Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Feminism

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
118 replies to this topic
lucid121
  • lucid121

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

#1

Posted 06 April 2013 - 07:30 AM

What do you think of feminism?Personally I don't like it,because it is all about women.Although they clearly state that they want equality i.e equal pay,media potraying as sex slaves.Fighting womens issues only isn't what I call ''equality''.They don't solve mens problems i.e harder sentences,custody laws etc.Here is an example of sexism:
http://www.womenagai...hate-group.html
Sorry if this sounds like a rant or offends anymody,but I was just stating how I felt.

Narrow
  • Narrow

    Enigmatic Wanderer

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2013

#2

Posted 06 April 2013 - 11:34 AM

Sometimes feminists are correct in what they say and do, often though it seems like they're lobbying for better rights then the opposite gender, it's something that I personally find very, very difficult to understand. In my life I've never seen anyone that objectifies women, that sees them as sexual objects rather then human beings, I simply cannot see that being the case, yes a lot of people are sexually attracted to women but that doesn't mean that their every waking thought revolves around having sexual intercourse with them.

That's not to say that men don't enjoy sex, obviously but just because it's in their nature to want to reproduce, to have sex and engage in activities of a sexual nature doesn't mean that it's the only thing that they're attracted to women for. I'm sure that a lot of people wouldn't date or even think about going out with a supermodel if they had a mental age of fourteen, it's called picking the best mate possible and sometimes the best mate isn't always the most attractive.

Think of how caring a person is, how much they offer to help, how good a cook they are and how physically fit they are. Sex appeal contributes to how people see one another but it is hardly the sole defining factor of men's perception of women and vice versa, anyone that says otherwise is making a very uninformed and illogical statement. Which is why I suppose that I think feminism's not as beneficial as it once was, yes women need to defend their rights and no-one's arguing that but they should try and achieve equal rights, not greater ones.

lucid121
  • lucid121

    Street Cat

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2013

#3

Posted 06 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Narrow @ Saturday, Apr 6 2013, 14:34)
Sometimes feminists are correct in what they say and do, often though it seems like they're lobbying for better rights then the opposite gender, it's something that I personally find very, very difficult to understand. In my life I've never seen anyone that objectifies women, that sees them as sexual objects rather then human beings, I simply cannot see that being the case, yes a lot of people are sexually attracted to women but that doesn't mean that their every waking thought revolves around having sexual intercourse with them.

That's not to say that men don't enjoy sex, obviously but just because it's in their nature to want to reproduce, to have sex and engage in activities of a sexual nature doesn't mean that it's the only thing that they're attracted to women for. I'm sure that a lot of people wouldn't date or even think about going out with a supermodel if they had a mental age of fourteen, it's called picking the best mate possible and sometimes the best mate isn't always the most attractive.

Think of how caring a person is, how much they offer to help, how good a cook they are and how physically fit they are. Sex appeal contributes to how people see one another but it is hardly the sole defining factor of men's perception of women and vice versa, anyone that says otherwise is making a very uninformed and illogical statement. Which is why I suppose that I think feminism's not as beneficial as it once was, yes women need to defend their rights and no-one's arguing that but they should try and achieve equal rights, not greater ones.

Well said.

Morpheus72
  • Morpheus72

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

#4

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:24 PM Edited by Morpheus72, 06 April 2013 - 09:30 PM.

I can see boths sides of the argument. Many third wave, radical feminists are preachy, dogmatic and out of touch with ordinary people, fighting for extra rights rather than equal rights; I can see why the movement is seen as redundant when so many people blindly latch onto it, building up straw men for the sake of having something to protest about. Nevertheless, if you go back to a book like 'The Second Sex' by Simone de Beauvoir, you're forced to confront many substational points which haven't been resolved all these years later. When you switch the gender roles around like she does and imagine what it would be like if men had to endure the things women do, you begin to realise how oppressive the 'feminine' role has traditionally been, and how degrading the portrayal of women in the media and on television is. Imagine if the lyrics in hip-hop were sung by women and referred to men as 'bitches', or if men were presented as pieces of meat with no personal identity in music videos, to give just two examples.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#5

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:43 AM Edited by Chunkyman, 07 April 2013 - 05:46 AM.

