What has it done for you personally rather than a more broad ranging discussion of its merrits or otherwise?

Do you think it has disadvantaged you sid?

I think anything that strives to bring equality can only be good for our species. Therefore it is an advantage.

Why do I get the impression that this is not just a random question?

It does get me into my favourite argument...

It is detremental cos it is about getting MORE rights FOR women. Shouldn't life be about getting equal rights for everyone? I have the same problem with groups for various races, religions, physical abilities, sexuality blah, blah, blah. these people need more rights, they need more rights...Everyone needs the SAME rights. Screw all these organisations!

Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Feminism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

Oh this old chestnut again? Change the record please! :roll:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

I think that ugly, uninteresting or weird blokes have always been at a dissadvantage, thats the way of the world, you can't make women fancy you.

Originally posted by nick2
I think that ugly, uninteresting or weird blokes have always been at a dissadvantage, thats the way of the world, you can't make women fancy you.

i was going to make some pithy remark about sidney's impressive display of poor spelling and grammar, but your comment is much better :hihi:

any newcomers to this thread - before you start posting your remarks in disbelief, just do a quick search for sid's previous posts (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=1215931&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending).. you'll see he's always like this and will ignore your posts if they are in any way sane or sensible..

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

How would women being 'unequal' (not being allowed to vote, for example, or being paid a lower amount for an equal job) make you more attractive to them, Sid?

:confused:

PS, speaking personally (if you're after a tip) - basic literacy classes would make you more attractive to me, at any rate! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

I was waiting for an ulterior motive behind this poll. You haven't disappointed me.

Are you suggesting that oppressing women would help your plight? If so, then I really have no time for you. Anyone that puts their needs and desires ahead of equality and fairness doesn't deserve any sympathy.

I can't believe that after all of this time, you still see women as objects to possess. It's been said many times that your obsession is pretty unhealthy. An internet forum is not the right place to be seeking help in this situation. Perhaps cognitive behaviour therapy is worth considering.

Feminism......hmmmmm it's a complex issue isn't it.

I don't think you can say it has outright, soley, benefitted women or been detrimental to women totally. It's a mixture of the both.

In today's society should a woman want to devote herself to raising her children (which is a luxury mainly) then it hasn't benefitted her totally. Yet should she choose a career then it has.

Unfortunatly though it isn't a complete success for women as sexual discrimination still exists. I deal with it from time to time in my work. As I accept it exists though I prepare for it beforehand and usually take a man along to my work meetings in order for me to be taken more seriously.

Equality (to the extent that it exists) has benefitted me in that I own my own house and have the stability that it offers, but I don't think that 'feminism' has brought this about.

The one thing that I think feminism has brought for all women is the access to reliable contraception. This can be said to be part of the cause of women having a choice of partners, because they are no longer married by force to the first man that they give in to, but then again, since this never happened to men anyway unless the woman fell pregnant, it cannot be said to be due to 'feminism', only due to an attempt at equality.

it's made women even more kinky! (which is fine by me)

they were oppressed by men before, and now they are oppressed by feminist right-on/ p.c.-ness, so they feel even more guilty for their kinky fantasies....

making them even more kinky!

i think....:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Not_My_Fault
It does get me into my favourite argument...

It is detremental cos it is about getting MORE rights FOR women. Shouldn't life be about getting equal rights for everyone? I have the same problem with groups for various races, religions, physical abilities, sexuality blah, blah, blah. these people need more rights, they need more rights...Everyone needs the SAME rights. Screw all these organisations!

I feel really sad that feminism has got this sort of reputation.

Feminism is about getting EQUAL rights for women, not more rights than men. The majority of women in the world still don't enjoy the same rights as men and continue to suffer as a result.

Women in this country owe a huge amount to the feminist movement. I used to consider 'feminism' to be a 'dirty word', but having studied the subject feel that, unfortunately, a minority of 'hardline' feminists have given an excellent ideal a bad name.

I am now very happy to call myself a feminist. And fully believe in equal rights for all.

As an aside - Slimsid; believe me, feminism has absolutely nothing to do with your lack of girlfriend.

Chicken Monkey x

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

Feminism has got nothing to do with you being unable to get a girl-friend. For goodness sake man, stop posting these ridiculous threads which postulate the daftest reasons why you can't get a girl-friend.

If you want to know why you can't get a girl-friend, look in the mirror for the answer. Plus, I'd endorse the suggestion made by Andy78 - cognitive behaviour therapy is worth considering.

