Content
Thread
Forum
Date
Quote by captaincrunk
Oh I get it, this is where we take words that already have perfectly good meanings and substitute them for phrases we're too lazy to type out.


Oh I get it, this is where we manifestly refuse to understand the underlying issues and replace discussion with lazy sarcasm.
Quote by captaincrunk
You've missed the point. Punishment has nothing to do with it.


I haven't missed the point at all. You are arguing that UreAllShit's call for 'punishment' of the LibDems is not part of democracy. I'm saying that it is entirely called for in order to demonstrate that constituents actually expect their elected representatives to represent them.

I don't know whether you're in favour of 'kettling' or not, but that appears to be punishment FOR protest, rather than for crimes committed during protests. If this kind of punishment is justified, surely punishment for oath-breaking is also justified, even if breech of contract can't be proved.

On the last point, it'd be interesting to take it to court anyway, just because confirmation that signed election pledges don't constitute and 'intention to be legally bound' on the part of candidates would at least clarify the state of democracy in the UK.
Quote by captaincrunk
So now democracy is about punishment? and collapsing the government will more than likely hurt other people.


No, democracy is, ostensibly, about allowing the people to govern themselves. When the decisions of elected representatives can be shown to totally oppose not only the views of their constituents, but also SIGNED contracts with their voters, the philosophical basis of government is challenged,if not totally undermined.

Had the LibDems honoured their agreements with their constituents, this bill would have failed. Simple as that.

EDIT: Democracy is apparently also about detention of peaceful protesters without charge simply because they happen to be near people committing crimes.
Quote by 剣 斧 血
Woah there, I'm pretty sure not everyone in the armed forces does that.


I think the point was more 'if doing things no-one else is prepared to do was admirable for its own sake, then those things would be', not 'the military beat and rape women'.

On topic: As much as I agree with the protests, there was no need to smash up one of the royal family's cars. Last time I checked they don't have any power until the country becomes so ****ed up the military can be put in charge.


Yeah, but they do receive public subsidy, which becomes kind of ridiculous when teaching budgets have been cut by 80% and access to university will end up being scaled back. Especially when they're in a Rolls.

Tell me to delete this if it's spam, but I wrote a bit of a rant about the choice of targets on my blog - it's on topic, and I thought that providing the link might be better than quoting bits at random...

LINK
Quote by Masamune
Or are the big corporations out to gain profits no matter what, even if it means harming others?


IIRC, the aim of a Corporation is to deliver increased value to its shareholders, so pretty much by definition they are legally obliged to maximize profits at the expense of every other concern, except where limited by other legislation. Which is why the influence of corporations over politicians is sinister, since the fewer laws which bind them, the greater profits they are legally obliged to deliver, which means keeping wages as low as possible, production costs as low as possible, and selling products at the maximum sustainable market value.

Also, the insidious infiltration of commercial slogans and images into our general cultural milieu. For only a few examples 'hoover' or 'dyson' for vacuum cleaner, Santa, 'simples' in everyday conversation, the fact that it's impossible to walk anywhere (or even go for a piss) without someone trying to sell you something. We're forced to look at advertisements 24/7 with no ability to look away, so that the images are imprinted on our minds without us having a choice or making a conscious decision to remember.
The first one is revolution in the sense of making things new (the action of making things new), while the second is pretty much just 'new things'.

Obviously these translations are very literal, but they do have the advantage of emphasizing the active sense of the first as opposed to the passive sense of the second. I'm not going to give advice, because I don't know what you'd prefer, but if it were me I'd definitely plump for the active version.
Sorry for the necro-bump, I just spent a decent chunk of my life writing this response to CoreysMonster's thread which has since vanished (not been closed, just vanished), so I thought I'd post it here to avoid having wasted the effort.

Quote by CoreysMonster
Ah yes, call me an idiot because I have views that oppose yours. My claims are so outrageous and based on nonsense, and I am completely talking out of my ass by claiming that women have it easier than men nowadays, which is a view that I base on things that I see day after day.
I think I have said time and time again that I am strongly for feminism in making men and women equal, what I am NOT for is feminism that strives to give women advantages, which seems to be the main purpose of most feminist groups.