My views depend on how you define feminism. I believe in a universalized moral standard for all people, so women to me have the exact same rights as everyone else. If you approach feminism like this, it's fine to me. However most I've personally met are authoritarian egalitarians, who don't care about actual rights but are obsessed with attempting to force everyone into having equal outcomes through their misguided, immoral and seriously counter-productive economics policies ( primarily "Equal Wage for Equal Work" laws, which are designed to address the mostly non-existant "problem" of women not getting the same average wages as men).

I think, at least in Western countries have achieved having society universalize morality to the point to include women as having equal rights to men. This can be seen as an achievement for feminism. Most current efforts now seem to be about pushing their sh*tty economic views as the (in my opinion good) goal was already achieved years ago, so I am rather opposed to nearly all modern ones.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#6

Posted 07 April 2013 - 01:04 PM

QUOTE (Narrow @ Saturday, Apr 6 2013, 21:34)
In my life I've never seen anyone that objectifies women, that sees them as sexual objects rather then human beings

This is simply laughable. Nobody has ever turned to you and said "what would you give that chick out of ten?" Nobody has ever asked you to rank the girls in your class from "hottest" to "ugliest"?

You've never watched porn and noticed how the women lie back, more or less still, like an object to be used? If the woman's enjoyment is depicted as secondary then they are being depicted as a sex object.

Finally, do you, or do you not, think that women are under more pressure to conform to society's ideal of beauty than men?

If you answered "no" to any of them then you are lying.

QUOTE (Chunkyman)
However most I've personally met are authoritarian egalitarians, who don't care about actual rights but are obsessed with attempting to force everyone into having equal outcomes through their misguided, immoral and seriously counter-productive economics policies ( primarily "Equal Wage for Equal Work" laws, which are designed to address the mostly non-existant "problem" of women not getting the same average wages as men).

It has been empirically demonstrated time and time again that women are paid less, favoured less as prospective employees than men, as well as facing a glass ceiling. It's also been demonstrated that policies to combat this are effective (they are also all temporary measures). Given all of that, I can't for the life of me understand where your objection to feminism stems from.

Laissez-faire is all well and good when talking about economics, but we're talking about civil rights.

QUOTE
My views depend on how you define feminism.

There are three waves of feminism. The third (current) wave deals with media portrayals of women, standards of beauty and employment inequality.

Scott.
  • Scott.

    Norwich's finest

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2010

#7

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:21 PM

Feminists are trying to achieve power. Masculinity = power. Power = masculinity. Feminists are arguably trying to become more masculine in order to have power high up in society. In my opinion women are already equal and feminists are just trying to gain more power. You dont see men trying to gain more power than they already have. Why cant feminists just be proud of what they have achieved? on the subject of radical feminists - all extremist groups left or right or whatever ideology they have will not work.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#8

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (Scott. @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 00:21)
Masculinity = power. Power = masculinity. Feminists are arguably trying to become more masculine in order to have power high up in society. In my opinion women are already equal and feminists are just trying to gain more power.

...

That must be it!

Scott.
  • Scott.

    Norwich's finest

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2010

#9

Posted 07 April 2013 - 02:58 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Apr 7 2013, 13:04)
QUOTE
My views depend on how you define feminism.

There are three waves of feminism. The third (current) wave deals with media portrayals of women, standards of beauty and employment inequality.


Employment inequality? have you ever heard of the equal pay act? or equal opportunities?

Media portrayal of women? Margaret Thatcher. Eleanor Roosevelt, Michelle Obama. Oh wait they're all portrayed as being powerful women.

Standards of beauty - You only need beauty if you're trying to get in the show business game. Anywhere else? nah.

Oh and glad you agree with my last post - sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#10

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

QUOTE (Scott. @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 00:58)
Employment inequality? have you ever heard of the equal pay act? or equal opportunities?

Are you trying to say that women are now universally afforded the same wages as men? Because you're wrong. In Australia there's a whopping eighteen percent pay gap between men and women.

QUOTE
edia portrayal of women? Margaret Thatcher. Eleanor Roosevelt, Michelle Obama. Oh wait they're all portrayed as being powerful women.

