Feminist Article
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
I've answered the above already in edit to your edited post.
I don't feel anything about feel speech. I will tell you what I know though. We do not have a positive right to free speech in this country (bar two locational exceptions). What rights we do have strict exceptions: one being - speech causing alarm, distress or harassment.
Sounds to me like your comments caused distress.
I don't feel anything about feel speech. I will tell you what I know though. We do not have a positive right to free speech in this country (bar two locational exceptions). What rights we do have strict exceptions: one being - speech causing alarm, distress or harassment.
Sounds to me like your comments caused distress.
But its not unfair, women choose whether or not to have kids its not forced upon them, also they only get paid less when its deserved by that I mean I would be rather unhappy getting paid the same or less as any other person male or female who had say taken time of to have said kids, Ive got more experience in the role I should be paid more, women hide behind this childbearing ******** but fact is nobody forces them to do it, nobody forces them to take time off, there are many women who have chosen not to have kids and are at the top of the career pile. Expecting to have 10 years off to do the mummy or daddy thing then come back into work getting the same pay as someone whose put those 10 years in is ridiculous
So what should be done about it?
Some drugs do have wider repercussions. But you still shouldn't compare them, one you do to yourself, one is done to someone else.
I'm not sure where you live, but not wearing makeup is also acceptable in general society.
Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by this?
So you never make jokes about anything which somebody (even a person who is hypersensitive) may get offended about?.
Do you employ the same logic for criticising say, religion? - as people can get offended about that too?, what about criticising female genital mutilation (I've got a couple of Muslims in my office, should I alter my speech to save offence if asked, or having a conversation with somebody unrelated?).
I'm not saying I'm going around shouting "HAHA, ALL WOMEN SHOULD BE IN THE KITCHEN, STOOOPID ****** LOLOLO", but merely subtle banter with like-minded people.
By your logic about, free speech criticising any practice which "causes" distress should not be permitted - what an odd point of view (as criticising EDP or BNP members is likely to cause them distress).
I believe a "reasonable distress" addition needs to be put onto your limited definition.
In reply to the A, B, C reply - C would be the closest but it's actually D.
D) I think people should have the right to reasonable conversation without having to sterilise conversation to save another person perceived third party offence.
Last edited:
Female circumcision is a culturally mediated not through religion.
I am making the point that you are using the very arguments people used to use to justify racism et al - harmless banter, oversensitive, etc.
You have yet to explain why it is valid for you to use such a defense.
If you wish to say: "My view is that only overly sensitive people will get offended by my comments. In my eyes such comments are not that bad and not directly addressed at them anyway. My view is that my right of free speech to make such comments trumps any potential distress is may cause." - then say that.
I've addressed the above in the edit.
I'm aware it's cultural - but would you believe it, people of certain cultures also tend to be from certain religions....
Awaiting your view on perceived vs justified offence & how you feel about religious criticism in society (as it offends).
I also repeat my original question.
"Have you ever made a joke to another person which a third party could get offended about & therefore do you not support equality due to this?" - as that's what you are implying.
Last edited:
I'll address the edit ...
Once again you don't have free speech in this country. You may want to the positive right to free speech - if you do may I suggest your either become an academic or an MP.
I am afraid the definition isn't mine it's the law of the land.
And you have finally answered the question. All I will say is that is an interesting viewpoint considering your usual stance on topics and for me is opening Pandora's Box to all kind of excuses.
I guess it goes back to my original post which you agreed with. That anyone in a position of power will attempt to subjugate others to their will and desire: whether that be through obvious threat through to informal and unconscious discrimination. You see we are all not that different at the end of the day.
Are you hallucinating that some part of what you just said has anything to do with "equal rights"?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2013
- Posts
- 154
- Location
- The Grim North.
Feminism is nothing without intersectionality.
They could always change the working times regulations in favour of women, so women can do all the overtime they want to earn as much as the men.
I'm aware it's cultural - but would you believe it, people of certain cultures also tend to be from certain religions....
Yes, and the correlation you associated it with there is a poor one. Correlation does not imply causation. The practice predated the religion.
Therefore, to assume that someone of a religion may take offense at a practice that is not directly caused by the religion but is actually only loosely correlated from a few regions in the world where such practices do occur would fall into the position of holding a prejudicial belief would it not?
I agree it can't be used for everything, it has to be reasoned & apportioned - a flat rule doesn't work.
But as a society, I don't think feeling offended is enough to justify changing somebody else's behaviour - it needs to have reasonable limits.
If I found gay people offensive, or atheists offensive or anything - I shouldn't be able to project that offence & expect others to change behaviour, it works both ways.
I'm sure if two gay people spoke about past partners some of the religious people in the office would get offended, should the couple stop talking (assuming they are talking normally) to save the offence of others?
Obviously - actually being insulted, racially abused or being insulted due to gender should obviously not be protected by this (as it's moving from unjustifiable offence to justifiable offence).
I do agree with your point.
But I just don't think being offended is the end of the conversation, as people get offended about anything or everything.
I never implied anything about correlation or causation on this.
Just that statistically people who are in favour of female genital mutilation are more likely to be represented in both certain cultures & religious groups. (Besides - it's a known fact for two people in the office, not an assumption) - I was using a real world example.
Last edited:
Well I wouldn't think twice about doing it to another male, fights generally are between same sex.
Ok lets put it a different way then, I think if they should maybe have MvF combat sport fights. I mean you can't request equality in one thing but not in another, it's equal or not... you can't have selective equality.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem with girls like her who are into feminism is they aren't, they are into selfish-ism, they say such unintentionally obtuse things and think they are standing up for something when in reality they are just being utterly ignorant.
