| Feminism was never needed. Equal opportunity is what's important, and not just for gender, but for race and nationality as well. At the same time, I really don't give a fuck, I like political and social drama and enjoy living in a turbulent time. This is an age of exploration, where each individual alone has the potential to shape the entire future of mankind. Being born five thousand years in the past you'd just be part of a well-working tribal society, and five thousand years in the future you'd probably be a part of some gentle utopia. |
xEmptiness said: "if we follow what SW is suggesting, nihilism is the conclusion" |
| Not in the form it exists today. It should be reformed into an equalist movement. |
Know said: The argument is sound for both, showing you what a bad argument it is.Pirating_Ninja said: Did you just compare a movement to a National socialism group that caused world war 2? LmaoWhat kind of logic is this? If I create a thread saying "Do you think that Nazis are needed", and we get more "no" answers, does that mean it is probably needed? |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Feminism has got to be something absolutely harmful. Possibly the word once remained for something helpful and great, however women's liberation today implies premature birth on interest and without conciliatory sentiment; now it implies hatred for virginity, scorn for kids, disdain for parenthood. Why might any right-supposing lady even need to utilize that name, when it places you in such unpleasant organization? Furthermore, in any case, why do we even need woman's rights any longer? Aren't we done? There once was a genuine requirement for the development. Long back, ladies really needed to battle for fundamental opportunities. At the same time, now they can vote, now they can claim property, now they have as much as a man does in the way as their lives go. They can go to the class, work where they want, wear what they want, travel where they want— and if a lady need to stay home and raise children, helped by female specialists and regarded by their spouses, then woman's rights has won that ideal for them, as well. It's a brilliant post-women's activist age, in the event that we all played the cards right. Before, when somebody doubted the requirement for woman's rights, I would consider her a very old lady, because of the way they lived and how they battled the rights. The feminism iin the past was vital, however its done its work. The reason we require feminism — yes, still is because the development got sidetracked. Yes, some abhorrent individuals call themselves women's activists, and do awful things for the sake of women's liberation. What of it? Individuals do ghastly things for the sake of vote based system, and individuals do frightful things for the sake of excellence. Individuals do ghastly things for the sake of Christ our savior and Lord. That doesn't mean we forsake the name. That implies we safeguard it, we correct the abuse. When I call myself a feminist (even though Imma guy), I don't imply that I break out in an icy sweat. A few individuals use "women's liberation/feminism" to signify "being bombshell constantly" or "getting requital on men" or "stamping out everything that makes ladies appear to be ladylike." So what? I don't utilize it that way. Neither did a lot of other people. Yes, regardless we require woman's rights. A ton has changed on the planet, yet there is significantly more that never will change. Ladies will constantly require men in a specific manner — generally as men will constantly require ladies in a specific manner. It's not about men or ladies being more vital than the other; its about figuring out how to function in agreement. Ever hear a choir hone? Consistent tuning, steady adjustment. Possibly at some point later on, we will have the capacity to resign "woman's rights." Maybe there will never again be any need to battle against treacheries that men (and ladies!) execute against the ladylike. In any case, that time is not currently. That time is not nearing soon. We require woman's rights. Yes, still. |
| Hello |
| yes until men n woman are equal. but what about transgenders |
Swiggy said: I think you nailed it. I had a professor once that explained very well why Humanism was a good idea in theory but falls apart in practice, and it's basically what you said. Picture each group and their issues as part of a bar graph. Every bar on that graph will not be of equal height, because not every group is of equal status in society. Humanism raises everyone's bar the same amount, which seems good. But it still results in inequality between groups. Subgroups that are able to focus on the needs of specific groups (women, African Americans, LGBT, etc) raise each bar separately and are more likely to result in equality in the end. |
Know said: Did you just compare a movement to a National socialism group that caused world war 2? Lmao Godwin's law doesn't make it wrong, after all the third wave feminists act like one anyway. |
| No way to recall What it was that you had said to me Like I care at all But it was so loud And you sure could yell You took a stand on every little thing And it was so loud |
Trollbrotherno1 said: So one guy tweeting what you said equals a widespread cultural movement? My strawman is highly flawed. ftfy This isn't some random guy. It's not a guy at all. It's an elected official at a university with thousands supporting her. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Not anymore. It hasn't been needed for years. Feminism as it is right now is shit and should be fought. |