Terrible examples. Not only are they real people (you can't "portray" a real person as anything other than what they are), but one of them was a Prime Minister, two were married to a US President. Let's look at two similar fictional characters, both supposed to represent powerful, competent Type-A personality business sorts: Ari Gold from Entourage, Miranda from Sex and the City. Similar characters, the former has the opposite sex thrown at him and is a paragon of cool, while the latter is depicted as a cold c*nt who can't find a decent guy and whose job is only ever a hinderence. The difference between the two? Their gender.

Here's something from a report on the global status of women:


  • Most heroes and protagonists, particularly in prime time programming, tend to be male.
  • Studies indicate that nearly three-quarters of all female characters in sitcoms are underweight, and those that are overweight are often the subject of comments or jokes about their bodies made by male characters. One study found that 80% of these comments were followed by canned laughter.
  • The problem is not only the images that are portrayed, but also those that are not. For example, womenís sports receive far less air time than menís sports on network and cable programming.


QUOTE
Standards of beauty - You only need beauty if you're trying to get in the show business game. Anywhere else? nah.

What about dating? Professional and academic situations? Making friends? Feeling comfortable in your own f*cking skin? Beauty isn't an advantage in any of those areas?

Women are pressured to conform to a much more rigorous standard of beauty than men. That is a fact. Other wise why would the Media Awareness Network report that "three-fourths of womenís magazine covers feature articles about overhauling oneís physical appearance"? How do you explain rampant eating disorders and other mental health concerns that stem from objectification of women?

You're really trying to say that, given all of that, men and women are equal and that feminism no longer has a role to play? Well how about the fact that women suffer from depression twice as often as men? The fact that that link specifically mentions pressure to perform, sexual frustration and difficulty with peers as contributing to disproportionate rates of depression in women should tell you that they affect women more than men. Ergo, it is genuinely harder to be a woman in our society than it is to be a man. That's why we have feminism, that's why people support feminism. Is this sinking in?

Scott.
  • Scott.

    Norwich's finest

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2010

#11

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:53 PM

Of course I understand feminism, I've been studying it for 4 years. I'm doing a module on it currently at University... In my opinion SOME feminists are far far too preachy, fair do's men aren't the best people, but neither are women. Feminists seem to have this utopia of women running everything. For example, at my university we have a women's officer - good, I'm all for that, but then proceeds to say women have no power at all and are basically slaves to men. Do you not think things like that are a bit extreme? women DO have a certain extent of power. I dont think society is really that patriarchal anymore, compared to the past. We've evolved as a society. Also, religion plays a bit part in sexism in society. I agree that it is harder to be a woman than a man, I never said it wasn't.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#12

Posted 07 April 2013 - 03:57 PM

QUOTE (Scott. @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 01:53)
I agree that it is harder to be a woman than a man, I never said it wasn't.

QUOTE (Scott. @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 00:21)
In my opinion women are already equal and feminists are just trying to gain more power.

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#13

Posted 07 April 2013 - 05:39 PM Edited by Chunkyman, 07 April 2013 - 05:46 PM.

QUOTE
It has been empirically demonstrated time and time again that women are paid less


At least in America, the "pay gap" is a myth propagated by people with little/no understanding of statistics or economics. The facts don't support it. This pay gap only shows up when you don't control for all relevant variables and try comparing apples to oranges. For example, women often quit careers to have children, this lowers their average earnings.

Relevant video


QUOTE
Laissez-faire is all well and good when talking about economics, but we're talking about civil rights.


As stated, I don't buy this pay gap myth. But let's just say that it's real and there is widespread discrimination against women.

Let's say there is Employer Steve, Employee Joe, Employee Cindy, and busybody womyn's rights activist Cleo. Steve wants a few people to tar his roof. He meets with Joe and after negotiation, Joe agrees to 10 dollars an hour in exchange for his labor. Later, Cindy is interviewed, and after negotiation they agree to 9 dollars an hour in exchange for her labor. These people have entered a voluntary arrangement. By what right does Cleo (or anyone) have a right to forcibly make Steve pay Cindy more? Is it Cleo's money, or is it Steve's? If it's Steve's money and the terms are voluntarily agreed upon by the two parties (Steve and Cindy), what gives Cleo (or anyone) a right to force him into giving up his property against his will? Furthermore, how is it even his business?

