Women's rights

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah... you're probably right...

It's just hard to understand how someone from the UK can be that ignorant of such a well-known idiom. I could understand someone from say Japan not knowing it, surprised but still understanding. But the UK?

Stuff like this comes up in primary schools, television shows, casual conversation and basically everywhere all the time. It's like not knowing what a grapefruit is....

The level of discourse in here is usually pretty high, for the internet. I find it astonishing that the presumption is that he doesn't understand the idiom, and not that the use of the idiom in these circumstances is the problem.

 

[votemarvel]

What holds back women's rights in my opinion are children.

Currently under UK law a woman can have up to a year off and expect to return to work at the same pay grade as when she left, as well as being able to ask for family friendly hours.

A man on the other hand gets two weeks and that's it.

So as an employer who are you going to want to hire?

 

[Terminal Blue]

The only analogy is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Which says what?

I'm not asking because I don't know, I'm asking because I want you to actually look at what you are saying.

 

[Eleison]

The problem that I see is the sensational method of teaching. Impressionable young women learn that there is sexism, and decide that everything that separates men and women is sexism. "You mean to tell me that you have a penis and I don't? Take a look at this damned sexist, everybody!"

People who throw terms like "sexism" around aren't particularly helping the issue. Sexism (just like racism and any sort of prejudice) should involve the feelings of hatred or superiority. Falling for stereotypes is not "sexism"; it's just making an ass out of yourself.

I've also said many times before that the focus should be not "women's rights", but "gender equality". "Women's rights" misses the point. ("Why do women need to have these rights?") "Gender equality" covers that point many times better. ("Because men have them, and women are as capable.") Perhaps if feminist movements adopted this approach, people would not develop an aversion to every harmless difference between the sexes and instead take their energy to the gender-related matters that actually hinder women's lives in society.

 

[MGlBlaze]

Those aren't feminists you described. Them bitches are probably misandrists that mistaken that for feminism, which to some extent is giving feminism a bad name.

I would describe that as misandrists that use feminism as a veil, defence or excuse for their misandry, rather than people who confuse the two.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I don't hate feminists, because I try not to make a habit of blaming an entire group of people for the views and actions of the insane psychotic members of said group.

 

[4173]

What holds back women's rights in my opinion are children.

Currently under UK law a woman can have up to a year off and expect to return to work at the same pay grade as when she left, as well as being able to ask for family friendly hours.

A man on the other hand gets two weeks and that's it.

So as an employer who are you going to want to hire?

Illegal immigrants.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I think the women who jump down a guy's throat for holding a door open for them or holding their chair out for them need to get the stick out of their arses.

I've also said many times before that the focus should be not "women's rights", but "gender equality". "Women's rights" misses the point. ("Why do women need to have these rights?") "Gender equality" covers that point many times better. ("Because men have them, and women are as capable.") Perhaps if feminist movements adopted this approach, people would not develop an aversion to every harmless difference between the sexes and take their energy to the gender-related matters that actually hinder women's lives in society.

Also this. ^^ which is also the reason why i do not yet have the job I really want.

 

[Smooth Operator]

The "feminists" of today usually like to forget or never actually educate themselves that the movement is about equality, most often then not they push for gender supremacy which is in fact sexism.

It's a thin line to walk and the tables can turn very quickly.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

I think the error is quite obvious in hating something because of its gender
Or am i just overthinking this?

You're underthinking it. Let me elaborate. I hate what society dictates men should be, i.e. loud, self-absorbed dipshits who exist to make sure everybody knows how big and horrifying their penises are. I like to believe modernity has done away with binary gender roles, but just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true. More men need to be like Haggar from Final Fight. That's a may-unn right thur.

Your views differ from mine. Therefore, you are an idiot and a bad person.

There we go, I translated it into English. That's an act of public service right there.

He's not underthinking it in the slightest.

A misandrist is someone who hates men. Not what society dictates men should be. So you're either an idiot for being a misandrist, or an idiot for calling yourself something you're not.

Furthermore, I don't think someone who generalises on the basis of gender can imply anyone else is unreasonable.

 

[Hagi]

A farmer with lots of sheep is able to feed and clothe his family.
A farmer with lots of wolves dies.

Oh my god.. stop digging, and think about it.

Equality Feminist = sheep.
Female Supremacist (whose existence I can assume, because as far as I can see they don't exist as a significant social force) = wolf
Man = ? (in this analogy)

Questioning the application of an idiom doesn't mean I don't understand it. You understand the word 'idiot' yet you might have a problem if I called you one.

There is no man in this analogy.

There's a good person (the sheep) and a bad person who looks like the good person (the wolf in sheep's clothing).

What it means is this:
Feminists (sheep) are good. Misandrists (wolves) are bad. Misandrists (wolves) often pretend to be Feminists (dress up in sheep's clothing).

That's all it means. No more. No less. That's the idiom. It's been around more then long enough to be that defined.

Sheep and wolves have a limited and very defined roles in this idiom. Again, this idiom has been around more then long enough for there to be no ambiguity about those roles.

Just like when I say someone's got a Lion's heart I'm not saying they actually have a lion's heart in their chest. I'm not saying they share any actual characteristics with lions (who really aren't exceptionally brave). I'm saying they're courageous. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[llew]

This is probably going to be said a million times over, but it's not about woman rights, it's about human rights in general. Woman and men are equal. If one disagrees I'm really curious for an explanation.

