Freddie wrote:pjclinch wrote:The problem (again) is that in a society that treats women as a whole in a second class manner (and ours does), things that contribute to a perception that women are mainly for e.g. decoration and getting refreshments are damaging.
I know that is a common feminist line, but you can't back that up. I gave an example of women getting special dispensation and special grants PURELY for women in STEM, did you read that? Do you disbelieve it is true?
Vorpal has not been able to find male specific grants, because they do not exist.
If you have any children that want to go into this field, currently your daughters would be given special preference. Is it fair for your son/s to pay the price for the apparent sins of their father?
Actually, there are valid and scientifically supported arguments on both sides of the objectification theory. Even feminists stand on both sides of this argument. I'm inclined to believe that the objectificiation of women is problematic, but it is a symptom, rather than a cause.
As for backing it up...
https://www.apa.org/education/ce/sexual ... cation.pdf has numerous references.
http://www.mybodybeautiful.co.uk/Sexual ... _Page1.htm also states the cases (near the end) for a couple of leading feminists who don't think objectification is a problem whatsoever.
Male specific grants certainly exist in other countries with similar culture, such as the USA, Canada, and Australia. That I haven't found any in the UK may only represent that I don't have hours to research the topic, rather than that they don't exist. Though, I'm not sure that I follow how young men are 'paying the price'. Because a relatively small percentage of young women are able to take advantage of grants that young men don't have access to? Even though I don't think that gender should necessarily be defined, I do generally think that it is reasonable to offer additional assistance to underrepresented groups. In some cases, it doesn't do nearly enough to counteract the societal pressure and tradition that currently prevents many young people from pursuing careers in fields dominated primarily by one sex.
How about alimony payments in divorce settlements, these are predicated on the man's earnings, not what the woman would likely have earnt had she not been married. John Cleese's ex-wives get to live in the lap of luxury, because they have to live a lifestyle equivalent to what they did when they were married to him. That's a funny kind of equality. What about the fact that any time a relationship splits, the women, unless she is severely violent or mentally disturbed, gets to retain custody of the children. The children, of course, have little say, because women have more rights than children, but very few are concerned by that. What about the fact that male domestic violence doesn't exist, as far as the media and government funding is concerned, yet women commit 2/3 of the violence towards men that is committed by men towards women:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010 ... c-violence
That is no more equality than the discrimination against women is. There are no circumstances under which I would argue for that kind of discrimination, nor suggest that it is right. There is some misinformation there, though. *maintenance* payments are based upon the difference in earnings. In theory, at least, it is the higher earner, not necessarily the man which makes these payments. John Cleese has high maintenance payments because he makes lots of money. In general, I don't think maintenance payments are fair, thought I can imagine exceptions. I do think that both parents should be responsible for the burden of raising children. I also think custody should generally be shared; that is, each parent has equal right to see and live with their children. The law changed recently on that matter.
http://www.familylives.org.uk/about/new ... ing-rules/But is it really relevant to the argument about whether there should be podium girls? Or even the more general question of the objectification of women?
That doesn't matter though. You are a man, you have to be strong; they are women, they must be protected. You cannot see the situation in a reasonable manner, because you have been trained to suppress your want for equality and fairness for yourself and other men, on the basis that women are a special group, not an equal one.
Is he really? It seems to me that is he is merely arguing for equality for a somehwat different perspective than yours. Where has he suggested that women deserve any sort of special treatment?
I could go on and on about real, structural societal differences that affect men in the negative. It is demonstrative of feminism's success that feminists (both male and female) want to curtail the rights of women to do something the harms no one, but they find displeasing, even though a woman is free to choose whether to do it or not. Obviously there are no areas where women are discriminated against any more, so in the absence of any discrimination, female feminists (and their fellow male ideologues) have started to discriminate against women themselves. I suppose they would claim this is positive discrimination and therefore exempt from the scorn and scrutiny of discrimination they would consider negative.
This is where feminism and old fashioned male and female roles overlap. Wherever women are doing something that feminism thinks is wrong, then they should not be free to do it. Wherever men think women should be protected, even from themselves, then gender stereotypes are acceptable, according to feminism.
I don't think anyone wants to curtail the rights of women. And I have never heard a feminist state that women should be protected, nor that where men protect women, feminists think that's okay. Frankly I know quite a few feminists who would be rather... irritated at the suggestion that they need or wnat any kind of protection.
I think that biggest negative in our society for both men and women is the lack of equality and egality. I disagree that there are no areas where women are discriminated against. Whilst discrimination is extremely difficult to prove, there is ample evidence that it does exist.
You also can't just lump feminists in together and say feminists want this or that, because (as shown in the links above), feminists don't agree about all of this stuff.
To be precise, 'feminism' doesn't think; there is no corporeal existence. Feminists are people with a hugely diverse set of attitudes and thoughts about what feminism means.
jan19 wrote:After all, its just eye-candy isn't it, just a piece of fun? And those of us who find it uncomfortable are dismissed as feminists, or pc-mad, or just trying to impose our morality on others.
Correct, to the latter. Do you suggest that women have no agency, except when told they have agency by feminists or likeminded folk? They only have agency when they are doing something which is acceptable to the ideology of feminism, but not otherwise?
Si wrote:Just because someone from a particular group might enjoy a particular role doesn't mean the existence of that role is good for the group as a whole.
So women shouldn't be free to pursue a safe, well paid and enjoyable position, because you say it harms other women. Will you prove it?
Does an adult woman not represent herself as an autonomous being or is it only men who have autonomy? A rather misogynist viewpoint if there ever was one (or chivalrous, as long as you are denouncing podium girls - so says feminism).
I will say it again, for all those who haven't read or processed it yet:
Who is forcing them to do it, who is stopping them from leaving if they are unhappy; can you be forced to do something you are happy to do anyway? I always assumed being happy to do something required a will to do it in the first instance, in which case will precedes any force.
Did anyone denounce podium girls? I don't think so... just the custom. I've said it before, and I'm sure that I will say it again. I have no problem wiht people putting their bodies on display. But there is currently a big difference in how men's bodies are put on display versus how women's bodies are put on display. It's those differences I would like to see changed. I doubt that we will ever get agreement on whether the display of bodies is appropriate because some people are likely to feel uncomfortable about it or take a more conservative approach, whilst others will be at the other extreme.
Do you know that men commit suicide suicide at about three times that rate of women in the UK? It is mostly seen amongst men between the ages of 14 and 45. Does this not speak to a much larger issue than men are facing. If it is so terrible for women, why is their suicide rate (thankfully) three times lower? What is causing men to kill themselves? A lack of concern in the media and general population about male mental health, domestic violence committed against them, discrimination against males, societal pressures they face?...these must be some of the reasons behind the staggering disparity.
Society expects men to be strong and, of recent, society has demanded that women are equal to men, whilst provided more and more things purely for the benefit of women (female specific grants, as just a single example out of many).
Women, as a group, have been in the ascendant for a long time, but is there no cost involved to men? If there is, should we care?
Statistics don't tell all. Did you know that more women than men *attempt* suicide, but men are more likely to be successful because there are significant gender differences in the means.
http://www.jad-journal.com/article/S016 ... 2/abstractNo one has said there is no cost to men. But IMO, the cost to men and women both is in the inequality in society.
As for women being in the ascendant, I hope so, but men are still at the top, and I think we've got a ways to go before women get there, too.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