Fundamentally, you do not have a "civil right" to force others into surrendering their property (like money) to others, regardless of how much more wonderful you believe society will be on the other side of legislation. This kind of stuff is exactly why I refer to modern feminists as authoritarian egalitarians.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#14

Posted 07 April 2013 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 03:39)
At least in America, the "pay gap" is a myth propagated by people with little/no understanding of statistics or economics. The facts don't support it. This pay gap only shows up when you don't control for all relevant variables and try comparing apples to oranges. For example, women often quit careers to have children, this lowers their average earnings.

Relevant video

Even that video admits that when you take a man and a woman in the same role there's a two percent difference between their wages (which the video tries to laugh off as unimportant). That's thousands of dollars ever year.

Moreover, nobody thinks that there's an 18% pay difference between two people working the same job, so I'm not sure what the point of that video was. The gender gap comes from women being ushered into certain jobs by the education system, those jobs paying less because they've traditionally been done by women, employers being unaccommodating when it comes to pregnancy leave (my mum was a successful business woman before becoming pregnant and is now an assistant) and the glass ceiling preventing upward mobility. These are all areas that are being successfully dealt with via legislation.

Surely you didn't think some obscure economist who makes youtube videos understood the issue more than every feminist in existence.

QUOTE
Let's say there is Employer Steve, Employee Joe, Employee Cindy, and busybody womyn's rights activist Cleo. Steve wants a few people to tar his roof. He meets with Joe and after negotiation, Joe agrees to 10 dollars an hour in exchange for his labor. Later, Cindy is interviewed, and after negotiation they agree to 9 dollars an hour in exchange for her labor. These people have entered a voluntary arrangement. By what right does Cleo (or anyone) have a right to forcibly make Steve pay Cindy more? Is it Cleo's money, or is it Steve's? If it's Steve's money and the terms are voluntarily agreed upon by the two parties (Steve and Cindy), what gives Cleo (or anyone) a right to force him into giving up his property against his will? Furthermore, how is it even his business?

Fundamentally, you do not have a "civil right" to force others into surrendering their property (like money) to others, regardless of how much more wonderful you believe society will be on the other side of legislation. This kind of stuff is exactly why I refer to modern feminists as authoritarian egalitarians.

A few points:

1) Steve would never be forced to pay Cindy more, since he can pay his two employees however much he likes. More like if he had 200+ employees he'd have to standardise their wages (I doubt he'd care very much, and most people- employers included- don't oppose equal pay for equal work).
2) Unions tend to have much more involvement in this kind of thing than the government. Unions are very powerful, they don't typically need the government busting down Steve's door and forcibly taking a dollar an hour and giving it to Cindy.
3) It's hardly "voluntary" if women are seen as less valuable
4) Your positions seems to stem from the belief that equality is less important than your right to more profit. Apparently there's no such thing as a right to protection from discrimination (the United Nations, political philosophers and pretty much everyone, ever would disagree with you there), but we all have an inalienable right to keep every dollar we make and only give away what people can squeeze out of us, which trumps all other rights because it's so important. Does that... sound right to you?

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#15

Posted 07 April 2013 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE

Surely you didn't think some obscure economist who makes youtube videos understood the issue more than every feminist in existence.


A lot of economists have concluded this. Even if he was the only economist to reach this conclusion, it doesn't invalidate a thing. Arguments stand on their own merits, the fact that there are a lot more feminists has absolutely no bearing on whether their ideas have any validity.

QUOTE

3) It's hardly "voluntary" if women are seen as less valuable


I don't think you know what the word voluntary means. mercie_blink.gif

Whether something is force or voluntary has absolutely no bearing on the personal opinions of value one of the party places on another.

If I'm the coach on a basketball team and I value (in the economic sense) the midget player less than the 6'6" star athlete, that doesn't somehow mean the midget's participation in the sport is involuntary because I don't personally value him as much.

QUOTE
Your positions seems to stem from the belief that equality is less important than your right to more profit.