And yet you've provided no evidence of feminist groups or even individual feminists actually doing this, and completely ignored the idea that support groups for women aim to redress an already and still existing imbalance in favour of men. You've accepted that 'women don't want to act like men' (with all the provisos about gender being constructed and gender performance not being linked necessarily to biological sex),but you don't seem to see that in order to succeed in a business environment you have to act like an alpha male. Women find it harder to do this because they have the very fact that they are female counting against this performance of masculinity. Hence the groups. It's not all about access to capital or ability, it's about preconceptions.

You can make claims about ideals of feminism all you want, I'm basing my opinion on actual RESULTS of feminism, which is all about giving women an edge.


But you haven't shown that feminism is 'all about this' at all, you've cited your own personal experience and rubbished statistics which contradict it, purely on the basis that they contradict it. Your opinion is based on your conception, which is an opinion - do you see why this is circular logic?

If feminism does 'give women an edge' it's only to enable them compete, rather than maintaining them in constant inequality. Why does 'equality' in your eyes only stretch as far as 'being judged according to patriarchal standards of masculinity when in business, and patriarchal standards of femininity in social situations', even when you've correctly identified that patriarchy screws men up too?

[QUOTE}Why is it fair that little girls get special classes and seminars to get them interested in science and little boys don't?

Because patriarchal views of masculinity/femininity suggest that science and technology are male domains. Look at any presentation of a female scientist in film - she's attractive, and automatically inferior to whichever action hero she's going to end up sleeping with.

Boys are already culturally conditioned to be interested in science, whereas girls are culturally conditioned to like cooking and 'emotional' subjects like the humanities. Men are massively over-represented on university science programmes already. Given that university funding is now being squeezed out of humanities funding because it doesn't conform to capitalist conceptions of value, can you not see that there's an automatic bias here? And so encouraging girls to be interested in science from an early age (as well as boys) is necessary?

Why is it fair that unemployed women get extra help that men in the same situation don't get?


Because men don't have to deal with not being offered jobs due to the potential that they may possibly have a child at some point during said employment.

Why is it fair that things like this pass by unquestioned, but when a guy claims that women have it easier than men, people jump his ass and call him an idiot for forming an opinion based on observation instead of meaningless statistics?


Because people who make circular arguments, refuse to listen to refutations, and would rather claim that all social science is somehow biased against men than accept they may be wrong, come quote close to the definition of idiot (not as in bad person). You may not be an idiot, but there's none so blind as those who won't see, as the saying goes.

EDIT: and before you go on a rant on how women have to deal with stuff like cat calls and such, are you REALLY so close-minded that you don't realise that guys have to deal with shit like that as well? Like guys are never approached with the classic "You got a problem, boy?" from guys who are trying to start a fight? Like guys live quiet, peaceful lives without ever being harassed or bothered?


As I've already said (and you've already ignored once), men don't have to deal with being harassed because of their gender. General aggression is not a gender specific issue, but gender specific aggression is - how is that not clear?
Quote by Fisheth24
I thought Labour was left wing?


Well, they would claim to be, but since they failed to implement any serious policy to decrease the gap between rich and poor, to the extent that it actually increased over their term in office, it becomes quite difficult to argue.

EDIT: Although 'civil liberties' has been taken on as a feature of 'New Right' rhetoric (rather than practice)...
The 'Orange Book' element of the Liberal Democrats could be seen as centre right if you're defining 'right' in terms of supporting neo-liberal/free-market economic policy. (Or if you're holding the LibDems equally responsible for coalition policy...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book:_Reclaiming_Liberalism

EDIT: Or this: vvv
ILO-defined unemployment in June to August was 2.45 million. (source)

The number of vacancies for the three months to September 2010 was 459,000, down 30,000 over the quarter. (source)

I'm not sure that there are jobs that 'people can't be arsed to do'. Mostly there just aren't enough jobs.
Quote by rockdude375
Correct; only if you are EMPLOYED for a wage less than the minimum.


