Neo Feminism

metrovelvet

Can someone please explain neofeminism to me? All I know about them is that they hate Christians or at least accused of doing so.

How is this different from post feminism, third wave feminism and womanism?

And how do these celebrity nobodies embody it?

Sleepy

These celebrity nobodies embody everything wrong with the post-feminism woman. Gone are the days where girls grow up reading Evelyn Waugh and being determined to have successful careers and relationships with men that respect them and treat them as equals. Most young girls now see the likes of Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc as role-models because they get to act out the little girl's dreams of wearing pretty clothes and going to lots of fabulous parties. I'd liken those grown women who buy these magazines etc to grown men who still play with trainsets. They're refusing to grow up.

Feminism has achieved it's original aims of equality between the genders. Of course there are some areas where men have a natural advantage over women (and vice versa) but in general, men and women are equal in the western world.

Personally, I'd describe neo-feminism as the modern strain of feminism which no longer seeks equality but rather acts like a women's trade union demanding legal superiority over men. I'd imagine the cartoonist Scorplett linked to falls into this category, those cartoons are as out-dated as the traditional British seaside resort postcards. (Incidently Scorplett, your sig image is WAY over the allowed size on boards.ie).

So in summary, the post-feminist woman admires airheadedness and ****wittery, the neo-feminist wants to punish men for the crimes of their grandfathers and the genuine feminist seems to be a dying breed which is a bloody shame because they were usually the sexiest women.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Personally, I'd describe neo-feminism as the modern strain of feminism which no longer seeks equality but rather acts like a women's trade union demanding legal superiority over men.

Not aware of any modern feminist organisation has ever sough legal superiority for women over men?

Do you have a link?

Sleepy wrote:

These celebrity nobodies embody everything wrong with the post-feminism woman.

True, and it is also feminisms fault. Whats that, wicknight blaming feminism for something rather than the evil men! Yes my fellow readers its true!

I believe the greatest failure of feminism is that it has largely failed to instill within women a sense of their own sexual identity and more importantly control over this sexual identity. The movement was simply far far too wrapped up in trying to match the sexual identity of men they didn't stop and think is that what we actually want.

Women were freed from the role of wife/mother and were free to explore their own sexual identity, but having no other sexual indentity to use as an example they simply copied the sexual indentity of men, with no great understand of it since they weren't men. This has lead to huge confusion in modern women over how they want and are expected to act. And more and more you see womens sexual identity falling back into the "what ever pleases my man" attitude that pre-dates the sexual "revolutions" of the 60s

The classic example of this fact, used by (real, rather than Sleepy's rather inaccurate definition that seems to include anyone who has ever wanted a BreastCheck centre in their area) neo-feminists who are aware of this, is the fact that young women are still having unwanted children in their teens and young adulthood. Why? Yes its down to lack of eduction of the risk but it is also down to girls not being in full control or taking full responsibility of their sexuality.

Feminism was too busy freeing women to have sex it didn't spend enough time teaching women did they actually want to have sex.

In the vacume of unknown identity people tend to retreat to what they know. The phenomona of people like Paris Hilton is a retreat back to the pre-60s times when a womans sexual identity was defined by the men around her. Paris Hilton is this idea taken to the extreme, she is almost completely defined by how appealing she is to men.

It is a rather sad state of modern celebrity that things are reverting back to this. How many Hollywood women can get by these days without appearing in at least one Lads mags to promote their movie or song. The entire projection of female sexuality from Hollywood is designed to be a male fantasy, not what female sexuality actually is.

As P!nk pointed out after male reaction to her song "Stupid Girls", this airhead style isn't a fault of men, or even that desired by men.

Men actually don't like this phemonma that much. Sure they like seeing a good looking girl naked in the latest edition of FHM, but they don't actually want to go out with this girl. They don't actually want an airhead bimbo for a girlfriend. How many people would actually like to go out with Jade Goody or Paris Hilton?

So what ever people say about neo-feminism there is still a need for modern day feminism to educated girls and women and help them discover their real sexual identity.

Nevyn

Feminism was too busy freeing women to have sex it didn't spend enough time teaching women did they actually want to have sex.

Wrong. Several feminist were in fact concerned that all the introduction of the
contraceptive pill would achieve was to free women up so that men could have more convient sex with them and it would infact be a greater burden as women would have no excuse to say no.

There are many young girls growning up that all feminism is to them is a term of abuse from the 70s and women that are feminists are
men haters andlesbians which is not the point.
Feminism and equalitism are two very different things.