Universal (aka equal) moral standards are important on a base principle level, however there is absolutely no right to equality of outcome in any capacity. Furthermore, I do not believe in a "right to more profit". I believe in something called self-ownership, and the extension of self ownership referred to as property rights.

If Person 1 has legitimate ownership over item A, he can offer whatever terms he wants for Item A to Person 2 (assuming these terms don't infringe upon the rights of another, like an assassination contract or something), and in turn person 2 is free to accept, reject, or try to renegotiate the offer person 1 has made him. What has been described is a system of voluntary exchange. If another person, person 3, used force to try an alter the voluntary interactions between person 1 and 2 because he didn't personally like it, he would be an aggressor and acting in violation of the rights of both person 1 and 2 to practice their self-ownership and property rights. Person 3 has no right whatsoever to forcibly alter/prevent any voluntary arrangements between person 1 and 2, even if he's incredibly asspained and he feels that the probable outcome of the interaction is in conflict with his grand vision of how society aught to be (like egalitarianism).

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#16

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:08 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 01:38)
Most heroes and protagonists, particularly in prime time programming, tend to be male.

• Studies indicate that nearly three-quarters of all female characters in sitcoms are underweight, and those that are overweight are often the subject of comments or jokes about their bodies made by male characters. One study found that 80% of these comments were followed by canned laughter.

• The problem is not only the images that are portrayed, but also those that are not. For example, womenís sports receive far less air time than menís sports on network and cable programming.


Why is this a bad thing, per se? Most television and film programming is commissioned by large television networks who decide what programming they show based on how popular the show will be. Statistics, such as the first one listed, imply that society as a whole far prefer shows with males as protagonists because of the fact that the protagonists are male, which I don't find to be true at all, with people who create and produce TV shows sitting around in a huddle instilling male protagonists into their shows to comply with their sexist and misogynistic world-views. Should we be striving to achieve a balance in the number of female protagonists and male protagonists within prime-time television shows?

Regarding the second point, well... Should television shows be barred from containing any "punch-lines" which make fun of other people at all? Oh, a few fat people were made fun of on a fictional television show... What do you propose in order to combat such an endemic and disgusting attitude prevailing amongst people? The banning of making fun of fat people? dozingoff.gif

In reference to point number three, again... Should society be scorned because they find male sports more entertaining than female sports? As a libertarian yourself, why the hell would you wish to scorn people for something rather innocent, such as wanting to watch an AFL game played by men over watching a netball game played by women?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Anti-Complacency League, Baby!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#17

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:57 AM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 06:02)
A lot of economists have concluded this. Even if he was the only economist to reach this conclusion, it doesn't invalidate a thing. Arguments stand on their own merits, the fact that there are a lot more feminists has absolutely no bearing on whether their ideas have any validity.

Just pointing out the absurdity in thinking that, after decades of discussion about the gender gap by people who study women's issues for a living, some economist thinks he's the first to account for the variables.

His argument doesn't need to be invalidated, since his findings are the same as everyone else's. There's a small (2%) gender gap from people in the same job, the rest is accounted for by societal expectations. What he did conveniently forget to mention however, was the glass ceiling and discriminatory hiring policies.

What were his findings? That women get paid less than men for the same work? That society values jobs traditionally done by women less than jobs traditionally done by men? That women are forced leave their work if they get pregnant? How does any of that render the gender gap a "myth"?

QUOTE
I don't think you know what the word voluntary means.

Voluntary - noun - done of one's own free will.

If you have no other options your actions can't be described as voluntary.

QUOTE
If I'm the coach on a basketball team and I value (in the economic sense) the midget player less than the 6'6" star athlete, that doesn't somehow mean the midget's participation in the sport is involuntary because I don't personally value him as much.

How is this a relevant parallel?

More like if white people are banned from playing basketball, so they play soccer instead, you can hardly say they voluntarily chose to play soccer.

QUOTE
Universal (aka equal) moral standards are important on a base principle level, however there is absolutely no right to equality of outcome in any capacity.

Equality of outcome? What does that even mean? From what I can see, it's a strawman erected by the American far right in order to ridicule progressive initiatives. I've never heard of anyone advocate any kind of "equality of outcome." What we're talking about is equality of opportunity and there very much is a right to that, accepted by most reasonable people and enshrined in international law.