So you agree that this is a covert attack on the idea of a minimum wage by the exploitation of legal loopholes? Glad we see eye to eye
Quote by Kivarenn82
It's alright. I think working at your job is also compulsory to receive your paycheque.


The point I was making was that it won't improve employability, since you're not going to look better than anyone else.

You're not from the UK, so I'll summarise this - currently, there are far more unemployed than there are vacancies. The government has just announced policies which are going to lead to at least another 490,000 redundancies.

It's already near-impossible to find any job if you don't already have experience, which means that unless you were working before the crash, you're not going to even get an interview.

So, in these circumstances, what should the state do? Allow a large proportion of its population to starve by refusing to pay social security? Recognise that 100% employment is an unattainable goal within a capitalist society?

Or just make the problem worse through policy, stigmatise the unemployed, and then force them to work, possibly at the same jobs they were made redundant from, for far below minimum wage, regardless of whether they've already paid years worth of taxes, which are effectively insurance against unemployment?

EDIT: Yes, I do believe that the state has a responsibility for its citizens, that's kind of why we pay tax, and vote for representatives to act in our interests...
Quote by IYanoplathizoI
So it will help those who are willing to work by improving their employability, placing above those unwilling to work who will get out of it somehow.


I think you missed the part where this was COMPULSORY. You can already volunteer while on JSA - but you'll probably be out of luck unless you already have experience in the area you want to volunteer in. On a side note, the bars at my University (run by students) apparently won't interview anyone without 12 months bar experience, but will employ someone who doesn't know that there's a special glass for half pints. Are we all supposed to just lie all over our CVs just to get interviews?
Quote by rockdude375
Too many times do I see yobs who've got 7 kids; 52" plasma HD T.V; each kid has a £700 computer; nice car on the drive etc., when my parents (and now myself now i'm adult) have to work bloody hard to get what we have. If I want a new TV, or new car, or laptop; I have to save for it and do overtime. My parents have to work bloody hard to keep just the house and whats in it and food on the table. Some people get it all provided on a plate, and we as people working and paying tax are effectively paying for all this.

There are troops now in Afganistan who havn't the proper equipment they require and are consequently putting their lives at more of a risk than they should have to; there are hospital departments closing left-right-and centre; the are thousands of police jobs being lost as no-one can afford them any more; the fire service have made firefighters redundant and are not taking on any more;


How do you know that these 'Yobs' you 'too often see' are claiming benefits? JAS is only £50 a week.

Also, if the troops WEREN'T in Afganistan, we'd have a lot more money to play with, but I don't complain that my taxes are paying for wars I don't believe we had any place in.

The loss of public services you complain of is part of THE SAME PROBLEM as this proposal, the idea that somehow private industry can do everything better AND cheaper than the government. These proposals just allow businesses an easy source of below minimum wage labour, forcing the people who would otherwise have been doing these jobs onto benefits, and then later into THE SAME JOBS THEY WERE FIRED FROM, but on about 1/6 of the wage and no job security. Sounds like a utopia, no?
Quote by Deadlock Riff
The only thing i find comical is that it's near impossible to survive on minimum wage alone.
Sure some people have managed to do it but most would be scravling for pocket change.

Yet the point of minimum wage was to provide a minimum pay someone could live of off.


But that can't be right - Iain Duncan-Smith tells me that people live on benefits rather than getting jobs as a lifestyle choice, and JSA is far less than minimum wage. Even with the addition of housing benefit you're only looking at a similar amount.

So surely life on minimum wage must be cushy as all hell. I don't understand what people are complaining about.

(/sarcasm)
Firstly, I'm sorry that my first post on this thread was off-topic.

Second, I just want you to know that I'm thinking of you, and I'm feeling for you. I've been where you are, and I know how much that place hurts, and how lonely it is. I'm not going to tell you not to do it, because I can't. It isn't you who wants to die, not really, and hearing other people saying 'be strong, man up, think about others' doesn't help.