Girls are pressured into doing things sexually... sure, because the guy who waits to have sex is never ever mocked within a group of friends.... no really, its a female only problem.
Girls shouldn't have to wear make up or buy nice clothes... yeah, men don't wash, ever, they don't buy expensive scrubs and there is no social stigma forcing men to buy expensive crap to put on themselves, none of them worry over spots, none of them ever once feel any care for their appearance and no other men nor women ever say anything about a man who doesn't try hard as well.... oh wait.
A woman should feel safe walking around at night.... where as not a single man in the world ever feels unsafe walking anywhere.....
A women shouldn't have to put up with wolf whistling... because women never do this to men, and women never pinch mens arses in clubs.
She had a backlash to trying to start a feminist society and she takes that as proof of people being against women having equality, no, its because if a men asked to set up a malinist society(if that is actually I word I don't know, the fact that no one knows what a male equivalent would be called should point out how sexist a feminism is to begin with) there would be massive uproar.
She wants to start a feminist society to protest about "life" and act like every single thing she's talking about doesn't effect men in exactly the same way. THis is feminism's problem, its not that grouping is bad, its that grouping is bad and they insist its not a problem the other way around.
Start a group for a "good society", its got NOTHING to do with women. There are just as many groups of women who act like ****'s as men, they are just not very pleasant people. There are just as many women who mentally, verbally abuse men as there are men who abuse women.
Her problem is she thinks her IDENTICAL problems are worse, and should get more discussion and her problems are worse than men's problems. I can't stand feminists because they give an utterly one sided, ignorant, illogical view on everything and demand for their lives to be made better... for no reason. Ignoring that men have essentially all the same problems, they refuse to acknowledge there are differences between the sexes and that life often plays out better.
Men don't factor their kids into their careers, you know all those guys who end up working 7am till 9pm, work when they get home, work all weekend, and drop dead of heart attacks through stress at 60years old... thats because(often) they are trying to provide for their family, and provide a better life.... No one has to work that hard, nor provide their kids with more/better stuff, a better life, a better education. Men often sacrifice massive huge portions of their lives just so their kids can have a better life, what an utterly ignorant thing to suggest that only women think about their kids when it comes to careers. How many people at 18years old want to spend almost every waking moment in the office, in a stressful job, missing all their kids biggest moments, and missing out on life, no one WANTS that, they do it to provide for their families.
Girls are pressured into doing things sexually... sure, because the guy who waits to have sex is never ever mocked within a group of friends.... no really, its a female only problem.
Girls shouldn't have to wear make up or buy nice clothes... yeah, men don't wash, ever, they don't buy expensive scrubs and there is no social stigma forcing men to buy expensive crap to put on themselves, none of them worry over spots, none of them ever once feel any care for their appearance and no other men nor women ever say anything about a man who doesn't try hard as well.... oh wait.
A woman should feel safe walking around at night.... where as not a single man in the world ever feels unsafe walking anywhere.....
A women shouldn't have to put up with wolf whistling... because women never do this to men, and women never pinch mens arses in clubs.
She had a backlash to trying to start a feminist society and she takes that as proof of people being against women having equality, no, its because if a men asked to set up a malinist society(if that is actually I word I don't know, the fact that no one knows what a male equivalent would be called should point out how sexist a feminism is to begin with) there would be massive uproar.
She wants to start a feminist society to protest about "life" and act like every single thing she's talking about doesn't effect men in exactly the same way. THis is feminism's problem, its not that grouping is bad, its that grouping is bad and they insist its not a problem the other way around.
Start a group for a "good society", its got NOTHING to do with women. There are just as many groups of women who act like ****'s as men, they are just not very pleasant people. There are just as many women who mentally, verbally abuse men as there are men who abuse women.
Her problem is she thinks her IDENTICAL problems are worse, and should get more discussion and her problems are worse than men's problems. I can't stand feminists because they give an utterly one sided, ignorant, illogical view on everything and demand for their lives to be made better... for no reason. Ignoring that men have essentially all the same problems, they refuse to acknowledge there are differences between the sexes and that life often plays out better.
Men don't factor their kids into their careers, you know all those guys who end up working 7am till 9pm, work when they get home, work all weekend, and drop dead of heart attacks through stress at 60years old... thats because(often) they are trying to provide for their family, and provide a better life.... No one has to work that hard, nor provide their kids with more/better stuff, a better life, a better education. Men often sacrifice massive huge portions of their lives just so their kids can have a better life, what an utterly ignorant thing to suggest that only women think about their kids when it comes to careers. How many people at 18years old want to spend almost every waking moment in the office, in a stressful job, missing all their kids biggest moments, and missing out on life, no one WANTS that, they do it to provide for their families.
Treating people the same in not equality. Let me give you an example of why it may be advantageous.
You hold interviews for the post of Professor of Physics at Cambridge a few years back. You hold the interviews on the 2nd floor. There is no lift only stairs. Everyone has to use the stairs. Do you get the best candidate to attend? Or would you have to treat that person differently to give them an equal chance of attending the interview and actually getting the person you want.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
The two parts of this sentence do not connect to each other. Your violent tendencies are something you should get under control.
Something that regularly occurs in martial arts classes around the country. But in terms of competition at the peak of physical fitness (Worlds, Olympics, anything professional), nobody's arguing with the fact that men are generally capable of higher physical peaks (let's say strength and speed, for example) than women. So where's the equality to be had in that? You're picking silly examples which you think prove your point, but really don't I'm afraid.