QUOTE
and in turn person 2 is free to accept, reject, or try to renegotiate the offer person 1 has made him.

They aren't free to reject it if they have no other options. Most (all?) political philosophers and most politically literate people accept that arbitrary societal expectations are coercive. But apparently civil rights take a back seat to unequivocal rights to property.

I'd also like to know what's "moral" about a business using public infrastructure but not being accountable to society at large. Unless you're talking about some libertarian utopia where all infrastructure is private and taxes are voluntary but somehow manages to function. If you are, then I fail to see your point, since we don't live in that society. Here and now, businesses rely on public infrastructure and protection from the government. Does that not give the public some right to make demands of them? Why not?

QUOTE (Stefche)
with people who create and produce TV shows sitting around in a huddle instilling male protagonists into their shows to comply with their sexist and misogynistic world-views

Nice straw man. At no point did I suggest there was some phallocentric conspiracy to marginalise women in the media. The issue is that women are depicted in a way that rarely makes for interesting protagonists.

QUOTE
Should we be striving to achieve a balance in the number of female protagonists and male protagonists within prime-time television shows?

Yes. Or rather, we should be striving to depict women in a more realistic, less overly-stereotyped way.

QUOTE
Oh, a few fat people were made fun of on a fictional television show... What do you propose in order to combat such an endemic and disgusting attitude prevailing amongst people? The banning of making fun of fat people?

Obviously not. How did we stop making fun of black people or gay people? People stood up and said it was wrong. We need to stop the overweight from being a safe target for chauvinism. I'm not saying we can sign a bill and do this overnight, by any means. The media needs to actually present this issue to the public, I know I've never seen anyone on the news advocating size acceptance and most people don't even know it's a thing.

Also, a few fat people? Try the small minority of overweight characters actually depicted on TV being ridiculed for it constantly. Don't treat this as a benign issue, because it isn't. The fact that you think it's okay to ridicule overweight people is part of the problem.

QUOTE
As a libertarian yourself

*Anarchist

QUOTE
As a libertarian yourself, why the hell would you wish to scorn people for something rather innocent, such as wanting to watch an AFL game played by men over watching a netball game played by women?

I'd have thought the answer would be self-evident. Because women's sports are deemed to be less than male sports.

Kind of unsettling how you think society's attitude towards women is completely benign and should be laughed of as lads being lads.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#18

Posted 08 April 2013 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 18:57)
Obviously not. How did we stop making fun of black people or gay people? People stood up and said it was wrong. We need to stop the overweight from being a safe target for chauvinism. I'm not saying we can sign a bill and do this overnight, by any means. The media needs to actually present this issue to the public, I know I've never seen anyone on the news advocating size acceptance and most people don't even know it's a thing.

Also, a few fat people? Try the small minority of overweight characters actually depicted on TV being ridiculed for it constantly. Don't treat this as a benign issue, because it isn't. The fact that you think it's okay to ridicule overweight people is part of the problem.


I don't think it's fair to compare the racist treatment of Blacks and homophobic attitudes towards homosexuality, both of which are instilled in ignorant prejudice, to the so-called "ridicule" of fat people. One cannot choose to be either Black or gay, whereas being fat (to a large extent, aside from the minute minority who have a medical condition which prevents them from being a healthy weight) is a by-product of a lifestyle choice. People are fine to make that lifestyle choice, and eat five Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but people, by contrast, are also fine to scorn them for abusing themselves in such a way, much in the same way that people scorn smokers. I'm saying this both as a smoker, and as someone whose body frame resembled a teletubby when I was a kid. Not to derail the debate (we can save that for another topic perhaps...), but I find the whole idea regarding the "fat liberation movement" to be laughable. Sorry.

QUOTE
I'd have thought the answer would be self-evident. Because women's sports are deemed to be less than male sports.


Do you genuinely believe that people prefer watching males play AFL over watching females play netball as a result of subversive and subtle misogyny? Why do women follow male-played sports?

QUOTE
Kind of unsettling how you think society's attitude towards women is completely benign and should be laughed of as lads being lads.


