.

This may not be everywhere.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 05:40 PM

But this assumption, when you put into play the anti discrimination laws, man are doing more(/harder) work than woman or work in a higher paid field?
In general and across all means of employment you'll find that men earn higher wages than woman.

This begins straight out of college: in America woman, on average, are earning 82% of their male counterparts wages a year from graduation. This can be partly explained away through the choices of these men and woman: many men are encouraged by society into higher-paying jobs; you'll find a much smaller number of woman entering the 'hard science' employment, as well as in other (high-paying) fields such as engineering and computer sciences. Rather you'll find many in traditionally lower-paying work such as social-care, teaching, etc. This is a problem in itself, though I won't concentrate on it right now. Even taking this 'choice' into account though you'll still find that there's an unexplained gap of 7% in wages between people in exactly the same work and doing exactly the same hours.

10 years after graduation and you'll find that woman are now earning only 69% as much as men. This can be partly explained as a result of men working traditionally better paid jobs, but there's also two new elements that we need account for: promotion-discrimination and work-leave. Woman tend to be discriminated against when it comes to promotion because they have the inherent risk of coming down with child at any given moment; this leads to such opportunities being passed up to men. As you correctly guessed (?) part of it can also be explained in woman deciding to work less, though this isn't by choice as anti-feminists like to make out: many woman have now had children and are forced to become less career-focused in a bid to raise them - our gendered society forcing thus on them.

If we take into account men and woman working the same employment - but not necessarily the same hours it looks like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_womens_earnings_and_employment_by_industry_2009.png

The pay-gap only widens as people advance further: for every one woman earning 6 figures in America there's 5 men. This comes as a direct result of the explained above.

Yes, though no, it was rhetorical. The statistics still sit around the 16.3% mark. 16.3% of all sexual harassment claims, are made by males made in the us, in 2011.
This has nothing to do with your claim that men have a lesser chance of winning such claims. And have you ever thought that woman might be claiming more because it's more-so common for men to be in positions of power in businesses and the likes? It would seem like a good reason for such to occur to me.

About Abortion
I'll be honest: I'm not going to even start considering any arguments you put forward about alternative means of birth-control because I (frankly) don't consider whether a woman wants to get an abortion or not an issue. It's entirely through that she could've/should've used some means of protection but I honestly don't care: security of person is a basic human right, period.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 05:40 PM

That's wrong

Why don't you tell him why you think it is wrong?

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 05:52 PM

It's funny you think the labour party are left wing-they haven't been left wing since 1994.
They're center-left if you're being pedantic but to be honest people like you and comments like that remind me why I am attending a private school. Yes, it is a private school or a fee paying school to satisfy your rather irritating pedantic side!
[1]: I never said it should.

[2]: The problem is that such video-games serve to reinforce (negative) stereotypes about men and woman - the 'Damsel In Distress' trope being arguably the most damaging. It's entirely possible to create a good game without being overtly sexist about it: the Mass Effect and The Elder Scrolls series' spring immediately to mind here.

For the record, I don't mind if a game reinforces gender-roles and whatnot because it is an essential part of the setting. It's rarely all that essential, however.

[3]: This is a Strawman.

[4]: I'm already a man.

[5]: No, we don't.

[6]: I've already been over this in this thread. Please read the thread.
I have never played that game so could you please tell me the problems with it? Is it an RPG?

Harry Smith

April 5th, 2014, 05:55 PM

Why don't you tell him why you think it is wrong? Because Vlerchan clearly highlights it above and it was self evident.

They're center-left if you're being pedantic but to be honest people like you and comments like that remind me why I am attending a private school. Yes, it is a private school or a fee paying school to satisfy your rather irritating pedantic side!

I have never played that game so could you please tell me the problems with it? Is it an RPG?

Left wing and centre left are completely different-it's an insult to parties like left unity to call Labour center left. Heck the last thing they did for the left was introduce the minimum wage back in 1998. I also don't understand why your bringing up what type of school you have-do you attend a private school to learn incorrect political knowledge because that's all the above post demonstrates. If your going to present an argument at least make it good for your case

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 06:02 PM

They're center-left.
The Labour party are Centrists. I wouldn't call them Leftists (anymore) by any stretch of the imagination.

I have never played that game so could you please tell me the problems with it? Is it an RPG?
They're both RPGs: probably my two favourite series' of all time, for that matter.