I will say that, from my experience, there is a way out of there. People do care, and with help you can overcome this. If there's someone you can trust, tell them you're feeling like this. See a doctor, or even call an ambulance if you have insurance/are in the uk - suicidal thoughts count as an emergency.

Even just talk to the health professional at your school/university/office - you'd be surprised how good they can be with things like this. If you have even the slightest hesitation about ending things, then find a reason to live for just a minute longer, then a minute more.

And PM me if you need to. I can't promise that I'll be the most helpful person in the world, but I will listen, and I do care - it's a horrible place to be.

Take care, man.
Quote by alaskan_ninja
That's called being really fucking sad. Sadness doesn't stop at a certain level. It can go on until you want to kill yourself. It's silly to say that once you're sad enough you suddenly have a disease, just like it's silly to say you have a disease if you're fat enough or something.

Here are some facts:

-What we term 'depression' is a very modern phenomenon. It was not observed until recent times, and did not begin to be diagnosed regularly until after the first antidepressants were introduced.

-In scientific trials that are not affiliated with drug companies, antidepressants have been shown conclusively to have little to no effect over a placebo.


Here are some FACTS:

-What we term 'depression' can be recognized in a plethora of ancient literary and historical sources. The Biblical figures of Job, Elijah and Jonah all recognizably suffer from depression, and even if we do not take the Bible as an authentic source of history of theology, its dating is not in doubt, and certainly pre-dates your later example of Mercutio in 'Romeo and Juliet'.

Thomas Burton's 'Anatomy of Melancholy' is roughly contemporary with Shakespeare, and demonstrates not only that depression recognizably existed at that time, but also that it was considered a medical condition, much as it is today.

-Scientific trials which are not affiliated with drug companies have failed to demonstrate greater effectiveness than a placebo in patients exhibiting symptoms of mild to moderate depression. In cases of severe depression, antidepressants were shown to have clinically significant effects, even in independent studies.
Take care man, thanks for a good discussion - always nice
Quote by vagelier
well i dont see it as faking either. i do encounter it a lot though: people - often children - feel excluded from their community and want to get attention. its not like they think: "y'know what, ill just fake depression", but they feel unhappy and this escalates because they overthink it and possibly, maybe subconsciously to receive the attention they want so much.
i mean, people have a tendency to exaggarate things because it makes it more interesting. trust me, been there . when you keep telling other people - or yourself - how depressed you feel - even when you feel just feel moderately unhappy - it will become worse and worse.


Ah, fair enough - sorry I made the assumption about what you were saying. I've had enough discussions on this forum where people argue that depression and self harm are nothing more than childishness and should be ignored, since ALL they're after is the attention and if you don't give them that then they'll stop. Which isn't what you were saying at all, so now I feel like a bit of a twat for not reading your posts properly.
Quote by vagelier
well for starters i have read the post and the historical arguement was pretty convincing i must say, but when i see how many people - especially in the pit - claim they are depressed (mind me, im not saying any of you are not) it makes me wonder why. maybe the internet just calls for the more introvert, einzelganger-type kinda people. but it could also be that people in the pit are generally not socially the best people - from my personal experience, mind me im walking on thin ice here - and that they thus exaggerate their unhappiness and talk themselves into depression because it is so widely accepted as a terrible disease. they could do it for attention, hell i dont know. but it does seem plausible to me.


Oh, yeah, rumination is one of the major things that's dealt with when someone has counseling for depression - negative thought processes which become automatic, and feel like useful self-analysis but actually just re-enforce negative self image. It's probably possible for a tendency to overthink and too much time in which to do so to condition the brain into thinking negatively automatically.

I do think that the physical fragmentation of society (person to person communication is limited and replaced by electronic, text based communication, people and especially young people have less chance to spend time exercising in company due to social pressures etc.) probably contributes to an increased instance of depression, and less time spent outside means less vitamin D, which is also linked to depression.

I don't think we (human beings in general, and us in this thread in particular) know enough about consciousness, brain function and emotion even in healthy people to make any firm pronouncements on this, but I think you're probably right that it's possible to induce depression through over-thinking.