 |
| Let this die already |
Know said: The comparison is sound. Your argument is bad shit.Pirating_Ninja said: Did you just compare a movement to a National socialism group that caused world war 2? LmaoWhat kind of logic is this? If I create a thread saying "Do you think that Nazis are needed", and we get more "no" answers, does that mean it is probably needed? vibskov said: lolthere's no need to explain as you are unable to. immahnoob, you're not even fit to argue. you've once claimed that "culture doesn't affect people." You got rekt Keep embarrassing yourself in that pit of denial Sir_Chasm said: This.In 3rd world countries, yes. In 1st world countries, no. In western society feminism has become a joke, people find anything and everything sexist. Why not do something worthwhile with all that time and energy? Sure sexism might exist in some places, but nowadays it seems like feminists focus on whatever happens to be popular. Kinda like Peta going balistic over pokemon instead of fighting acctual animal cruelty. |
BlueScarfJun 3, 2015 12:20 AM
  |
| Nah. Feminists aren't needed in the west. |
 |
| While I do feel that the feminists here in Sweden are like a bad joke since this is probably the place where feminism is the least needed, I still believe it's needed in other places. The facts are that women just aren't treated equally as men as seen by for example salary even in Sweden. In many countries women still don't get education and get married off when they're like 13. |
Cottonrabbit said: supporting and helping women return to work after children (issues like encouraging businesses to offer flexibility in work hours, job sharing etc) why do we need to show favoritism and make companies implement new rules to give advantages to women because they can birth children? doesn't sound like equality to me. I'd love to make a company bend over backwards and give me flexible hours, oh wait im a man so I don't get those benefits because of my reproductive system. Pretty sure women have a lot more flexibility and shortcuts in the work place because of their gender than men. Having benefits or disadvantages based solely on gender is what feminism is supposed to be fighting isn't it? Cottonrabbit said: Supporting gay rights does not make me any less straight. Cottonrabbit said: So if a woman questioning the status quo makes you angry, perhaps you need to ask yourself why that causes you angst. There might be an unpleasant truth that is making you uncomfortable. Or not. But quite often we do not realise our own subtle biases until they are pointed out. and disliking first world feminists doesn't mean the person is some closet sexist or that there is some 'unpleasant truth' behind why. First world feminists have nothing left to complain over they are treat just like men by law, anything else is just down to individuals bias that you can't force change. Nothing subtle about that, sorry but there's no secret past where I was abused by a woman so hate them subconsciously. I dislike first world feminism and I know why and saying "Or not" doesn't free you from what you are implying about people. Which is if you get angry at a feminist point it must be because secretly deep down you know they're right and are defending your advantage in society. Which is a dumb argument to make. |
SpooksJun 4, 2015 4:32 AM
 |
Cottonrabbit said: For example: aborigines face inter-generational cycles of poverty, violence and substance abuse. We have Aboriginal activists and groups drawing attention to these problems and trying find ways to resolve them. A humanist would declare that as Aborigines have equal legal status, they obviously hate other Australians as they only speak up on issues affecting Aborigines instead of also campaigning for the homeless and street kids as well. Do you see how the message is watered down and confused? The irony is that in Australia today, Aborigines are generally given a privileged legal status. Just like women. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Trollbrotherno1 said: So one guy tweeting what you said equals a widespread cultural movement? My strawman is highly flawed. ftfy This isn't some random guy. It's not a guy at all. It's an elected official at a university with thousands supporting her. I'll ignore your 'widespread' comment because that's not the same as what you originally said, quoted above. A tweet from an elected official at a university from a female diversity officer with thousands of people supporting her right to make that tweet is not the same as 'one guy tweeting what you said'. That's why what you said is a strawman. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Trollbrotherno1 said: Furthermore you used ONE PERSONS TWEET to support that this alleged "movement" You're still trying to tell me that I'm saying something different to what I'm saying. It's like you saying that it's freezing outside, me responding with 'well I'm only wearing summer clothes and I don't feel too cold' and you spending the rest of the conversation arguing about how 'it clearly isn't summer - look at a calendar'. Or if that analogy flew over your head, imagine for a second that not all disagreements are exact negations of each other. Trollbrotherno1 said: You now try to justify that point by sayng this woman "thousands of people supporting her right..." which is not at all the same as saying "thousands of members" of this alleged movement. For all you know a bunch of those "thousands" of people might just support free speech which is something we do here in the states. Proving once again that