I also find no problems with them in terms of how they treat gender-issues - which was my entire point. Both make no attempt to exaggerate gender-differences or put-across stereotypical gender-values as fact; both give a realistic portrayal of men and woman in both their respective societies; both have strong female characters present throughout, and so on.

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 06:04 PM

Because Vlerchan clearly highlights it above and it was self evident. I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim labour are left wing because that's wrong too

Maybe this can help, little embarrassing hey? I love the fact the site is titled "I don't get politics".
http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

britishboy

April 5th, 2014, 06:06 PM

They're both RPGs: probably my two favourite series' of all time, for that matter.

I also find no problems with them in terms of how they treat gender-issues - which was my entire point. Both make no attempt to exaggerate gender-differences or put-across stereotypical gender-values as fact; both give a realistic portrayal of men and woman in both their respective societies; both have strong female characters present throughout, and so on.
Games cater to what is wanted, people want the games otherwise they would change. Unfortunately real life does not always make good fiction,

Harry Smith

April 5th, 2014, 06:14 PM

Maybe this can help, little embarrassing hey? I love the fact the site is titled "I don't get politics".
http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

That website is simply wrong-to describe labour as 'left wing' would mean that they
A) Support nationalization
B) Support Striking/working rights
C) Are progressively anti-war.
D) Are dedicated environmentalists
E) Would of voted against the welfare cap last week.

Compare this to new labour under Tony Blair which put in place these very right wing ideas

A)Iraq War
B)Foundation hospitals
C)Increasing tuition fees
D)Limitation of trade unions
E)Dergualtion of the banks
F)Power to the media empires of murdoch

Just because some-one says something on a website doesn't make it true. And no it's no embarrassing in the slighest-it just proves that the labour party aren't left wing. The ideas presented on the website were bad at best-it firstly didn't make any difference between the three types of liberal (orange book, classic and social) since they're radically different, and it had no idea about the policy of the conservative party considering it's became more pro NHS and less traditional.

Vlerchan

April 5th, 2014, 06:23 PM

Unfortunately real life does not always make good fiction,
It is entirely possible to make a good game without: a) reinforcing (negative) gender stereotypes, and whilst b) maintaining a strong female presence (throughout). The reason this isn't happening is because people like you don't realise how damaging excluding both a) and b) from video-game production is. Though, admittedly: it has gotten better over the past decade or so.

workingatperfect

April 6th, 2014, 02:48 AM

Feminists make no sense! How is all PIV sex rape?! Rape is sex with somebody who has not consented or can't consent so claiming all PIV sex is rape is saying women can't consent to sex, they don't have the intelligence to.

First, you should go back and read my post on page 3. That is what your typical feminist believes.

Feminism is a lot like religion in that the only people who get attention are the crazy, radical ones that are clearly off their rockers. But they are such a small percent of them. It's so aggravating! What you're doing is basically the same as when people say they hate Christians because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I am a feminist. And honestly, I find that kind of "feminism" to be oppressive. I get what they're saying, but it's wrong on so many levels. Mostly, it's shaming women who enjoy sex by saying that they're stupid and blind not to see that it's all a big lie. That to me is more harmful than the idea that we enjoy it only because men have forced us into it on a global, historical level. Sex is an essential part of reproduction, so isn't it a good thing that we enjoy it and even desire it? Even if that was an adaption over time?

One of the best quotes I've ever seen about feminism on a social level is this: "You do not have to fit into society's fucked up gender roles. But if you do, that's ok too. And that is true feminism." So if you see a feminist basically calling women stupid or oppressed because of choices they've made on how to look or act, or what kind of things they enjoy... Please, do not judge all of us on that one group. That is not the majority. Like I said, that's just as oppressive as what they claim to be fighting.

Miserabilia

April 6th, 2014, 03:58 AM

But this assumption, when you put into play the anti discrimination laws, man are doing more(/harder) work than woman or work in a higher paid field?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png/800px-US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png

same jobs, less pay for women

britishboy

April 6th, 2014, 03:25 PM

That website is simply wrong-to describe labour as 'left wing' would mean that they
A) Support nationalization
B) Support Striking/working rights
C) Are progressively anti-war.
D) Are dedicated environmentalists
E) Would of voted against the welfare cap last week.

Compare this to new labour under Tony Blair which put in place these very right wing ideas

A)Iraq War
B)Foundation hospitals
C)Increasing tuition fees
D)Limitation of trade unions
E)Dergualtion of the banks
F)Power to the media empires of murdoch

Just because some-one says something on a website doesn't make it true. And no it's no embarrassing in the slighest-it just proves that the labour party aren't left wing. The ideas presented on the website were bad at best-it firstly didn't make any difference between the three types of liberal (orange book, classic and social) since they're radically different, and it had no idea about the policy of the conservative party considering it's became more pro NHS and less traditional.

Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are getting closer to the center. But the Labour party is still left wing. Need more sources and help?

First, you should go back and read my post on page 3. That is what your typical feminist believes.

Feminism is a lot like religion in that the only people who get attention are the crazy, radical ones that are clearly off their rockers. But they are such a small percent of them. It's so aggravating! What you're doing is basically the same as when people say they hate Christians because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

I am a feminist. And honestly, I find that kind of "feminism" to be oppressive. I get what they're saying, but it's wrong on so many levels. Mostly, it's shaming women who enjoy sex by saying that they're stupid and blind not to see that it's all a big lie. That to me is more harmful than the idea that we enjoy it only because men have forced us into it on a global, historical level. Sex is an essential part of reproduction, so isn't it a good thing that we enjoy it and even desire it? Even if that was an adaption over time?

One of the best quotes I've ever seen about feminism on a social level is this: "You do not have to fit into society's fucked up gender roles. But if you do, that's ok too. And that is true feminism." So if you see a feminist basically calling women stupid or oppressed because of choices they've made on how to look or act, or what kind of things they enjoy... Please, do not judge all of us on that one group. That is not the majority. Like I said, that's just as oppressive as what they claim to be fighting.

I completely agree :)

Harry Smith

April 6th, 2014, 03:37 PM

Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are getting closer to the center. But the Labour party is still left wing. Need more sources and help?

The Labour party are Centrists. I wouldn't call them Leftists (anymore) by any stretch of the imagination.

If you don't want to agree with me, then at least agree with Vlerhcan. Also please look at my list of policies by Labour under Tony Blair-those policies are not left wing. You also quite clearly don't follow British Politics-the conservatives are not getting closer to the centre-they're becoming more right wing by the day. I mean it's laugable to say that the Labour Party are still left wing-have you joined the UKIP bandwagon yet? It sounds like something that the UKIP camp would cook up

That website is simply wrong-to describe labour as 'left wing' would mean that they
A) Support nationalization
B) Support Striking/working rights
C) Are progressively anti-war.
D) Are dedicated environmentalists
E) Would of voted against the welfare cap last week.

Compare this to new labour under Tony Blair which put in place these very right wing ideas

A)Iraq War
B)Foundation hospitals
C)Increasing tuition fees
D)Limitation of trade unions
E)Dergualtion of the banks
F)Power to the media empires of murdoch

Just because some-one says something on a website doesn't make it true. And no it's no embarrassing in the slighest-it just proves that the labour party aren't left wing. The ideas presented on the website were bad at best-it firstly didn't make any difference between the three types of liberal (orange book, classic and social) since they're radically different, and it had no idea about the policy of the conservative party considering it's became more pro NHS and less traditional under the earlier leadership of Cameron. In offering a brief view of the political parties it completely ignored the factions which often have greater difference than the parties

Vlerchan

April 6th, 2014, 04:45 PM

Both the Conservatives and the Labour party are getting closer to the center.[1] But the Labour party is still left wing. Need more sources and help?[2]
[1]: You're wrong on both counts here. The Conservatives are becoming more right-wing because they're losing out on support the UKip and wants it back. Labour are becoming more right-wing because ... actually, I'm yet to get my head around why Labour are deliberately attempting to alienate it's majority voting base; I suppose they believe they can keep trekking to the right without the working-class noticing.

[2]: Your last source was shit. It also linked to this article within it without paying heed to anything it said: http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php

Firstly, a few words about popular political terms (in case you haven't read the rest of our website).

Once you accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position, the extreme right refers to extremely liberal economics that may be practised by social authoritarians or social libertarians.

Similarly, the extreme left identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies. It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear. It's easy to see how the term national socialism came into being. The uncomfortable reality is that much of their support comes from former Labour voters.

This mirrors France's National Front. In running some local governments, they reinstated certain welfare measures which their Socialist predecessors had abandoned. Like similar authoritarian parties that have sprung up around Europe, they have come to be seen in some quarters as champions of the underdog, as long as the underdog isn't Black, Arab, gay or Jewish ! With mainstream Social Democratic parties adopting - reluctantly or enthusiastically - the new economic libertarian orthodoxy (neo-liberalism), much of their old economic baggage has been pinched by National Socialism. Election debates between mainstream parties are increasingly about managerial competence rather than any clash of vision and fundamental difference in economic direction.