Well, like any decent human being living in a Western country in 2013, I think it's imperative that issues such as the pay gap between males and females is completely removed, that there is no glass ceiling for women (or anyone else) within the workplace, and that discrimination exercised by employers in the hiring of women is mitigated, but I think that looking through a post-modern lens at the way in which fictional television portrays women, and deriding society as a whole for preferring to watch male sports over female sports, are a waste of time given that even the most ardent feminists would probably believe that the former issues concerning improving the economic position of women within society are far more important and deserve far more thought than the latter. But, if you disagree, then feel free to call me a "misogynistic lad".

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#19

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:03 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 10:51)

I don't think it's fair to compare the racist treatment of Blacks and homophobic attitudes towards homosexuality, both of which are instilled in ignorant prejudice, to the so-called "ridicule" of fat people. One cannot choose to be either Black or gay, whereas being fat (to a large extent, aside from the minute minority who have a medical condition which prevents them from being a healthy weight) is a by-product of a lifestyle choice. People are fine to make that lifestyle choice, and eat five Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but people, by contrast, are also fine to scorn them for abusing themselves in such a way, much in the same way that people scorn smokers. I'm saying this both as a smoker, and as someone whose body frame resembled a teletubby when I was a kid. Not to derail the debate (we can save that for another topic perhaps...), but I find the whole idea regarding the "fat liberation movement" to be laughable. Sorry.

Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice. Unless you're saying you like the taste of aldi value brand horse penis burgers?

Melchior, don't bother putting in effort. You're arguing with dimbulb teenagers and at least one feudalist sorry I mean libertarian.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#20

Posted 08 April 2013 - 12:27 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 22:03)
Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice. Unless you're saying you like the taste of aldi value brand horse penis burgers?

Yes, because one requires a bank loan with an absurd rate of interest in order to live healthily and maintain a healthy weight. sarcasm.gif

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#21

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:00 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 12:27)
QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 22:03)
Here's a protip: Healthy food is expensive. Most people eating awful food that makes them fat do it because they have no other choice. Unless you're saying you like the taste of aldi value brand horse penis burgers?

Yes, because one requires a bank loan with an absurd rate of interest in order to live healthily and maintain a healthy weight. sarcasm.gif

Do me a favour. Tally up the cost of rent, gas, electricity, council tax, and water.

Then remove that number from the net income you get from a forty hour week at minimum wage. Assuming you are capable of finding a full forty hours.

What you will find is your bills alone will cost as much, if not more than you earn. You will be living off of government assistance.

How much money will you then have? Will that be enough to pay for good quality (no aldi horse penis burgers) food for you and your dependents?

I'm being generous here. I'm assuming you don't need to pay for transport. Or buy toilet paper. Or razor blades. Or an internet connection.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#22

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:09 PM

When I said "eating Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner", it was hyperbolic. I thought that was obvious. I eat a sh*tload of junk food since I'm on a uni student's budget, which obviously isn't as harsh as the minimum-wage example you've used, but doesn't exactly propel me to the top 1% either, and yet I still maintain a healthy weight, partly because I spend a whopping $12 a week (!) on a gym membership, and also because, despite consuming a quantity of grease in one week which is enough for an average male human's lifetime, I eat in some form of moderation. I also know a lot of people (and I'm sure you could think of a few examples yourself) from a wealthier upbringing who have three chins and a Michelin tire around their waistline.

I thought that, given the context of my post, it was apparent that I wasn't talking about overweight people who genuinely have some sort of struggle, whether physical or financial, preventing them from maintaining a healthy weight.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#23

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:36 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 13:09)
I thought that, given the context of my post, it was apparent that I wasn't talking about overweight people who genuinely have some sort of struggle, whether physical or financial, preventing them from maintaining a healthy weight.

Yeah you weren't talking about them because you denied they exist up front. You literally said this:

QUOTE
One cannot choose to be either Black or gay, whereas being fat (to a large extent, aside from the minute minority who have a medical condition which prevents them from being a healthy weight) is a by-product of a lifestyle choice.



Those are your words. To you, you're either fat because you're greedy or because you have a medical problem.

I pointed out poverty is a major cause.

You then claimed health isn't expensive.

I pointed out that it is.