you still haven't read the link I gave. Trollbrotherno1 said: But lets just say this tweet is indicative of a movement with thousands of supporters. That would still be minuscule in number compared to a typical social movement. The KKK has around 10,000 members, Iota Phi Theta, the smallest black fraternity in America has 70,000 members, Adult Friend Finder has around 40 million. ISIS only has tens of thousands of members. Thank goodness they lack the numbers to count as a real movement. Trollbrotherno1 said: You are using a tweet and possible supporters of that tweet to equate to a "movement". Which I didn't. Trollbrotherno1 said: Now unless you call a movement a few thousand people tweeting and not doing anything your point is worthless. Which they aren't. - implying the double negation there. Trollbrotherno1 said: As i originally assessed, you don't know what you're talking about. As I originally assessed, you have still so far proven to be incapable of reading a dissenting view without misinterpreting it. It's not a 'movement'. It's a cultural aberration, a tumour of blindingly inflammatory rhetoric that exists for no purpose other than for its selfish adherents to shamelessly grab at power. Why care? Because it's somehow working. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Cottonrabbit said: Yes, I am sure that by you saying that you are "for the equal rights of men", surely you will address some issue that MEN face other than "toxic masculinity" correct? Otherwise can I assume that in actuality you are just blanketing the fact that feminism is NOT egalitarianism, nor was it ever, just pretended to be.I am feminist. I believe in empowerment of women, equal rights to men and that feminists still have a valuable contribution to Western societies. Cottonrabbit said: Weird . . . I thought you were for the equality of men too, but here we go again with "women are the victims", hammered by the fact you mention nothing else but female problems, it is almost as if you are pushing a perspective that females are the ONLY victims.There are not many legal inequalities left but there are many social attitudes demeaning or simply unnecessarily difficult for women. Cottonrabbit said: Yes, the justice system, and indeed our society, treat rape of females as something that cannot happen, or is funny. It isn't like most men cannot be raped, it isn't like the court system will rule that a man raped a women if BOTH are intoxicated. It isn't like the most common "rape joke" in media involves "don't drop the soap". A few examples would be the treatment of rape victims by the justice system and society, Having said that, I would agree, our justice system, more than being racist, is EXTREMELY sexist. Ever seen the gender disparity in the court system? I mean if you commit a murder, the best thing you could possibly do or have done, to shorten your jail time, is to have been born a woman. Women are way less likely to be arrested for the same crime, sentenced to jail for the same time, and will almost always serve a much shorter sentence FOR THE SAME CRIME. This isn't like the "wage gap" which mentions "for the same job" (when we both know that isn't true), no, this literally means for the same crime. You aren't screwed in the legal system nearly as hard for being black, as you are for being a male. But I am glad you are worried about the things that really matter, like how our media has deemed rape to be a crime that one is guilty of until proven innocent (only if the rapist was a man, naturally). Equality indeed! Cottonrabbit said: Really? This is going to be what you go with? That "Misogyny on the internet is the only bad thing on the internet? Or what needs to be "fought", you do realize that there are hundreds of female sites dedicated to "male tears", there was a book written about how it would be best to kill off all men (written by a feminist of course), not too mention sites dedicated to racism / anti-gay, etc. But no, you are right, those on the internet that are "misogynistic" are clearly the only baddies.the misogyny that is so prevalent on the internet and within certain other groups Cottonrabbit said: I actually agree that women who "have children" are to some level getting screwed in the work place, which isn't necessarily fair, however what I would argue for instead is that families should be a joint "burden". In other words, fathers should be just as screwed. Why do I say this? Because is it fair that you are treated equally at work to some person who, instead of having a family, decided to dedicate his/her time to her job, aspiring to rise the ladder? No. You CHOSE to have a family, therefore you should expect negative repercussions, as messed up as that sounds, it isn't practical to think that someone who has so much more time and flexibility to offer a company should be held on equal levels. supporting and helping women return to work after children (issues like encouraging businesses to offer flexibility in work hours, job sharing etc), stereotypes and unconscious gender bias against women in the workplace ( This is a study proving this ). Cottonrabbit said: And this is one of the blatant hypocricies of feminism. YOU NEVER EVEN MENTIONED ONE, JUST ONE, MALE ISSUE. Hell, academic feminism labels the "patriarchy" as "rich white men" and therefore the oppressors, therefore, they cannot be "oppressed". So you can of course justify the ignoring of such issues as "not really being issues", but assuming these are not your beliefs can I question why you define feminism as a movement that is both "for gender equality of BOTH