The idea of doing it for attention is interesting, though, because if you're willing to fake a serious illness for attention, the chances are you're not 100% psychologically healthy either. Ditto being introverted enough to think your way into depression, actually.
Quote by vagelier
Well this is pretty much the answer I was expecting but think about it. since depression is a mental disease, it could easily be a placebo. like i said before, depression is different from cancer in the sense that cancer actually shows a tangible symptom - or at least, provable - whereas depression is more of a vague kinda disease.... if "depression" didnt "exist", how would people who suffer from it now act, is what im wondering. would they just suck up their unhappiness and say "its all in my head, ill ignore it"? and dont just post no youre a frikkin idiot l00lz. try to think about what im saying here, please?


Again, read my posts (not in an attacking way, just I'd be interested to see your response). Also, many people with depression keep trying to function for as long as they can, not wanting to see a doctor for financial reasons (I don't live in the states, but I gather than long-term scripts aren't exactly a welcome addition to a budget...), not wanting to face up to the fact that they're 'mental', reasons of stigma...but eventually can't keep going, and either commit suicide or finally get help.

You could always reply to this that there are people who didn't get help or kill themselves, and they could be the people who truly didn't believe that they were ill, and you could be right - but I'll still go with the idea that historical records of depression-like conditions, and medical consensus that it is a legitimate problem, seem to suggest that it is (not to mention personal experience, which may make me an unreliable commenter of course...)
Quote by vagelier
They are pretty subjective IMO. Surely everyone sleeps bad every once in a while because they worry about stuff. Everyone has headaches. Not everyone loses weight but you can be depressive without right? It's just pretty subjective in the sense that it's subjective to see when something's a symptom of depression or just has a headache.
That's kind of my point with depression. If you weren't told depression existed, would people be depressive? It's literally all in your head, right?


Read my last post, just to save me re-posting it. I think the distinction between normal moods and depression is fairly clear - persistent low mood for more than two weeks.

Also, there's fairly good evidence in literature for depression existing before we had a term for it - some of the earliest is in the Bible, and you don't need to believe that it's anything other than a historical record to see links between Elijah, Ecclesiastes or Job and contemporary descriptions of depression. (There are others, Burton's Sixteenth Century text 'Anatomie of Melancholie' also describes something similar).

I obviously can't persuade you that it's not all made up, but I can say that, as someone who's recovered from depression it's fairly clear when it's over - you enjoy life and function in a way that you'd forgotten was possible. The best way I can describe it is the feeling when a background noise that you've not been aware of stops and you hear the silence because your brain's still trying to filter out the sound.
Quote by vagelier
im not sure whether as to believe that depression is actually a disease or just something like a placebo. i mean, people can easily call the depressive card even when they objectively have nothing to blame. thoughts?


Well, as to whether depression is actually a disease, the medical establishment have assessed it as such, and people suffering from it suffer from a decreased quality of life which can, in most cases, be alleviated (if not totally removed) by treatment.

If the consensus of professionals and experts doesn't convince you, think about the difference between all the times you've felt kind of sad and not really wanted to do anything (life, essentially), and compare that to being pretty much unable to get out of bed, not giving a shit if you've showered that week, not shaving, speaking more slowly than usual, being totally unable to enjoy anything, not really being able to taste anything properly, constantly thinking negative things about yourself and life without the ability to stop (automatic thoughts) etc.

That's the difference, and unless you've experienced both, of course it can look like people are just wallowing, but from personal experience there's nothing someone who's clinically depressed would rather do than actually enjoy doing things again, but, without medical intervention, this is often not possible.
Quote by seemeel
In Australia we have a federal minister for the status of women , but no equivalent minister for men. How is that fair?


Because the structures of state are already, and still, in favour of men (in terms of relative socio-political power), so there's no need for there to be a specific minister with the interests of men in mind, as the majority of politicians are men, and therefore the male interest is dominant.

Whether I agree with this is not something I've personally decided on yet, but then I think that gender egalitarianism necessitates a radical restructuring of a society and economic system which discriminates against women structurally.