Of course, there is a scientificly measured difference between the mindset of men and women, and what men and / or women are generally better at then the opposite sex. I don't care. One picks a job they like, one works a job they like, one lives a life they like, one is equal to all other.

*they are not equal because they are not the same, they are not the same because they have a vagina. case closed.*
ok don't quote me on that but its a pretty valid point. i'm all for equal rights and treating people equally but there is a limit, "give a beggar money to buy bread and he will realise he can buy more than bread with said money", one example is one ive heard many times in my town and other towns ive been too "a woman was campaigning for equal rights, so a man came and punched her in the arm, she said *you cant hit me* so the man asked *why?* she replied with *because i'm a girl*" whatever we do to make them equal the question of chivalry will always exist and eventually we will be campaigning for men's rights. honestly im all for giving them equal oppurtunities and the like but i can't think of much that they don't have equal to men, if anything they have privilages with insurance etc. being cheaper for women over men

 

[MGlBlaze]

The only analogy is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Which says what?

I'm not asking because I don't know, I'm asking because I want you to actually look at what you are saying.

Oh for...

The wolf in sheep's clothing idiom is about how someone or something with one agenda or nature can appear to be something else, and how such people and things are dangerous and should be avoided.

The sheep, that is what it appears to be is analogous to a genuine 'feminist' interested in equality.
The wolf in sheep's clothing is the misandrist who's real motivations are hatred of men and believe that women should be superior, and dresses up as a sheep (i.e. claims to be a feminist) to throw people off.

That is the meaning behind the picture, and any reasonable person could see it. It's just drawn in an immediately visually recognisable way. I suggest you follow your own advice and take a look at what you're saying.

Edit; fixed a typo.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Equalitsm would work just as well and wouldn't be able to be hijacked by misandrists and people with ulterior motives.

Ugh..

Almost every field of study, social theory or standpoint of the last 200 years has claimed to be 'equally' positioned in terms of gender, either by explicitly stating such or by ignoring gender as a category of analysis.

The problem is that simply pretending that people can interact on a level playing field without accounting for the axes on which they are differentially positioned does not leave them equal, because they still positioned on those axes. You cannot adjust the social weighting of those axes if you refuse to acknowledge that they exist.

Why 'feminism'? Because 'woman' has always been the marked category within the gender system which generally treats specific types of male experience as default or universal. This does not mean that only women have problems or are subject to oppression, there are other axes on which men are oppressed (though generally by other men) and if you'd actually read any contemporary feminist scholarship or literature you would realize that few writers in the field are unaware of this.

So tell me, in you vastly superior understanding of feminism. How is someone saying 'women are better than men' not intentionally agressive and sexist.

I wouldn't know. I can't think of a feminist who ever has.

Someone pretending to be part of a group that wants equality yet highjacking it for their own means.

So where are these people? Give me one name?

There is no man in this analogy.

..right.

So what is the danger here, why am I expected to care?

(The idiom wouldn't be used if it didn't have a rhetorical function)

 

[Hagi]

Yeah... you're probably right...

It's just hard to understand how someone from the UK can be that ignorant of such a well-known idiom. I could understand someone from say Japan not knowing it, surprised but still understanding. But the UK?

Stuff like this comes up in primary schools, television shows, casual conversation and basically everywhere all the time. It's like not knowing what a grapefruit is....

The level of discourse in here is usually pretty high, for the internet. I find it astonishing that the presumption is that he doesn't understand the idiom, and not that the use of the idiom in these circumstances is the problem.

He doesn't understand the idiom.

It doesn't refer to any characteristics of sheep, because it isn't talking about literal sheep. It's talking about figurative sheep, simply put: good things.

It doesn't refer to any characteristics of wolves, because it isn't talking about literal wolves. It's talking about figurative wolves, simply put: bad things.

An idiom is an expression, word, or phrase that has a figurative meaning that is comprehended in regard to a common use of that expression that is separate from the literal meaning or definition of the words of which it is made.

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

 

[Hagi]

There is no man in this analogy.

..right.

So what is the danger here?

That people who don't understand what an idiom is completely derail a thread?

 

[Terminal Blue]

The definition of an idiom isn't related to the literal meaning of the word of which it is made (such as sheep and wolf).
The definition of an idiom is related to the common use of that expression.

Semiotic analysis.

Learn to do it.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I think the error is quite obvious in hating something because of its gender
Or am i just overthinking this?

You're underthinking it. Let me elaborate. I hate what society dictates men should be, i.e. loud, self-absorbed dipshits who exist to make sure everybody knows how big and horrifying their penises are. I like to believe modernity has done away with binary gender roles, but just because I believe something doesn't mean it's true. More men need to be like Haggar from Final Fight. That's a may-unn right thur.

As a guy, that royally pisses me off too. However, don't make the mistake of assuming all guys are like that and hating men in general for it. The problem with misandry is that it doesn't mean hating on male stereotypes but all men entirely because they are in fact male. This is prejudice and ignorance at it's "finest" (<- sarcasm). The MLP:FiM community is almost entirely compromised of 15 - 35 year old males who are a massive subversion to the typical male and who make love and tolerance their motto, yet by definition a misadrist (or however one would say it) still hates them because they have a penis, not because of who they are on a personal level. No matter how you look at that, that's fucked up and completely ignorant bullshit.

Btw will a mod remove one of these threads? I've noticed at least two of this exact same thread by the exact same person made on the exact same day. Doesn't that qualify as spam or something?