genders" but also a movement that only discusses misogyny towards women? These seem contradictory. Sure you can believe in both, but if all your movement does is advocate for women's rights, how are you any different than Men's Rights Activists that only advocate for men's rights? Shouldn't you just consider yourself a WRA? My argument was never that YOU don't care about men's rights (although judging by your speech earlier I am guessing you are more of the opinion that "wear men need help" is with issues of "masculinity", or even "toxic masculinity".) but that FEMINISM does not care. And nothing of what you said, nor any of their actions, would indicate they do care. I mean hell, you have the largest feminist organization literally opposing Fair Share parenting (the belief that custody should be equal if both parents are just as eligible and both desire equal custody). Or you get feminists decrying schools as being sexist because they are favoring male applicants over female applicants (due to a little thing known as Affirmative Action, the very thing many feminists worked hard to set up). I could go on and on listing retarded movements feminism is partaking in, but here's the thing, the majority of feminism is not retarded, it is sexist. Just plain, down-right sexist. The patriarchy, extremely sexist. Rape culture, so unbelievably sexist you wouldn't believe. And the new definition of racism/sexism, requiring power to be a factor (so that as long as you are a woman, and obviously then do not have power, you can't be sexist), IS SEXIST. Feminism is literally a movement driven by sexism. It takes only one perspective, the female perspective, and with an authoritarian rule declares any dissenters apostates and bigots. Feminists draw attention to these issues and encourage dialogue about entrenched attitudes. This is how you achieve change; by calling attention to a problem and getting people to talk about it. Many MALers on here seem to believe that being a feminist means we are blinded to the problems faced by other groups, particularly men. We have sons, husbands, fathers, male friends and relatives. Men's issues are actually very important to me but that doesn't make me less of a feminist. That is like saying I am incapable of acknowledging and speaking against the social and legal discrimination faced by homosexuals because I don't swing that way. Supporting gay rights does not make me any less straight. Cottonrabbit said: Bull shit. Not at all. You see the Aboriginal Activists proclaimed FROM THE START that they were concerned with issues affecting aboriginals. However this cannot be equivalent to your idea of "feminists", according to what you stated prior. Theoretically feminists are concerned with ALL gender issues, or so you claim. And as I stated before, this isn't true, feminists are just like the Aboriginal Activists in that they are concerned with one group (nothing wrong with that) however unlike them, Feminists proclaim to take a "humanist stance" by caring of both sides. This bull crap facade leads one to believe that the only reason feminists only bring up female issues, is because female issues are the most important issues. As I said earlier, feminists are essentially WRA, to claim that "humanist mentality is crap", and yet still maintain the facade that feminists care about the issues of both genders is EXTREMELY hypocritical.This humanist crap is a every effective way of ignoring inequalities and social problems. "Humanists" are so busy pointing out that everybody has problems and you shouldn't discriminate by focusing on one particular group's problems that they don't help anybody. They only undermine attempts to draw attention to genuine problems and confuse the issues. For example: aborigines face inter-generational cycles of poverty, violence and substance abuse. We have Aboriginal activists and groups drawing attention to these problems and trying find ways to resolve them. A humanist would declare that as Aborigines have equal legal status, they obviously hate other Australians as they only speak up on issues affecting Aborigines instead of also campaigning for the homeless and street kids as well. Do you see how the message is watered down and confused? Cottonrabbit said: Couldn't this be true of you, it is clear that you are biased towards feminism. The fact that you contradict yourself within this speech sort of helps my point here. Also, I wouldn't call feminism, a group that constantly goes around censoring "harmful views or words" as being "progress". I would call it slightly authoritarian, but hey, that's just my crazy idea.Lastly, society progresses because people question the accepted status quo and entrenched beliefs. Whether you agree or not, examination and reflection upon accepted views is always good. So if a woman questioning the status quo makes you angry, perhaps you need to ask yourself why that causes you angst. There might be an unpleasant truth that is making you uncomfortable. Or not. But quite often we do not realise our own subtle biases until they are pointed out. Cottonrabbit said: I agree that you are a feminist, and I could acknowledge that you believe in other social issues . . . If you could even name one.TL;DR - I am a feminist, acknowledging and supporting change for social issues that are not female related does not make me less of a feminist and feminism is still relevant to Western society. |
 |
| On-topic video: |