The UK Independence Party might be described as BNP Lite, with a more well-heeled social base of generally older hardline Tories unhappy with their former party's drift in a more socially liberal, Europe-friendly direction. Like the BNP, UKIP is sympathetic to the reintroduction of capital punishment. UKIP's economics, however, are well to the right.

The socially liberal Greens by strong contrast, have shifted from the single-issue tendency of their formative years and sprouted a comprehensive left manifesto, appealing to a diametrically different kind of disenchanted Labour voter: strong on civil liberties, social justice, prison reform and the welfare state; passionately opposed to unfettered market forces, foreign invasions and all things nuclear.

This time around the somewhat mercurial Liberal Democrats look like Green Lite beside the Labour and Conservative parties. Their economic pitch is left of Labour's, with their Treasury spokesman hitting a recent Guardian front page headline Cable attacks 'nauseating businessmen'. One imagines, though, that he must have worked with a few of them in his previous job as Shell's chief economist. The LibDems maintain considerable distance from both the main parties on the social scale, with a rehabilitative approach to crime, a far greater concern for civil liberties ie curbs on CCTV, expansion of the Freedom of Information Act and the reduction of pre-charge detention to a maximum of 14 days. The only one of the big three parties to have opposed the invasion of Iraq, the LibDems have been astonishingly coy about where they stand on the UK's Trident nuclear arsenal. Their candidates somewhat self-consciously rattle off Trident as one of many expenditures that should be looked at in these difficult economic times. Presumably afraid of being labelled soft on defence, the LibDems haven't dared to argue robustly against Britain's "independent deterrent", which is actually linked to the US nuclear command system. Labour and the Conservatives are committed to its replacement at a cost of a more than £80 billion, including maintenance and running expenditure. Given that an impressive group of senior military officers deemed Trident "irrelevant" in a letter to The Times on 16 January 2009, the LibDems have missed a chance to do the public and the party a favour by giving the issue real prominence. Labour and the Conservatives won't, since they are in agreement on this colossal expenditure.

With its commitment to scrap ID cards and the National Identity Register, reduce pre-charge detention to 28 days and other civil libertarian concerns, the Conservative Party seems willing to accept some haemorrhage of support from the old tweed and twinset guard. As they shuffle off to UKIP, the often tieless David Cameron can appeal to more socially liberal voters with an appetite for the full-throttle neoliberal economic policies that would inevitably follow their election. The new "progressive" Tory party, as revealed in a recent Financial Times survey, remains one with a large number of climate change deniers. Despite recent history, most in the party are opposed to all but the lightest fiscal regulation, and don't want to see any cap at all on corporate bonuses.

There's considerable truth in the assertion that it's easier to be socially liberal in opposition than in office. Nevertheless Labour - or is it still New Labour? - has moved markedly towards a more authoritarian position than the circumstances justify. Along with the indefinite retention of DNA profiles of people arrested but not convicted and the 42-day pre-charge detention, the party also continues to champion ID cards, an identity database and much else that has upset civil libertarians. While fiscally there are hints that the party is now reaching back to its core values, under Blair and Brown Labour has gone to extraordinary lengths to privatise the economy and nationalise the public.

What post-1980s elections demonstrate is passionate debate - but only within constantly narrowing parameters. The big clashes of vision are regrettably absent. Economic power has transcended political power, to the detriment of democracy. Between the big three, there's no ideological argument about whether the prevailing economic orthodoxy is best for Britain, but simply which of them can make market forces work best. Afghanistan might be mentioned, but only in terms of funding: not whether the UK should be there. Climate change crops up, but not whether a deregulated growth economy is compatible with the ecological imperative. Saving the NHS is an important campaign issue, but not the fundamental question of whether public funds should be turned into private profit. The "big issues" are things like the national insurance rise which, as The Observer's economics editor has pointed out, would cost M&S only two thirds of what the company shelled out for its new chief executive's hello package.

Underlining the absence of substantial differences on the economic scale in particular, the public – and even the commentators – refer more than ever before to the three main leaders rather than to their parties. We know more about their personal lives; less about concrete policy. The tv debates, as welcome as they might be on some levels, have helped bring about a more presidential approach to politics. A presidential political campaign tends to highlight the style of the candidates rather than the substance of their policies. It's a handy diversion in the absence of profound ideological distinctions.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/enPartiesTime.gif

[Vlerchan Note: Labour feature highly authoritarian on this as a result of their support for I.D cards, etc.]

