[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

I never said that though, clearly no one should be hitting anyone, male or female

Well then ur debating something that I don’t even disagree with, I just phrased it weird, sorry ig..?

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by y.winter

So basically we can change the title of this thread to "OK falsely implies that Cameron supports violence against women, but he doesn't actually"

End of drama. We can move on?

the title is fine it's not like it's biased

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Think I must've scrolled past. Care to summarise?

I basically said double standards exist sadly.

I don't see a problem with self defence . It's not fair to hit someone and not expect them to retaliate especially when we all know most men WOULDN'T lay a finger on a woman anyway . Not everyone is a violent thug as some would like to believe .

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

So then it's not really about equality in every sense of the word, is it? It's about ensuring women have the same representation in the seats of power as men. There is a diffrrence between campaigning for power to be shared equally between men and women, and wanting true equality between the sexes in different areas of life.

Yes, it is. It's about focusing on priorities first. If the focus was on female dustbin workers, and feminists rubbed their hands together and was like "ah, job done", things would quickly regress back to inequality. And it wouldn't address other areas, nor the wider picture.

Power is more important, and it makes sense to focus on that as a priority.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I basically said double standards exist sadly.

I don't see a problem with self defence . It's not fair to hit someone and not expect them to retaliate especially when we all know most men WOULDN'T lay a finger on a woman anyway . Not everyone is a violent thug as some would like to believe .

I basically said the same, that self-defense is okay did you quote the wrong post or something?

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by AProducer'sWetDream

It's literally just stating the obvious that men have problems too. Show me where he said or implied that men have it worse than women?

literally the whole sentence lmao

[copy40]

Originally Posted by crashandburn

Agreed. It's not a man's place (certainly not a little boy with no life experience) to set down the terms and conditions of equality to women. Women aren't asking your permission, boyo. Equality isn't yours to give under certain terms. It's theirs to take.

What a typical tory buffoon. All his opinions are probably just passed down the line from father to son for generations and he has no idea about the real world. I bet he's a carbon copy of his father politically and hasn't come to an original conclusion on his own about anything.

As his father all his political views and any other he has are his own he never knew his grandfather announce for me I don't have political views and I think you need to listen to the video carefully before you come to assumptions

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Yes, it is. It's about focusing on priorities first. If the focus was on female dustbin workers, and feminists rubbed their hands together and was like "ah, job done", things would quickly regress back to inequality. And it wouldn't address other areas, nor the wider picture.

Power is more important, and it makes sense to focus on that as a priority.

Multiple people in this thread have said it’s not about power..... hngg

It’s just more of a semantics thing at this point lol I’m sure everyone in this thread wants men and women to be equal

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

I basically said the same, that self-defense is okay did you quote the wrong post or something?

I never quoted anything wrong ? .

This debate just got heavy and got bombarded fast so i gave up in the end .

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by montblanc

literally the whole sentence lmao

Ok but he literally doesn't mention women in the bit you've highlighted. He just mentions that life as a man isn't always perfect. These two ideas aren't mutually exclusive:

Life isn't always a walk in the park for men.
There are institutional biases that make life even more difficult for women as it is for men.

Both can be true.

[crashandburn]

Originally Posted by copy40

As his father all his political views and any other he has are his own he never knew his grandfather announce for me I don't have political views and I think you need to listen to the video carefully before you come to assumptions

As someone who grew up in an orphanage I can tell you not one single child comes to naturally support tory politics unless they are brought up that way or guided to it somehow.

PS hi Dad your son was funny when he was hiding in the shower.

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by montblanc

this comment is a bit problematic because it implies that men are treated worse than women in society when that's completely the opposite

i don't know if that's exactly what you mean but that's what it's implying

what??? No

Holy fk like if it’s only about priority then why are we discussing feminism at all and why aren’t we assuming all our efforts going to Africa and ending poverty and famine? Like I’m sure they have it worse there than anywhere in the world

Being a man in society has its lavish list of benefits, but also it’s downfalls, same for the other gender too, maybe one has it worse than the other, does that not mean the other side of the coin warrants discussion?

[DouglasS]

If he’s defending himself of course. There are videos of women hitting and attacking men or other women and the boyfriend rightfully steps in to protect his girlfriend and smacks her. Hitting an aggressive racist woman that is attacking a family member is perfectly okay

[AProducer'sWetDream]

Originally Posted by JoshBB

Yes, it is. It's about focusing on priorities first. If the focus was on female dustbin workers, and feminists rubbed their hands together and was like "ah, job done", things would quickly regress back to inequality. And it wouldn't address other areas, nor the wider picture.

Power is more important, and it makes sense to focus on that as a priority.