Cersei said: I often see two different sides on the subject of feminism. One side thinks that feminism is still needed in society today, the other side feels like it should just disappear now. What are your thoughts on feminism, MAL? Do you think that it has already served it's purpose and people are just grasping at straws, or do you think there are still some worthwhile issues that feminism needs to bring to light and change? Why do you feel this way? For the ladies - Would you identify yourself as a feminist? If yes, what causes do you support? Do you feel like you are still being oppressed by society today? If no, why not? I don't think feminism is needed but equalism is. |
 |
| Yeah, I believe feminism has been important, and is important & relevant in modern society. I think many people are misguided and misconstrue the definition of feminism and/or tailor it to their own needs while disregarding/oppressing other people and their needs. That is not feminism. Feminism also isn't solely for women. It keeps it's name because of it's origins, but like society is always changing, feminism is a good tool to use to evaluate and question our motives/values/ideas as people. I mean, to be a feminist means to be someone who strives for social, economic, and political equality among all people, so these people saying no and proceeding to talk about how we should just focus on treating people equally and with respect are kind of just completely missing the point. It takes discussion/exposure, people, and a cause/movement to change problematic views/practices ingrained in our society and to dismantle systemic sexism. So yes, I do identify myself as a feminist. And I do think it is needed. |
BirdJun 10, 2015 1:15 AM
PetalBlizzard said: Yeah, I believe feminism has been important, and is important & relevant in modern society. I think many people are misguided and misconstrue the definition of feminism and/or tailor it to their own needs while disregarding/oppressing other people and their needs. That is not feminism. Feminism also isn't solely for women. It keeps it's name because of it's origins, but like society is always changing, feminism is a good tool to use to evaluate and question our motives/values/ideas as people. I mean, to be a feminist means to be someone who strives for social, economic, and political equality among all people, so these people saying no and proceeding to talk about how we should just focus on treating people equally and with respect are kind of just completely missing the point. I once made a troll post saying that feminism is just communism in disguise. I thought I was joking at the time. This person is literally defining feminism by listing communistic ideals, and apparently without a shred of irony. I'm stunned. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: I once made a troll post saying that feminism is just communism in disguise. I thought I was joking at the time. This person is literally defining feminism by listing communistic ideals, and apparently without a shred of irony. I'm stunned. You should have had the sense to know that feminism is like communism, you didn't need to troll post it at all. It would be like me troll posting 911 was done by planes. |
|
Baelish said: You should have had the sense to know that feminism is like communism, you didn't need to troll post it at all. It would be like me troll posting 911 was done by planes. The reaction of some feminists when you suggest such things makes you wonder if they know that particular ugly truth. It's more hysterical than when progressives call conservatives fascists. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: PetalBlizzard said: Yeah, I believe feminism has been important, and is important & relevant in modern society. I think many people are misguided and misconstrue the definition of feminism and/or tailor it to their own needs while disregarding/oppressing other people and their needs. That is not feminism. Feminism also isn't solely for women. It keeps it's name because of it's origins, but like society is always changing, feminism is a good tool to use to evaluate and question our motives/values/ideas as people. I mean, to be a feminist means to be someone who strives for social, economic, and political equality among all people, so these people saying no and proceeding to talk about how we should just focus on treating people equally and with respect are kind of just completely missing the point. I once made a troll post saying that feminism is just communism in disguise. I thought I was joking at the time. This person is literally defining feminism by listing communistic ideals, and apparently without a shred of irony. I'm stunned. Nope, feminism is fascism that tries to appear as communism. |
Monad said: Nope, feminism is fascism that tries to appear as communism. It requires distinctly authoritarian means to achieve its ends, but there's no denying that the rabid pursuit of 'equality' is certainly a very left-wing concept. "All animals genders are equal, but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell Gerda Lerner |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Monad said: Nope, feminism is fascism that tries to appear as communism. It requires distinctly authoritarian means to achieve its ends, but there's no denying that the rabid pursuit of 'equality' is certainly a very left-wing concept. "All animals genders are equal, but some are more equal than others" - George Orwell Gerda Lerner But they are not really after equality are they? They just say they are. On the other hand communism when it was tried to be applied it never really was communism anyway ether because it's almost impossible to be done. |