Aside: this board really needs spoiler/hide tags.

workingatperfect

April 6th, 2014, 05:58 PM

Labor has absolutely nothing to do with Feminism... Unless you want a mod to lock this topic, could you start a new thread for this discussion or something? :)

britishboy

April 6th, 2014, 06:30 PM

Blah blah blah
They are getting closer to the center but they are still left wing? Why because they put poor people before everything! Tax the wealthy who do the most for this country like crazy, turn away investment, up the national debt, don't go into syria (That was the right decision in hindsight but is left wing associated they are happy to have welfare higher than minimum wage and people living on welfare going on holidays completely relaxed.
http://img.skitch.com/20101023-x8tpubai1jmp5xs2dt7xn4r7t8.jpg
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLabour_Party_(UK)&ei=d-BBU66WGYnBhAegxIHYCA&usg=AFQjCNGXBmD8v4Yi3kWt1p2tvP1fDkQVyA&sig2=TR9N3ONKG2ZJL7xOe7MLaQ

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDkQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBritish_Left&ei=d-BBU66WGYnBhAegxIHYCA&usg=AFQjCNGAmQF4Df46LAXiYTKZD03q9DrRxQ&sig2=_Jeugk7pZGng5edPiuUH9A

[1]: You're wrong on both counts here. The Conservatives are becoming more right-wing because they're losing out on support the UKip and wants it back. Labour are becoming more right-wing because ... actually, I'm yet to get my head around why Labour are deliberately attempting to alienate it's majority voting base; I suppose they believe they can keep trekking to the right without the working-class noticing.

I am sorry but I can not read all of that now, I did scan over it and I promise to read it when I have more time. Recently yes the conservatives have been and thank the lord. We need to get back to the brilliant country under Thatcher. Labour are becoming more right wing because of the Conservatives success. They can't oppose what is working. Labour are still far too concerned about the working class, they are actually making them worse.

Rallo

April 7th, 2014, 12:26 PM

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png/800px-US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png)

same jobs, less pay for women

I'm not arguing this doesn't happen, I'm simply stating there's laws against it already, use them; report it on a basis of when it happens to you personally.

Also, I'm not sure what this chart is showing (percentiles, i assume?), though it's invalid unless a more complex survey is done. (ie including qualification, etc etc. This would show a more accurate difference in pay. However, I assume this would still be slightly in advantage of males, though still I believe needs to be combated on a per a basis manor. A few discrimination claims and a company will simply get the point. Why stand in the street with a sign (excuse my stereotypical assumptions here, i'm aware not all feminist do this) if you could simply report it and have it solved quite simply?)

In general and across all means of employment you'll find that men earn higher wages than woman.

This begins straight out of college: in America woman, on average, are earning 82% of their male counterparts wages a year from graduation. This can be partly explained away through the choices of these men and woman: many men are encouraged by society into higher-paying jobs; you'll find a much smaller number of woman entering the 'hard science' employment, as well as in other (high-paying) fields such as engineering and computer sciences. Rather you'll find many in traditionally lower-paying work such as social-care, teaching, etc. This is a problem in itself, though I won't concentrate on it right now. Even taking this 'choice' into account though you'll still find that there's an unexplained gap of 7% in wages between people in exactly the same work and doing exactly the same hours.

10 years after graduation and you'll find that woman are now earning only 69% as much as men. This can be partly explained as a result of men working traditionally better paid jobs, but there's also two new elements that we need account for: promotion-discrimination and work-leave. Woman tend to be discriminated against when it comes to promotion because they have the inherent risk of coming down with child at any given moment; this leads to such opportunities being passed up to men. As you correctly guessed (?) part of it can also be explained in woman deciding to work less, though this isn't by choice as anti-feminists like to make out: many woman have now had children and are forced to become less career-focused in a bid to raise them - our gendered society forcing thus on them.

If we take into account men and woman working the same employment - but not necessarily the same hours it looks like this:

image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/US_womens_earnings_and_employment_by_industry_2009.png)

The pay-gap only widens as people advance further: for every one woman earning 6 figures in America there's 5 men. This comes as a direct result of the explained above.
The pictures you used to explain your claim further show only per a week earnings, not hours worked or hourly rates. This is a completely invalid source of evidence due to not supplying such data.

with promotion discrimination, I'm not arguing this doesn't happen (as it does), though it's usually easy enough to report. Unless you're working for a very small, private company, promotions are based on your qualification (yep, those pieces of paper) more than how well you work, this makes discrimination claims extremely easy. I'm not sure if this is similar to the us, though it's like this for most companies in Australia.
Firstly an in-depth survey needs to be done and findings concluded before such a thing can even be looked in to. I'm not arguing it shouldn't be looked into however, I'm stating such evidence needs to be gathered first. Saying "well they're paid less because man in the same field of work get more" is extremely far fetched data samples to prove the point.

