Debunking myths of elite learning (2 Viewers)

[Lexicographer]

You haven't proven anything I've said wrong.

I must admit he's got you there...reading through this thread has been an interesting experience indeed, considering that very few posts have sunk to petty insults or patronisation (clairegirl, snakeoils) and it seems the only serious proponent of Phanatical's side (himself) has held his own for five pages (I view 30 p/p).

 

[mic]

Phanatical, having actually done a women's/gender studies course, and actually having read the SCUM manifesto in the week we were studying radical feminism, i hope you realise that you can see the manifesto as being a satirical inversion of misogyny and Freud's theory of penis envy. it is an attempt to underline the depth of woman-hating in society.

having said that, i'm not a radical feminist, but they were the ones who did a lot for domestic violence and rape victims, especially in the early 70s when there were no such things as refuges.

to call a feminist a nazi however is something that i clearly take issue with. you cannot compare someone who is fighting against sexism in their own way with the nazis, who committed countless atrocities against humanity.

before you make any further comments, why don't you sit in some women's/gender studies courses next year, and see what the courses cover, before making blanket statements about them?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

But they are these days not fighting for sexism... can't you see what he's saying?

He's saying that while there are some feminists... most are feminazi's in the way that they're not after equal rights but percieve women as the greater sex and are looking for women to have greater rights then men.

 

[mic]

oh really now? and where are these so-called "feminazis"? the feminists who are called nazis are only called that cos they're assertive, and a threat to patriarchy, rather than cos they are fighting for any sort of superiority.

if you think there is no sexism in society, then you must be living in a dream world. there is a lot, most of it indirect and covert. i know of no feminists that want more rights than men or perceive women as the greater sex. that's not what feminism is about.

phanatical, please post examples of how feminists want superiority over men. i would like to read them, if there are any.

 

[Phanatical]

I quoted the Honi Femme earlier in this debate. It was a full page "advertisement", fully sanctioned by our SRC, which actually discussed POISONING men and killing them off.

 

[Mambomeg]

dont you get jokes? do you seriously thing the SRC advocates poisoning men? omg! you really do seem to take things at face value. maybe you should do what many others have suggested and look deeper into the texts, thats like reading that thing about the potato famine in ireland (cant remember what its called) that suggests that the poor eat their babies. Its satire. Or is that a style too complex for your "lowly music student" mind?

You have issues, stop putting yourself down and then trying to make yourself feel good by trying to proove yourself right. No one in this thread has insinuated anything about your intelligence nor the fact that you are a music student, thats all come from you. I think you need some happy gas or something....

 

[Phanatical]

It is not a joke, when you consider that this particular advertisement merely accented the sentiments expressed in the "serious" articles throughout that particular publication. Of course I'm not suggesting that they're men killers, but I fail to see what possible humour could be intended from this sort of propaganda.

 

[clairegirl]

You haven't proven anything I've said wrong.

Funnily enough you haven't proven your argument right either...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No but he has presented a good argument for why he's right.... you haven't.

 

[clairegirl]

No but he has presented a good argument for why he's right.... you haven't.

i beg to differ, his arguments all have holes and you guys refuse to acknowledge them even when more than one of us points it out.

 

[Phanatical]

Once again, I disagree. The closest to a hole in my argument that you have raised is the Honi Femme, and while perhaps you raise a valid point in that it's Not intended to insinuate that the authors of that particular item want to murder all men, that is not what I suggested in the first place. That said, if you actually saw the item in the first place, you might wonder what possible other meaning they could be suggesting.

I have raised a number of valid points firstly as to why men Do need representation at our universities, and secondly how and why the women associated with the Women's Offices oppose this particular idea. I have also addressed every single point that those who disagree with me in this debate have raised. You on the other hand not only haven't addressed a single point in my argument, but have resorted to namecalling - which for a university student, Especially a psychology student, is pretty desperate, and indicates that you have nothing else to oppose my points with.

 

[clairegirl]

Once again, I disagree. The closest to a hole in my argument that you have raised is the Honi Femme, and while perhaps you raise a valid point in that it's Not intended to insinuate that the authors of that particular item want to murder all men, that is not what I suggested in the first place. That said, if you actually saw the item in the first place, you might wonder what possible other meaning they could be suggesting.

I have raised a number of valid points firstly as to why men Do need representation at our universities, and secondly how and why the women associated with the Women's Offices oppose this particular idea. I have also addressed every single point that those who disagree with me in this debate have raised. You on the other hand not only haven't addressed a single point in my argument, but have resorted to namecalling - which for a university student, Especially a psychology student, is pretty desperate, and indicates that you have nothing else to oppose my points with.