Monad said: But they are not really after equality are they? They just say they are Just like communism derp. Feminists are all those Stalins top men who get more equality than the rest in the deal. Equality for all is really equality for the poor, but more power to us! |
|
Monad said: But they are not really after equality are they? They just say they are. On the other hand communism when it was tried to be applied it never really was communism anyway ether because it's almost impossible to be done. You almost got it. 'Equality' fundamentally isn't an achievable goal for any facet of human society. It doesn't matter what kind it is. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Baelish said: Monad said: But they are not really after equality are they? They just say they are Just like communism derp. Feminists are all those Stalins top men who get more equality than the rest in the deal. Equality for all is really equality for the poor, but more power to us! And the same happens with fascism. Some decide "what is best" for the rest and try to force everyone into that. So in the end is not about fascism or communist etc. It's just oppression and they all end up being the same because they are all oppressive. |
icirate said: Monad said: But they are not really after equality are they? They just say they are. On the other hand communism when it was tried to be applied it never really was communism anyway ether because it's almost impossible to be done. You almost got it. 'Equality' fundamentally isn't an achievable goal for any facet of human society. It doesn't matter what kind it is. This is were i disagree. I believe equality isn't something unachievable. The reason it appears like that is because the term "equality" is translated wrongly. This groups translate equality as "being the same" instead of being equal. For example "OMG why are there 100 males scientist and 30 women" We must try to make it 50-50. That is fallacy, not equality. From the moment a woman can study science and become a scientist if she wants then there really is equality. Why the numbers aren't the same is simply because people choose different shit. That is just being different not being unequal. The problem is that movements like feminism have no logic under their definition of "equality". Equality isn't being the same. We are different. We can't be the same. Is impossible to be exactly the same. That doesn't mean we can't be equals. It just means you put equality into a stupid unrealistic molt trying to force it to be something is not. That is where communist fails too. In many ways communist principals aren't wrong. They are actually better than capitalism. It just fails because it goes even further trying to put everyone into a molt. Unfortunately humans seem do get stuck between one extreme and the other and fail to realize the ideal. |
MonadJun 10, 2015 3:59 AM
| equality in feminism terms means forcing women to be scientists even if the want to be stay at home mothers because they're betraying their gender by not going into a profession they don't want just to balance the numbers. You're right feminism's ideas of equality are all fuqed up and extremely narrow. |
|
Monad said: icirate said: 'Equality' fundamentally isn't an achievable goal for any facet of human society. It doesn't matter what kind it is. This is were i disagree. I believe equality isn't something unachievable. Typo? Monad said: The problem is that movements like feminism have no logic under their definition of "equality". Equality isn't being the same. We are different. We can't be the same. Is impossible to be exactly the same. That doesn't mean we can't be equals. It just means you put equality into a stupid unrealistic molt trying to force it to be something is not. It's not like feminists are uniquely stupid and incapable of defining words. The problem is that equality can mean 'equal opportunity' or 'equal results'. These two things are incompatible. Therefore equality will forever be unachievable. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| I know of a 10 year old girl who will be transferred from regular school to a more conservative, less educational institution that would greatly limit her higher education later on just because her father decided so. So yes, feminism is very much still needed to protect those young girls and not limit their chances of getting proper education and pursue their dreams and ambitions (given that they have any, having to live in such patriarchal/oppressive households). |
Midori-tan said: I know of a 10 year old girl who will be transferred from regular school to a more conservative, less educational institution that would greatly limit her higher education later on As in from a private school to a public one? Perhaps the family have just fallen on hard times financially. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Midori-tan said: I know of a 10 year old girl who will be transferred from regular school to a more conservative, less educational institution that would greatly limit her higher education later on As in from a private school to a public one? Perhaps the family have just fallen on hard times financially. Public. And no, this is not the case, because her younger brother is put in a well known private school. A typical case of gender discrimination right there. It's very upsetting, to think that such a thing still happens in this day and age. |