The number of people who believe that it's fine for people to hire a less able man just because a woman might take maternity leave and that could be an economic liability is insane, and indicates that social structures, although they may not be legally biased against men, are still structurally in favour of traditional masculinity, which is not just unfair towards women, but also towards men who do not embody traditional masculine virtues.

On topic - Hitting anyone is bad, and the idea that hitting a woman is worse is a social construct based on traditional constructions of gender.
I learned in a manual, and it's totally second nature. Sounds scary, but if you learn to shift at the same time as learning to drive it's not even an issue. I like the fact that I can make the decision of what gear to be in based on road circumstances (ice etc.), fuel level, whether the road's dead straight or curvy.

Having learned to drive manual I wouldn't want the car making the decision about how and when to drop gears to overtake, for example, but I'm sure that's just cause I've not driven an auto.
To back up whalepudding's post:

Something that is objective is a factor inherent in a given object, and can be measured quantitatively (the frequency range of a given song, the quantity of carbon dioxide in a given air sample etc.). It is measurable.

Something that is subjective is a factor which is perceived by the individual doing the perceiving (the subject). This can be measured qualitatively, but qualitative judgments, being based on sense criteria, cannot be universalised. Examples of this include perception of colour, the flavour of things (that's too spicy etc.), and qualitative judgments about art etc.

You may notice that things like colour and flavour (and temperature etc.) CAN be measured objectively, but knowing the quantity of capsaicin in a curry won't stop it being 'too spicy' for someone and 'delicious' for another.

tl;dr: things can be measured either subjectively, or objectively, or occasionally both, but objective measurement cannot determine the qualitative judgment of an individual.
Quote by robhc
I just feel really empty, all the time. Life seems just so pointless. I feel my life is meaningless, no one would notice if I were to just disappear. No one would question it, no one would care. I can't be happy, its pointless trying to be.


I don't really know you, but I've seen you around here enough that I'd notice if you stopped posting.

I don't know you well enough to give any specific comments on how you're feeling, but if you've not already had a chat to a doctor I'd recommend you do so - I know the feelings you describe, and was really helped by seeing someone. I know that this kind of thing doesn't work for everyone though, and I'm sorry if I'm telling you things you already know...
Quote by robhc
I've lost the will to live. Fuck it all. What's the fucking point?


*hugs*

Don't talk like that man, what's up?
Quote by I.O.T.M
What scotch is affordable for a student?


Depends what you mean by affordable. I tend to have a bottle around, but I look on it as an investment, so I'll get a bottle of c£25-30 Scotch which is an extravagance, but I know that it'll last me about 2-3 months, and when a single night out can cost that I see that as a justifiable luxury.

In that price range, Glenmorangie 12yo is a nice smooth choice, and Old Pultney 12yo is maybe the perfect combination whiskey. 'Heavier', peatier bottles at that price are Talisker 12yo or Laphroig 12yo, although there are others.
Highland malts don't necessarily need water, but some of the Islay or Speyside malts really come to life with a dash of water to let the flavours circulate more rather than just overpowering you with smoke.

I find Bourbon tends to have a sweeter character to Scotch - they're totally different drinks, and I like both from time to time. Bourbon takes ice far better than Scotch though, imo.

I currently have a bottle of Laphroig quarter cask, which I found on offer in Sainsbury's and is divine, although my absolute favourite Scotch is Lagavulin 16yo - which is always far out of my price range .

In terms of Bourbon, I really like Rip Van Winkle. I'm lucky to have a nearby pub which keeps a bigger selection of Bourbons than I've found anywhere else, so I get to try lots and lots of interesting brands.
Quote by em!ly
guys im so ill atm ... i keep passing out , i cant keep any food down hugs please


*hugs*
Quote by Pagan-Pie
What do you want? All films to be about Emmeline Pankhurst, Jesus, Nelson Mandela and Gandalf fighting against gender and race inequality (and the dark lord Sauron)?


