100 Years Since Women's Right To Vote and Modern Feminism/Equality

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

If I chained myself to the iron railings outside Parliament with a big sign - NO VOTES FOR WOMEN, I wonder how I would fare?

[Stadt]

5 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

If I chained myself to the iron railings outside Parliament with a big sign - NO VOTES FOR WOMEN, I wonder how I would fare?

You’d get the **** kicked out of you 

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

If I chained myself to the iron railings outside Parliament with a big sign - NO VOTES FOR WOMEN, I wonder how I would fare?

 

People would think you're a bit weird.

 

So, no change then.

[Mike Oxlong]

55 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

If I chained myself to the iron railings outside Parliament with a big sign - NO VOTES FOR WOMEN, I wonder how I would fare?

I reckon you’d get kicked in the bollox by a passer by.

 

Who just might be wearing a pair of pointy stilettos.

Edited 6 February 2018 by Mike Oxlong

[Benguin]

2 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Come on, "blokes are horny" is not any sort of excuse for sexual harassment (as suggested by saying it'll happen because of it). Vast majority of men don't feel the need to grope some stranger when they're feeling a bit randy, people who do shouldn't just get dismissed with boys will be boys or shit like that, they're just people who should have been wankstains.

What would you do to prevent it, that isn't already being done and is something sound economically, politically and socially? 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I was about to start a topic along the lines of "Modern Feminism is like Cancer", but I deem this thread appropriate instead.

 

Gender equality can be achieved to some extent, but biology will remain the woman's worst enemy forever. Due to their built and organs, they are pre-destined to carry children and they are (infinitely) weaker than men, which means the gap in payment will remain, at least in some areas where physicality and hard manual labor is involved (e.g. in construction). There are many fields that should strive for equality though, because men and women's output can be measured and compared more easily. If given similar age, similar eduction and similar experience, then I don't see why women should be paid less for the same type of work.

 

Nowadays, and also in parts thanks to feminism which encourages women to pursue a career, women are under enormeous pressure to achieve more in a relatively short time frame, meaning in between 20 and 35 - after that, the biological clock ticks away, in unforgivable ways. It also means competition among women is much more intense during those 15 years, which doesn't help when you consider that women are more prone to depression and anxiety than men (we lead the stats in suicide, though - hooray).

 

In short, some type of inequality between the sexes will always exist. The question is how do we deal with it. Do we accept it? Do we encourage a discussion how to use it for everyone's benefit? Or do we give way to radical feminism that sees fault in everything done by men and that paints a cruel picture of "patriarchy"?

 

What I'd like to see addressed more are the problems of the Modern Man, how we deal with the male suicide rates, the lack of father figures in one-parent households, the discussion surrounding alimony in divorce cases, empowerment without negatively affecting women. The discussion has been rather one-sided (focus on support for women), but how should men work in this environment, without being stripped of their assets?

 

4

I think I touched on this before in my reply to Benguin (I think) - in a way, both are opposite sides of the same coin. 

 

The societal idea that blokes have gotta remain stoic, indifferent and can only feel angry/lustful when needed  - and that's all they're allowed to feel - hurts blokes to a great degree as well as women. 

 

Work on that, and perhaps you help everyone.

[Strokes]

49 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I reckon you’d get kicked in the bollox by a passer by.

 

Who just might be wearing a pair of pointy stilettos.

It would take a very skilful shot to hit them, not something normally associated with women 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think I touched on this before in my reply to Benguin (I think) - in a way, both are opposite sides of the same coin. 

 

The societal idea that blokes have gotta remain stoic, indifferent and can only feel angry/lustful when needed  - and that's all they're allowed to feel - hurts blokes to a great degree as well as women. 

 

Work on that, and perhaps you help everyone.

I'd say that sort of describes me and I kind of like being that way.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'd say that sort of describes me and I kind of like being that way.

And I'd say a lot more guys describe themselves as that way and are comfortable with it too.

 

However, it can and has been shown to be damaging at times - having all blokes having to fit into that image and some of them can't handle it, and they end up hurting themselves and other people.

[Buce]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It would take a very skilful shot to hit them, not something normally associated with women 

 

Not a fan of womens football then, Strokes?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Not a fan of womens football then, Strokes?

Ive never really watched it mate, I’m sure it’s fine but the only football I’m given a free pass to watch is Leicester. 

[bovril]

2 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

If I chained myself to the iron railings outside Parliament with a big sign - NO VOTES FOR WOMEN, I wonder how I would fare?

Give it a try tomorrow and report back to us in the evening.