Midori-tan said: icirate said: As in from a private school to a public one? Perhaps the family have just fallen on hard times financially. Public. And no, this is not the case, because her younger brother is put in a well known private school. A typical case of gender discrimination right there. It's very upsetting, to think that such a thing still happens in this day and age. Too right, I mean she can't just go and marry someone and be their wife any more now that the cultural revolution has broken down the institution of marriage. She needs to go and get a job of her own and support herself and whatever kids she plans on having by herself later. They should be giving her all the strict education and training possible so that she can compete against all of her most intelligent and hard-working male peers for the right to have one of the few decent full-time jobs left. I meant it sarcastically but it really is serious advice. I feel sorry for her. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
JD2411 said: Midori-tan said: And? The family might only be able to pay for one child to attend, and it makes more sense to let the child who's been attending for longer continue doing so. Public. And no, this is not the case, because her younger brother is put in a well known private school. A typical case of gender discrimination right there. It's very upsetting, to think that such a thing still happens in this day and age. I have no idea why people feel the need to bring gender into everything. The fuck are you talking about? I know the family personally, they are wealthy enough to do anything and money is never an issue. It was clearly stated that only the girl should switch to the other institution, because she is a girl and the father did not want her to be in an environment where she has many options and opportunities. And for the record: in my country education is free except for private schools, thus she can be put in any public school and it won't cost a dime. Gender is the issue at hand and not money. |
| It was never needed in first place |
Midori-tan said: because she is a girl and the father did not want her to be in an environment where she has many options and opportunities. |
|
Midori-tan said: And for the record: in my country education is free except for private schools, thus she can be put in any public school and it won't cost a dime. Gender is the issue at hand and not money. Just to clarify, the boy was sent to an expensive private school and the girl was sent to a public one? The way you've been phrasing it so far has me doubting my interpretation :s |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Midori-tan said: Public. And no, this is not the case, because her younger brother is put in a well known private school. A typical case of gender discrimination right there. It's very upsetting, to think that such a thing still happens in this day and age. Too right, I mean she can't just go and marry someone and be their wife any more now that the cultural revolution has broken down the institution of marriage. She needs to go and get a job of her own and support herself and whatever kids she plans on having by herself later. They should be giving her all the strict education and training possible so that she can compete against all of her most intelligent and hard-working male peers for the right to have one of the few decent full-time jobs left. I meant it sarcastically but it really is serious advice. I feel sorry for her. Sadly, those things don't matter. They will probably marry her off to someone who shares the father's mentality. Education and getting a job is not a priority, because even if she works, she will only be allowed to do so in restricted environments, ones with little to no male and secular components. Like jfc this is not the medieval period fucking wake up and stop destroying your daughter's life and future. I've been livid since I heard the news, I really hope that things will change. Poor child does not deserve any of this to happen to her. |
Midori-tan said: JD2411 said: And? The family might only be able to pay for one child to attend, and it makes more sense to let the child who's been attending for longer continue doing so. I have no idea why people feel the need to bring gender into everything. The fuck are you talking about? I know the family personally, they are wealthy enough to do anything and money is never an issue. It was clearly stated that only the girl should switch to the other institution, because she is a girl and the father did not want her to be in an environment where she has many options and opportunities. And for the record: in my country education is free except for private schools, thus she can be put in any public school and it won't cost a dime. Gender is the issue at hand and not money. Yes. The father hates the thought of his own daughter having opportunities and his trying to give her as little qualifications as possible. I call bullshit. Also this is not a problem of sexist society, this is simply a family issue, simple as that. My sister attended a private school. I was in public school. Should i yell sexism? |
More topics from this board
Poll: » the future of AI girlfriend technologydeg - 1 hour ago |
7 |
by Crystepsi
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » If we eat the mermaid's tail, is it cannibalism or is it fish meat?Absurdo_N - 5 hours ago |
23 |
by Adnash
»»
9 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Bluey is the most watched anime in the world nowtsukareru - 7 hours ago |
12 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» What sort of education did you get?removed-user - Dec 23, 2019 |
46 |
by Malkshake
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - 10 hours ago |
15 |
by pludel2
»»
32 minutes ago |