Good luck Sid :thumbsup:

Red

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

Sid, Sid, Sid - I think you have to face up to the fact that it's not women or society who are the problem in you not being able to 'get a girlfriend' (even the phrase implies possesion rather than relationship) it's you.

As the old saying goes the first step to overcoming a problem is to admit that you have a problem...

Equal pay?

I remember when I was in my teens and my mum was an office worker her going on about the equal pay act (this was in the 70s). By the time I got a job, this was law.

Some women would argue that we will never get equal pay because of the "glass ceiling" and also women lose out on the career ladder because of childrearing etc. This may or may not be true, but I can still remember when men and women did the same job and men got paid more, before the equal pay act.

Slim, you realy are good at stiring people up. Well done. :thumbsup:

Yes, full marks to Sid indeed for yet again inspiring incredulity, amusement and a degree of contempt at the same time from so many posters. My favourite Sid thread was 'I like girls bottoms', which is a subject near to my groin too. Here, as dear Red Robbo suggests, Sid struggles in vain to avoid the real answer to his lack of success as a swain and paramour.

I am surprised that Sid's thread has not produced a response from furious, 'oppressed' representatives of the sisterhood. Then again, is there such a thing as a collective 'sisterhood'? Sid's thread title suggests that feminism is a monolithic entity. Far from it, dear hearts. There are myriad forms of feminism[s], such as liberal, radical, marxist, post-modern, post-structuralist, black, eco, and even post-feminist. Sid has so much to learn doesn't he? The radicals [the kind of bearded madwomen who equate heterosexual sexual congress with oppression , and suggest that all men are 'patriarchal agents' given to 'mind rape'- see the work of the demented Andrea Dworkin] would have a field day with our own dear Sid. 'I like girls bottoms' indeed. Not theirs he wouldn't.

[i]
I am now very happy to call myself a feminist. And fully believe in equal rights for all.
[/B]

And THATS the problem. People shouldn't be calling themselves feminists, pro this/ pro that when it comes to fighting for equality. They are themselves guilty of not seeking TRUE equality.

Believe me I believe that EVERYONE should be equal and I am disgusted that we still live in a society full of so much hatred and fear, oppression and discrimination based on such idiotic factors as gender, physical appearance, religious beliefs, social "class" etc etc. BUT fighting for one cause seems to be a self defeating way to go about it. I was once told as a white male I could never understand oppression or discrimination and I honestly couldn't decide whether to get angry or just laugh. Talk about an ironic statement!

Originally posted by Not_My_Fault
And THATS the problem. People shouldn't be calling themselves feminists, pro this/ pro that when it comes to fighting for equality. They are themselves guilty of not seeking TRUE equality.


Why does that make us 'guilty of not seeking TRUE equality'?

That's just not the case at all.

I agree with Timo that the likes of (completely crackers) Andrea Dworkin have the attitude of putting men down in order to gain women's equality, but this is not a necessary element of feminism.

As a feminist, I do not see myself as 'pro woman' in an aggressive sense, just as someone who is keen to fight for women's rights around the world. Men can be feminists too you know!

Feminist writers talk about women's issues and struggles in all sorts of ways. What would you prefer we call these writers?

Saying people 'shouldn't' call themselves 'feminists' if they're striving for equality seems to me to be missing the point. If we're all after equality, why does a name matter?

Certain groups DO need people to look specifically at their rights because they are denied rights BECAUSE of their group. This doesn't mean that other groups should be denied rights as a consequence.

Chicken Monkey x

Equality doesn't exist. It never has done and never will do. The more minority groups bang on about it, the less likely they are to achieve it. In essence, equality is like power; It is never given but always taken. Read into that what you will.

Originally posted by chickmonk

Certain groups DO need people to look specifically at their rights because they are denied rights BECAUSE of their group.
Chicken Monkey x

Which brings me back to the point that everybody misses when I have this discussion. If you believe in getting equal rights for everybody you DON'T "need" to look at certain groups cos equal rights for everybody includes...er...everybody!

I think the point I was trying to make is that some men benefit more from femenism than others and not always those who deserve to.

Many women fall for men who at first seem exciting, sexy good looking etc but in the longer term become abusive, unfaithful and a total disapointment. At the same time women reject other men who may not be so good looking or socially adept but deep down are much nicer more genuine people who won't end up mistreating them.