Now you backpedal to "but I didn't really mean those words that I deliberately typed, proof-read then published on the internet!". Which is a ridiculously bold faced lie.

Stefche
  • Stefche

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 14 Oct 2009

#24

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:44 PM

Well, I sincerely apologise for wording my initial post so poorly, then, and I apologise for backpeddling. I recognise that living in poverty may prevent you from affording a high-quality and nutritious diet. However, you still haven't actually explained as to how there is a direct correlation between limited finances and a fat f*cking waistline. Yes, the proportion of obese and overweight people amongst the lower socio-economic classes is higher than amongst the upper echelons of the spectrum, but correlation doesn't imply causation.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#25

Posted 08 April 2013 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Stefche @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 13:44)
Well, I sincerely apologise for wording my initial post so poorly, then, and I apologise for backpeddling. I recognise that living in poverty may prevent you from affording a high-quality and nutritious diet. However, you still haven't actually explained as to how there is a direct correlation between limited finances and a fat f*cking waistline. Yes, the proportion of obese and overweight people amongst the lower socio-economic classes is higher than amongst the upper echelons of the spectrum, but correlation doesn't imply causation.

Since you're so polite, I'll answer your question.

QUOTE
I recognise that living in poverty may prevent you from affording a high-quality and nutritious diet.


There you go. That is the answer. If you can only afford unhealthy food, you will be unhealthy. It's a very simple idea. This derail can end now.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#26

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:01 PM Edited by sivispacem, 08 April 2013 - 02:09 PM.

Not that it is particularly relevant to the debate, but obesity is almost solely a product of voluntary lifestyle choices. If obesity is solely a product of poverty, then why is it far more prolific in the middle classes of Southern European nations than it is the relatively poor, who generally have excellent diets? In other words, why do those who live in, say, Umbria or Andalucia live longer than the wealthy citizens of Rome or Barcelona? Why does the south of France have lower obesity levels as well as lower average wages compared to the north?

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#27

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:23 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 14:01)
If obesity is solely a product of poverty

Nobody has claimed that there is only one cause. Though you should take into account what is readily and easily available to buy.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#28

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:42 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 15:23)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 14:01)
If obesity is solely a product of poverty

Nobody has claimed that there is only one cause. Though you should take into account what is readily and easily available to buy.

Your argument is that people are obese because access to unhealthy food is cheaper than to healthy. This is patently false when growing food is so much cheaper than buying it. The issue is not one of cost, but of motivation. The urbanization of the poor is a contributing factor but much of it is accombination of laziness and sociology. People don't eat badly because eating badly is cheap- it isn't when a fresh, nutritious meal will usually work out cheaper to produce. It is most because it is easy.

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013

#29

Posted 08 April 2013 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 14:42)

Your argument is that people are obese because access to unhealthy food is cheaper than to healthy. This is patently false when growing food is so much cheaper than buying it.

Okay, I would like you to purchase enough land and equipment to grow enough crops to sustain yourself and your dependents. That's three meals a day. Balanced diet.

I would also like you to do so while working a minimum wage job. You'll simply have to pull the time to be a farmer out of your bumhole. You'll also have to learn how to farm before you can do anything.

Does this sound feasible to you?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Hellhound Warpig

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#30

Posted 08 April 2013 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (LeVelocar @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 15:52)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, Apr 8 2013, 14:42)

Your argument is that people are obese because access to unhealthy food is cheaper than to healthy. This is patently false when growing food is so much cheaper than buying it.

Okay, I would like you to purchase enough land and equipment to grow enough crops to sustain yourself and your dependents. That's three meals a day. Balanced diet.

I would also like you to do so while working a minimum wage job. You'll simply have to pull the time to be a farmer out of your bumhole. You'll also have to learn how to farm before you can do anything.

Does this sound feasible to you?

I grow pretty much all the fruit and vegetables I require in a 2m x 2m patch in my garden. I purchase meat largely from local butchers, usually hunted game rather than farmed, at a price far below that of supermarkets. Practically the only things i need to buy from stores are seasonings, cooking oil and cleaning supplies. And if we still had small-scale agriculture in the UK like they do in the Med- around normal working lives I might add- I'd probably be able to get two of those as well.

Both me and my partner work full time.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users