The names I have called you - rude, arrogant, Pauline Hanson
The names you have implied about yourself "without a brain""lowly music student"
I think your own insults to yourself a far worse lol

call me desperate and patronize me all you want...i'm still not going to go search the web, get references, dig up my old essays, just to try validate my point to you

 

[clairegirl]

not right now anyway

 

[snakeoils]

I must admit he's got you there...reading through this thread has been an interesting experience indeed, considering that very few posts have sunk to petty insults or patronisation (clairegirl, snakeoils) and it seems the only serious proponent of Phanatical's side (himself) has held his own for five pages (I view 30 p/p).

If I really felt the need to argue this topic intelligently and seriously, then I could. Andrew's evidence is not solid, and the attitudes he displays are absurd and insulting. The fact he resorted in previous posts to calling Rose Jackson a "little rich bitch" is something I find highly insulting. Do you think that counts as a petty insult, Lex? His use of the term 'feminazi' is so incredibly, incredibly insulting, and the fact he NAMES people such as Jenny and Isobelle as examples of this is just pure bullshit and totally inappropriate. His language and treatment of the issue does the opposite of his intention - he only further solidifies the need of a women's officer, in order to counteract people like him.

His notion of male discrimination is degrading to anyone who has ever suffered REAL discrimination. His claims that school system is designed for females, and that males aren't encouraged to go to university - how many male students at Usyd, who have obviously thrived in the school system, would agree with that? Certainly none that I know.

Andrew says that "Racism and Sexism are far too prevalent in our society, and if we don't stand up against them, they will be even More prevalent in 20 years time. " Exactly. Why do we have a women's officer? Why do we have an SRC? To challenge the prevelant notions of discrimination that exist. His claims of reverse-sexism can be placed on the same level as someone like Geoffrey Blainey's (or indeed, Pauline Hanson's) notions of reverse racism. To suggest that multiculturalism has placed white people at a disadvantage? Implausible. So on the same level, to suggest that the feminist movement has came far enough to put men at a disadvantage? Also implausible.

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for a good reason - because the patriarchy discriminates against women on a daily basis. Andrew may claim to want gender equality, but his narrow minded viewpoints only serve to widen the gender divide.

 

[Xayma]

So on the same level, to suggest that the feminist movement has came far enough to put men at a disadvantage? Also implausible.

It isn't that the feminist movement has directly put men at a disadvantage instead it has opened up the path for men to campaign about how they were already disadvantaged in specific areas, most of this occured before the start of the feminist movement, but was minor to the discrimination women suffered but we are now at a stage where they can be compared.

Such as children being given up for adoption without the father's consent (who occasionaly would take sole custody), abortion in general this one is of course controversial and I hold no real opinion on it but a number of viable suggestions have been made which does not involve abortion but are fair to the father, a female aborting against the father's wishes is her choice it is her body but to force a father to keep a child while she has an option to get rid of it if she chooses does imply lack of eqaulity (suggestions such as disowning, but helping to finacially support through the pregnancy), being elgible for conscription while women are not, prosecution of rape and sexual assault with nothing more then a woman's testimony (with no physical evidence etc).

And then you have child custody after divorce, the Sex Discrimination Commision has stated that equal parenting should occur while the marriage is intact, after divorce the male should only have equal custody if working part-time. This implies that males are unable to work full time and parent even if the female works full time.

I am supportive of feminist causes but there are issues on both sides that need to be worked on more. And before you say I grabed this straight of wikipedia, I did get a fair bit of information from it, with a few other sources.

 

[Phanatical]

Finally, a well thought out debate.

If I really felt the need to argue this topic intelligently and seriously, then I could. Andrew's evidence is not solid, and the attitudes he displays are absurd and insulting. The fact he resorted in previous posts to calling Rose Jackson a "little rich bitch" is something I find highly insulting. Do you think that counts as a petty insult, Lex? His use of the term 'feminazi' is so incredibly, incredibly insulting, and the fact he NAMES people such as Jenny and Isobelle as examples of this is just pure bullshit and totally inappropriate. His language and treatment of the issue does the opposite of his intention - he only further solidifies the need of a women's officer, in order to counteract people like him.

The fact that I have referred to Rose Jackson as a little rich bitch is nothing. I have called her much worse, on the record, and for good reason. Her stance against everything I stand for (increased representation for men, increased representation for affiliate campus students, increased representation for students of ethnic backgrounds) is disgraceful, and just goes to show that somebody like her cares less about the students she is paid to represent, than getting herself elected to the Federal Parliament so she can carry on the legacy of her mother.