Thoughts please.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
some men benefit more from femenism than others and not always those who deserve to.


Just out of curiosity can you give us all a quick refresher on the reasons why you've never been laid.

To my mind theirs been:

1)Smoking in public places
2)Men drinking more then 4 units of alcohol per day
3)Feminism

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Just out of curiosity can you give us all a quick refresher on the reasons why you've never been laid.

To my mind theirs been:

1)Smoking in public places
2)Men drinking more then 4 units of alcohol per day
3)Feminism

I don't think any of them are particulary the reason. All the above are important social issues which i have touched upon but I would go so far as to say my own lack of succes with women is attributable to them to much of a degree.

See my sig for a more accurate explanation.:thumbsup:

I don't know if it has benefited me or not. I mean there are the obvious things like jobs. Thats the only obvious benefit I can think of just now.

Not having lived in the times before feminism, I cannot honestly say what it was like before and as such how it has improved.

I have a choice to be a stay at home mum where as my female ancestors were probably limited in that choice.

Dunno difficult one.

Moon

Originally posted by Not_My_Fault
Which brings me back to the point that everybody misses when I have this discussion. If you believe in getting equal rights for everybody you DON'T "need" to look at certain groups cos equal rights for everybody includes...er...everybody!

I'm not 'missing' anything. I fully understand what you're getting at but simply disagree with you. I believe that you do need to look at certain groups, because those certain groups have less rights!

Some groups need a bit more help than others in acheiving equal rights, or even human rights, because other groups supress them.

Equality, to me, does not mean treating everyone the same, but rather recognising differences and individul needs and accommodating for those differences and needs. In this way, you do need to consider minority groups, because if you don't you aren't taking into account the individual and specific needs of that group.

Chicken Monkey x

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the point I was trying to make is that some men benefit more from femenism than others and not always those who deserve to.

Many women fall for men who at first seem exciting, sexy good looking etc but in the longer term become abusive, unfaithful and a total disapointment. At the same time women reject other men who may not be so good looking or socially adept but deep down are much nicer more genuine people who won't end up mistreating them.

Thoughts please.

Slim, you are trying to blame everything under the sun other than yourself. Speaking as a woman, I think you will find most women find loyalty and a personality are infinitely preferable to looks. Social skills can be learnt. If you can't string a sentence together then you are stuffed. Perhaps, if you had have been born in the Dickensian days, an arranged marriage would have been the norm. But this is 2005.

Slimsid - I've read your signature.

You can always be relied upon to take 'disturbing' to a whole new level!

Chicken Monkey x

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I think the point I was trying to make is that some men benefit more from femenism than others and not always those who deserve to.

Many women fall for men who at first seem exciting, sexy good looking etc but in the longer term become abusive, unfaithful and a total disapointment. At the same time women reject other men who may not be so good looking or socially adept but deep down are much nicer more genuine people who won't end up mistreating them.

Thoughts please.

OK thought number one - that has absoutely NOTHING to do with feminism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism)! What you are describing looks more to me the alpha/beta male thang. No matter how far society has evolved we are still programmed to look for desirable genetic traits to breed with (at it's crudest men look for young, healthy, attractive women, women look for powerfull dominant men). Alpha male traits are typically testosterone driven ones hence the frequent concomitant traits of aggression and philandering. If you have alpha male traits (or can fake them!) you do undoubtedly have a head start in the 'dating game' - unfortunately for you Sid, you come across as (at best) an omega male.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Do people think that Femenism has given women more choice of boyfriends and thus disadvantaged certain men who may find it harder to get a girlfriend, or do you feel this has not been the case?

pmsl. you aint quite grasped the concept of feminism have you :D :P

Slimsid (she says, already regretting asking)

Who is this Emma lass who you'd like to kiss? It's not the lass from the drama group is it?

Chicken Monkey x

What has feminism done for you personally??

1; Made men feel they can't even open a door for me.

2; Made society in general reach the point that it now totally under values the honourable positions of wife and mother, which were once esteemed. Looking down on those who make great financial sacrifices to stay at home and raise children.

3; Completely emancipate the male population and deplete them of any sense of good old fashioned chivalry.

Bah!

Oh yeah, and I forgot to add;

4: If I were single and went out on a date, I'm now informed I'd be expected to pay half!

Double Bah!