Some very interesting data can actually be gathered from this sight:
http://www.mysalaryportal.com (this is an Australian site I believe, so keep that in mind)
for a first year, ungraduated person, despite on average (over all fields) receiving ~6% less, the upper quartile receives ~1k more/year than man. This shows (if we state ~1k difference as about even, as it works out to a few dollars a day..), the difference is nothing for woman who work in high paying jobs to man who do the same work, with the same qualification.
If you have some time, I ask that you do a few various searches on that site and gather extra data to go towards or against what I'm saying here, though in the 10-15minutes i was on there, that was my findings.
Edit: Lower quartile is actually $3000/year less than man, though I believe that's with in margin of the factors you stated above. (man usually going for higher paying jobs, etc)

edit2: 17% of woman also get child day care benefits. 12% get company paid training, compared to 6% with man. 22% get mobile phone+allowance for woman, compared to <1% (unstated due to low amount) with man. Just across the board of benefits, there's a lot more for woman. Maybe this is the difference in pay?

This has nothing to do with your claim that men have a lesser chance of winning such claims. And have you ever thought that woman might be claiming more because it's more-so common for men to be in positions of power in businesses and the likes? It would seem like a good reason for such to occur to me.

I'll be honest: I'm not going to even start considering any arguments you put forward about alternative means of birth-control because I (frankly) don't consider whether a woman wants to get an abortion or not an issue. It's entirely through that she could've/should've used some means of protection but I honestly don't care: security of person is a basic human right, period.
I agree exactly with what you're saying here (I believe I did explain that, maybe i worded it right?), though I still believe instead of pouring money into public abortion clinics, pour the money in to safe sex advertisements and the odd grant for abortion clinics, seems like a more logic and more economical way of solving the problem. I mean, I see exactly what you're saying, even without looking overly into the way it is right now, woman are quiet F'd if they end up pregnant as it stands currently. There's really complicated restrictions and their options are limited, though the majority of it can be prevented so I still see focusing on that as a better idea to focus the majority of funding on.

-merged double post. -Emerald Dream.

Vlerchan

April 7th, 2014, 05:04 PM

The pictures you used to explain your claim further show only per a week earnings, not hours worked or hourly rates. This is a completely invalid source of evidence due to not supplying such data.
I accept that men work more hours a week than woman. I offered this reasoning: "As you correctly guessed (?) part of it can also be explained in woman deciding to work less, though this isn't by choice as anti-feminists like to make out: many woman have now had children and are forced to become less career-focused in a bid to raise them - our gendered society forcing thus on them." I linked relevant statistics in my first post in the thread.

with promotion discrimination, I'm not arguing this doesn't happen (as it does), though it's usually easy enough to report.
Yes. It is easy to report promotion discrimination. It's incredibly hard to prove, however. If the solution you outlined in your post was as workable as you'd like to believe then I wouldn't have a point to argue here. Again, there's relevant links in my first post in this thread.

Saying "well they're paid less because man in the same field of work get more" is extremely far fetched data samples to prove the point.
No, it's not.

Men reach higher points in the same professions and hence earn more, this comes as a result of the promotion-discrimination I outlined.

Some very interesting data can actually be gathered from this sight:
http://www.mysalaryportal.com (this is an Australian site I believe, so keep that in mind)
for a first year, ungraduated person, despite on average (over all fields) receiving ~6% less, the upper quartile receives ~1k more/year than man. This shows (if we state ~1k difference as about even, as it works out to a few dollars a day..), the difference is nothing for woman who work in high paying jobs to man who do the same work, with the same qualification.
I stated that the problem was that woman weren't, in general, going after the same qualifications or the same jobs. Though, then I'm not really sure if I'm understanding fully what you're saying here (I'm pretty tired right now, it's late): would you mind linking to the page that displays these statistics, and the ones below.

I'm also not going to have the time to give the site a good look until the weekend, unfortunately. I'm busy with exams/projects this week.

Maybe this is the difference in pay?
I doubt benefits account for the full difference, though if you'd like to prepare the numbers then I can give them a look over.