Not all films, but I probably would watch that film...
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Will you people please read the damn proposal rather than the article, the article is wildly inaccurate! The actual proposal only mentions the idea of centralised deductions and payments as an idea way down the line; it's about as related to this proposal as the discovery of penicillin is to a cure for cancer!


Of course it's inaccurate - the right wing elements of the media aren't going to report a proposal which will clamp down on tax avoiders/evaders as though it's a good thing. They'd rather 'cut the deficit' by taking benefits away from 'scroungers' and the 'feckless underclass who live on taxpayers money' than deal with the much more economically harmful problem of lawmakers writing tax laws with loopholes they can pay their rich friends to exploit. Because £56 a week is such a luxurious existence.

*note* this post isn't well thought through, and intentionally polemical, just in case anyone feels like tearing it apart and yelling 'stupid stalinist leftie'. I may (may) produce a better version of this post later, but I doubt it.
Quote by captaincrunk
And just how many people are intersexuals? I doubt it's enough to shake the labor force to the core...


Doesn't matter really, it just provides more evidence for the artificially constructed nature of a gender binary. As does the existence of groups such as the Bugis people of Indonesia who recognise five genders.

But I'm moving this argument away from what it was originally about. Also I want to go to sleep...
Quote by Ziphoblat
By the same logic we can conclude that the argument about minor differences in pay represented by mere statistics are void.


To some extent, but only because I'm arguing that gender egalitarianism should be pursued on the basis that binary notions of gender are flawed and damage individuals on both sides of the divide. The 'gender gap' is a symptom of the problems caused by this notion, but ensuring equal pay will not help to solve the other issues caused by this artificial distinction.

In fact, it's probably impossible to ensure equal pay without addressing other issues caused by the same factor.
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
I'm not just saying what I am based on physical characteristics, and I've made many a reference to the emotional and mental disadavantages women have in comparison to men.


And yet many men suffer from anxiety, depression, and other emotional and psychological problems. Just because such issues are statistically more prevalent in women doesn't mean that they're exclusively female problems.

There isn't a single, universal and sustainable factor which differentiates men from women. Before you say 'y-chromosome', read through this LINK.
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
Feminism now has evolved from the perfectly sensible notion of giving women rights such as equal pay for the same job as men and allowing them to ask for maternity leave and all that jazz to the 'all men are evil rapists' bullcrap which modern feminists seem to spout.

It's all about female superiority now, not female equality.


If you can find me evidence that contemporary feminist scholarship (NOT blogs by people who've read too much Andrea Dworkin and stopped paying any attention to anything else - you can find blogs arguing every point of view under the sun), then I might give you some credit for trying.

At the moment you're just spouting totally inaccurate generalizations which assume that everyone who embraces the term 'feminist' shares the views of the most polemical, extreme feminist writers of the 1980s.
Quote by Fassa Albrecht
@toastedlemming person....I am NOT a masculinist!


No, but you are presumably convinced of the things you said, views you share with some masculinists. Sorry, that was unclear.
Apologies for making a quick assumption on your views - teaches me to read more than just the latest page of a thread before replying!

Quote by captaincrunk
The problem is that many feminists, including Mistress_Ibanez, hold masculists in contempt. If anything, they're being sexist by doing so.


I'd say 'some' not 'many'. I also think that attacking the attitudes of others isn't a helpful way to go about things (terms like 'sexist'), since the real problem is more a set of ingrained social assumptions which interact to make it very difficult for people of one gender to see beyond the ways in which gender binarism is damaging THEIR agency.

This goes both for 'feminists' who deny the negative effects of patriarchy on men, and 'masculinists' who are convinced (as Fassa is) that 'society is now too biased towards women'.

The problem with both terms is that they're still caught up in an idea that gender and sex are binary, essential characteristics. In fact, there are more than 2 possible biological sexes (I'll find a wiki article if you like), and current research suggests that 'gender' (the method of presenting within society) is on a continuum, with 'classic' femininity at one end, and 'classic' masculinity at the other. Every individual falls at a point between those two, but the language we currently have to discuss the issues means that we have to imply that any individual is either at one extreme or the other, which is untrue in the vast majority of cases.