That depends on whether he asked you out or not. If he asked you out then for the first date I think he should pay. After that it's a halves thing. ;)

Some men are still chivalrous though. Check the chivalry (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=74868&highlight=chivalry) thread out and restore some faith. :D

Originally posted by chickmonk
I believe that you do need to look at certain groups, because those certain groups have less rights!...

Equality, to me, does not mean treating everyone the same, but rather recognising differences and individul needs and accommodating for those differences and needs. In this way, you do need to consider minority groups, because if you don't you aren't taking into account the individual and specific needs of that group.

Chicken Monkey x

First point, It is impossible for "certain groups" to have less rights when E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y is given equal rights.

Secondly taking peoples needs into account in the way you treat them isn't necassarily anything to do with equal rights. For a very simple example.... Everyone as the right to apply for the same job for the same pay regardless of who they are but a better qualified person will be treated differently than a less qualified person in respect to their suitability for the position. This isn't discrimination it is a fair assesment. Also considering the needs of a certain "group" is a slippery slope too. These needs would automatically be covered by merely considering the needs of that individual. The needs of any faith or life style or social position would be included in that...but thats straying away from the point of equal rights uless you just said "everybody has the right to have their personal needs considered" as part of these, unspecified, equal rights.

If you are after equal rights, not_my_fault, feminism could help you out there.

Part of most feminist theory is that women be allowed to choose to work, and should be paid equal amounts, and not penalised for taking maternity leave or be paid less when returning to work after a long period of part time work or housework, or child rearing.

However they also assert that men should have the social freedom to stay at home and look after there children, and should have more flexible working hours, and not be penalised if they have to leave at half three to pick up their children from school, as long as they pick up the work later in the evening or whatever. That if a man decides to take three years off to look after his child he should return at the same rate of pay.

That is, to recognise that whilst competition, economics and justice are important parts of life, caring for the young, ill and elderly are just as important and should be valued as such.

So equal rights for everyone, yes, but with a less blinkered vision of what everyone's 'proper role' is in society, and how much that role is worth.

SlimSid -

Its AFFECTED, not EFFECTED.

You have an EFFECT on something when you AFFECT it.

:cool:

I have found feminism to be beneficial to me in that:

a. I am no longer expected to stand on a bus (except for old people and disabled of BOTH sexes)

b. I am no longer expected to hold doors open (except for those mentioned above)

c. If there are heavy items to be lifted then I am not the one expected to do the lifting because I'm the only bloke there.

d. If I'm ever on a sinking ship, I can jump in the first lifeboat with the elderly and the kids.

Yes, life is good since equality. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by kay_cee

3; Completely emancipate the male population and deplete them of any sense of good old fashioned chivalry.

Bah!

Men emancipated by feminism?How did you work that out?

p.s. I was brought up to hold doors open for anyone, not just women. Feminism or politeness?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
p.s. I was brought up to hold doors open for anyone, not just women. Feminism or politeness?

So was I, but I soon got fed up with a continuous stream of people walking through and leaving me standing like a lemon, holding the door, until someone decided that they'd take the door from me and say 'thanks'. Politeness is also 'NOT EXPECTING' someone else to hold the door open for you.

Originally posted by saxon51
I have found feminism to be beneficial to me in that:

a. I am no longer expected to stand on a bus (except for old people and disabled of BOTH sexes)

b. I am no longer expected to hold doors open (except for those mentioned above)

c. If there are heavy items to be lifted then I am not the one expected to do the lifting because I'm the only bloke there.

d. If I'm ever on a sinking ship, I can jump in the first lifeboat with the elderly and the kids.

Yes, life is good since equality. :thumbsup:

I must say, that's how I tend to think of feminism! ;)

Originally posted by saxon51
Politeness is also 'NOT EXPECTING' someone else to hold the door open for you.
very true, and saying "thank you" if they are kind enough to do so.

I don't think feminism has much to do with politeness.

But I also I think Heinlein had it right when he said that the fall of politeness is much more serious than people think, as it reflects a lack of values deeper within.

Originally posted by kay_cee
3; Completely emancipate the male population

I'm a bit slow today, you mean "emasculate" I think.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
But I also I think Heinlein had it right when he said that the fall of politeness is much more serious than people think, as it reflects a lack of values deeper within.

I fear he's spot-on with this :(

If a person doesn't even bother with the basic external signs of taking other people into consideration, how can they possibly have any internal respect for the rights and concerns of others?