His notion of male discrimination is degrading to anyone who has ever suffered REAL discrimination. His claims that school system is designed for females, and that males aren't encouraged to go to university - how many male students at Usyd, who have obviously thrived in the school system, would agree with that? Certainly none that I know.

The fact that males make up a significant minority agrees with this. The fact that this issue was raised again and again by people I campaigned to agrees with this. The fact that it's TRUE is something that the feminists refuse to acknowledge because it goes against the disgraceful doctrine that they push.

Andrew says that "Racism and Sexism are far too prevalent in our society, and if we don't stand up against them, they will be even More prevalent in 20 years time. " Exactly. Why do we have a women's officer? Why do we have an SRC? To challenge the prevelant notions of discrimination that exist. His claims of reverse-sexism can be placed on the same level as someone like Geoffrey Blainey's (or indeed, Pauline Hanson's) notions of reverse racism. To suggest that multiculturalism has placed white people at a disadvantage? Implausible. So on the same level, to suggest that the feminist movement has came far enough to put men at a disadvantage? Also implausible.

Discrimination comes in many different forms, and can affect different people. But you can't rationalise that men are not discriminated against, by adding up all the examples of discriminations for either gender, and saying that men suffer x discrimination, and women suffer y discrimination, and y is greater than x, so women are therefore being oppressed by men. I'm Not saying that women don't deserve representation. I'm saying that Men ALSO deserve representation, and if the Women's Officer can't offer the same support to the men who suffer forms of discrimination in this society, then we should replace her with a Gender Issues Officer who can.

Anti-discrimination laws are in place for a good reason - because the patriarchy discriminates against women on a daily basis. Andrew may claim to want gender equality, but his narrow minded viewpoints only serve to widen the gender divide.

Firstly, I'm absolutely sick of this talk about the evil "Patriarchy". You honestly think there's a huge anti-female conspiracy out to oppress women? Secondly, I'm an Asian. Fact is, Australian society would rather a (white) female CEO than an Asian CEO. There IS more discrimination against Asians than there is against Women. So why don't we have affirmative action for Asians? Anti-discrimination laws are great in principle. But they don't work because they don't protect those who truly ARE discriminated.

I also wonder, do my genitals give me automatic membership to this "patriarchy"? Because the Women's Office certainly thinks so. That's why they deny me, and the other "evil" men at the University of Sydney, the representation that they offer women.

 

[snakeoils]

Hey Andrew, I'm going to pose you a hypothetical situation, based on your rationale for having a men's officer. I'm not really doing it to make a point - just curious to see your response.

There are also Usyd Officers for Sexuality, and for (correct me if I'm wrong, I think you mentioned them in one of your posts) ethnicity?

So, based on your logic...

Why shouldn't we have a heterosexuality officer? Someone to represent all the heterosexual people on campus? And maybe we should have a 'straight only' room, where only heterosexual people are allowed to go?

 

[Xayma]

And maybe we should have a 'straight only' room, where only heterosexual people are allowed to go?

That has actually been mentioned before lol. Umm more in a response to group mentalities and extremist's who try and push issues into people's faces.

Oh, and this aside, WHY CANT I HAVE A STRAIGHT SPACE!

 

[Phanatical]

There are also Usyd Officers for Sexuality, and for (correct me if I'm wrong, I think you mentioned them in one of your posts) ethnicity? Why shouldn't we have a heterosexuality officer? Someone to represent all the heterosexual people on campus? And maybe we should have a 'straight only' room, where only heterosexual people are allowed to go?

I believe that queer people have a much harder time in society than a woman does. That said, the Queer officer should be just as willing to assist a Heterosexual if there is an issue of heterophobia or such - there have in fact been cases of heterophobia and such at both my own campus and the College of the Arts, but the Queer officer refuses to acknowledge these problems, just as the Women's officer refuses to acknowledge men's problems.

I'd also like to point out that both women and queer oriented people have many support groups both within and outside the university. Since the SRC's stated goal is to be an advocate group for disadvantaged students, according to this logic it should attempt to deal with the lack of men's representation in society by offering support groups for disadvantaged males.

 

[Phanatical]

...there have in fact been cases of heterophobia and such at both my own campus and the College of the Arts...

Just to qualify this statement, whether or not the SRC feels that such issues are relevant, or in fact existant is besides the point in this argument - if students feel uncomfortable with something, they should be able to find resources to deal with it, because that's what we pay the SRC for. I think that if the Queer Officer can't, or won't deal with the issue, then the SRC has a responsibility to find somebody who can, or to ensure that the person can find the support/representation he or she seeks.