So I completely agree that getting women into positions of power is a bigger priority as that will lead to better policy making and a levelling of the playing field. It is a step on the path to true equality. My point is that if that is your end- point, it's not really about equality.

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by arista

No wonder he is staying back from the women


His Dark Side

Nah he's scared ****less - women are an unknown quantity to him, i think his only experience of women has been his mother.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Well then ur debating something that I don’t even disagree with, I just phrased it weird, sorry ig..?

Well no, I disagreed with a statement you made earlier which I quoted, I didn't comment on the hitting thing at all

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Well no, I disagreed with a statement you made earlier which I quoted, I didn't comment on the hitting thing at all

Yeah I worded it weird sometimes I’m not the best at articulating things
I was talking about the double standards, you thought I meant equality was something men owned, which I don’t believe

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Elliot

Yeah I worded it weird sometimes I’m not the best at articulating things
I was talking about the double standards, you thought I meant equality was something men owned, which I don’t believe

[Robodog]

The big difference is between equal opportunities (yay) and equality of outcome (boo) :

Feminism used to be about fighting for equal opportunities and removing barriers that prevented women from attaining top spots. Now that has been achieved (eg - female prime minister, head of met police, CEOs etc), feminism has since morphed into demand for equality of outcome.

Equal opportunities means everyone competes on a level playing-field, and the best people rise to the top, based on individual efforts and merit - regardless of their gender (or any other social category).

This is freedom.

Equality of outcome means judging people according to gender (or any other social 'group') and then forcing equal representation. This means people getting jobs based on 'box-ticking' and can even result in people not getting jobs simply because if their 'social category' is already 'over-represented'.

This is social engineering.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example : Presenter Jon Holmes being sacked from the BBC due to his skin colour -

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ow-show-sacked


QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: “If we are now openly giving jobs to people based on the colour of their skin, surely that is only emphasising just the kind of social division that the equality that I was brought up to embrace strives to eliminate?” he writes.

“So what if – and I know this is radical – but what if everything and every job in all walks of life was open to everyone equally, and we all just agree that everyone’s the same, by which I mean – you know – ‘human’?”

.

[BENDERBOY]

I like him even more.

[Elliot]

Originally Posted by Robodog

The big difference is between equal opportunities (yay) and equality of outcome (boo) :

Feminism used to be about fighting for equal opportunities and removing barriers that prevented women from attaining top spots. Now that has been achieved (eg - female prime minister, head of met police, CEOs etc), feminism has since morphed into demand for equality of outcome.

Equal opportunities means everyone competes on a level playing-field, and the best people rise to the top, based on individual efforts and merit - regardless of their gender (or any other social category).

This is freedom.

Equality of outcome means judging people according to gender (or any other social 'group') and then forcing equal representation. This means people getting jobs based on 'box-ticking' and can even result in people not getting jobs simply because if their 'social category' is already 'over-represented'.

This is social engineering.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example : Presenter Jon Holmes being sacked from the BBC due to his skin colour -

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...ow-show-sacked


QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: “If we are now openly giving jobs to people based on the colour of their skin, surely that is only emphasising just the kind of social division that the equality that I was brought up to embrace strives to eliminate?” he writes.

“So what if – and I know this is radical – but what if everything and every job in all walks of life was open to everyone equally, and we all just agree that everyone’s the same, by which I mean – you know – ‘human’?”

.

I think the argument is there are societal barriers that even with the equal opportunity would never be fufilled by certain groups. Like for example the situation in America for a lot of black communities, where a lot of these communities are unable to break through economically, and it is believed to be because of systemic and socialtal prejudice and barriers. It’s an involved debate but I think the baseline idea is that equal oppurntity isn’t justice to these groups

[Alf]

Originally Posted by crashandburn

Agreed.It's not a man's place (certainly not a little boy with no life experience) to set down the terms and conditions of equality to women. Women aren't asking your permission, boyo. Equality isn't yours to give under certain terms. It's theirs to take.

What a typical tory buffoon. All his opinions are probably just passed down the line from father to son for generations and he has no idea about the real world. I bet he's a carbon copy of his father politically and hasn't come to an original conclusion on his own about anything.

Where is he setting down terms? He's giving his opinion, which is most definitely his and every mans place.

Your problem with him looks to me like that you don't want him to have an opinion unless it agrees with yours.

[crashandburn]

Originally Posted by Alf

Your problem with him looks to me like that you don't want him to have an opinion unless it agrees with yours.

Seems unlikely that would be a personality trait of mine, considering I made various posts in this very thread to Elliot saying I very much welcomed, respected and liked his opinions even though I disagreed with some of them.

[user104658]

Sad, angry little cuck.

...that's all there is to say really.

[Moniqua]

Men are trash.