StarSparkle

Originally posted by Not_My_Fault
First point, It is impossible for "certain groups" to have less rights when E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y is given equal rights.



I'm quite happy to involve myself in friendly discussion, but I'm not into you spelling words out for me. I have a different point of view to you, that doesn't make me stupid.

We'll have to agree to disagree Not_My_Fault.

KathytheBean - I think you made a really good point.

Chicken Monkey x

Originally posted by chickmonk
I'm quite happy to involve myself in friendly discussion, but I'm not into you spelling words out for me. I have a different point of view to you, that doesn't make me stupid.


I would never suggest that anybody is stupid as no oppinion is more valid than another, mine or anybody elses. I just think you have trouble grasping the idea that if everyboy has equal rights then there is no need to help certain groups...and lets face it helping everyone is fairer in the long run as to do other wise would be discriminatry (is that a word?) and hypocritical in itself!

Originally posted by Not_My_Fault
I would never suggest that anybody is stupid as no oppinion is more valid than another, mine or anybody elses. I just think you have trouble grasping the idea that if everyboy has equal rights then there is no need to help certain groups...and lets face it helping everyone is fairer in the long run as to do other wise would be discriminatry (is that a word?) and hypocritical in itself!

Look, I haven't got any 'trouble grasping' anything you've said. Would you like it if I used that tone with you? It comes across as rather arrogant.

My view is that in an ideal world everyone would be equal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

If you were in a class of children an one had more trouble with the subject being taught than the others, wouldn't you give them more help to catch up? Or would you just treat the 'equally'. This wouldn't be 'discriminating' against the rest of the kids - they don't need more help. Neither would it be 'hypocritical'. It would be recognising individual needs.

In the same way, some groups are 'lagging behind' in terms of rights ect, so need extra help. To use KathytheBeans example of women and work. In this county, work hours of 9-5 mean that many women are unable to take certain jobs due to childcare commitments. In this way, they are victims of a kind of 'institutionalise discrimination'. This needs to be looked at because, in general, women have different commitments to men. Yes equality is needed, but women's circumstances need to be considered otherwise we'd just carry on working within a 'male' model of working hours. This is what I believe feminism is about. Looking at things from a female perspective rather than the accepted 'male' way of doing things.

I realise that men need paternal rights also, and feminism has actually been very vocal about this too.

Chicken Monkey x

PS 'Discriminatory' is a word.

its benefitted me, i no longer feel the urge to help lady drivers who have broken down. unless old or infirm i no longer give up my seat on public transport, i do hold doors open but i'm a gent so why not.
i do agree with equality but i'd like a couple a days off work every month with cramps aswell.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
very true, and saying "thank you" if they are kind enough to do so.

I don't think feminism has much to do with politeness.

But I also I think Heinlein had it right when he said that the fall of politeness is much more serious than people think, as it reflects a lack of values deeper within.

My original point was, that with equallity, I am no longer 'expected' to hold doors open where women are specifically concerned any more than they are 'expected' to hold them open for me, nor do any of the other 'favours' where I would maybe not normally do them for a bloke of the same health/age etc.

I am not decrying 'politeness, I am decrying 'chivalry', there is a difference. I do hold doors open, but I don't go out of my way to hold doors open for women who are miles away any more than I do for blokes.

its benefitted me, i no longer feel the urge to help lady drivers who have broken down. unless old or infirm i no longer give up my seat on public transport.

Another good benefit of equality willman!

:thumbsup:

From Saxon51: I am not decrying 'politeness, I am decrying 'chivalry', there is a difference. I do hold doors open, but I don't go out of my way to hold doors open for women who are miles away any more than I do for blokes.

That's equality! Who would want or expect any more? Good for you, Saxon51.

How has feminism benefitted me personally?

It has given me countless choices that my mother and even my older sister didn't have.

*I could take German language classes in high school (My sister, who's 10 years older than me, wasn't allowed to because "it was a masculine, gutteral language.")

*I could choose just about any career I wanted (My sister was told she couldn't become a forensic scientist because that was "a man's job." Ditto with her friend, who wanted to study architecture.)

*I can have sex without having to become a parent or a wife.

*I can vote, and thereby shape my country's destiny.

*I can own property and make my own money.

*I can have children-- without having a husband -- if I choose.

*I can speak my mind without being taken to jail.

The list goes on, and every day I am grateful to the feminists who won these freedoms for me. But I look forward to the day when feminism doesn't exist because equality does.