We don't have womans studies and the socail evolultion and modren history taught in secondary schools.
The are adults now born in the 80s who do not know how thing were and how things have changed and that things are
not there yet we are NOT post feminism.
They seem to think so but they don't know any better and it is not until they hit a glass celing or they mature they see
thing as how they are. They are unaware that married women had to give up work and that contraception was illegal.
Eaten bread is soon forgotten.

Yes the Laddette syndrome is horrible but so is the stripping away of all things feminine from a woman so that
she will be taken seriously in the world and in work.
The example of this being Mary Robinson who had to adopt and play by the male rules when she became a consituational lawyer
from short hair to male mannerisms.
Their is still the idea that women with long hair are not serious or to be taken seriously in thier profession as long hair is too
distracting and take too long to care for.

We seem to have abandoned the best of gentlemanly and ladylike behaviours along the way.

As for the likes of Chantelle and Ms Jane Goody they are unforutnates tbh,
They are the same as the notorious public women of history, the Courtesan of Venice and the Actress' of Paris and Geshia of the endo period.
Publically misbehaving women altough most the most renowned tended to have wit and talent but it was thier public status
that allowed them to do things 'proper' women would never do, and while one would read about and be facinated by the antics of
such unfortunates one would not wish to be one, if they were lucky enough they would earn enough money to provide for themsleves when thier looks and the publics intrest in them faded.
The two ladies mentioned above Chantelle and Ms Jane Goody are filling those roles but it has taken on a modren cruel twist.
People like to see the underdog get somewhere but they also want to see them screw up and fall on thier asses.

Zombrex

Thaedydal wrote:

Wrong. Several feminist were in fact concerned that all the introduction of the
contraceptive pill would achieve was to free women up so that men could have more convient sex with them and it would infact be a greater burden as women would have no excuse to say no.

Well obviously some of them were, I didn't make this idea up myself

But even the concerns you mention (not having an excuse to say no) highlights the failing of 60s feminism, that women were taught that to be "liberated" they should really want to have "liberated sex".

Of course a lot of them didn't, but this was seen as going against the spirity of revolution of the 60s and 70s. Today it is seen as going againt the sex-as-a-game/pasttime attitude that is drilled into kids and young adult by everything from magazines to "reality" documentaries.

So they had to find excuses, such as not being on the pill, as reasons not to have sex. You still find this today, I know girls who lie to men and say they are not on the pill and don't want to risk sex when in fact they are on the pill and just don't want to say "No I don't want to have sex".

It is as if not wanting to have sex isn't actually a good enough reason anymore you have to find something else ("I'm not on the pill" etc) to justify that

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

Not aware of any modern feminist organisation has ever sough legal superiority for women over men?

Do you have a link?

I would consider any movement that demands specific legislation for issues like 'violence against women' to be looking for legal superiority over men. This has nothing to do with the fact that women don't deserve protection from violence, of course they do, however that protection does not need to be provided on a single-sex basis.

Ivana Bacik and her cohorts that seem to oppose the very idea of father's rights regarding their children would be another example of attempting to defend an area where women have legal superiority over men.

True, and it is also feminisms fault. Whats that, wicknight blaming feminism for something rather than the evil men! Yes my fellow readers its true!

I believe the greatest failure of feminism is that it has largely failed to instill within women a sense of their own sexual identity and more importantly control over this sexual identity. The movement was simply far far too wrapped up in trying to match the sexual identity of men they didn't stop and think is that what we actually want.

Women were freed from the role of wife/mother and were free to explore their own sexual identity, but having no other sexual indentity to use as an example they simply copied the sexual indentity of men, with no great understand of it since they weren't men. This has lead to huge confusion in modern women over how they want and are expected to act. And more and more you see womens sexual identity falling back into the "what ever pleases my man" attitude that pre-dates the sexual "revolutions" of the 60s

As Thaedyl pointed out, this was a major concern of women within the feminist movement at the time. It has an interesting parallel in men's lack of a gender role in modern times but tbh, I think you're focusing far too much on the "sexual liberation" of the movement rather than on the good it achieved.

The classic example of this fact, used by (real, rather than Sleepy's rather inaccurate definition that seems to include anyone who has ever wanted a BreastCheck centre in their area) neo-feminists who are aware of this, is the fact that young women are still having unwanted children in their teens and young adulthood. Why? Yes its down to lack of eduction of the risk but it is also down to girls not being in full control or taking full responsibility of their sexuality.

So, boys have no responsibility in this area at all? Problems in society aren't usually single-sex issues. The main aims of Feminism were achieved when they won the vote, the right to equal education and salary as men, etc. Sure, it's easy to label the problem with a "women's issue" tag but you'd be wrong in the application of that label. Unwanted pregnancies and lack of sexual education are problems for all members of society, not just those that have wombs. TBH, I find your attitude in this rather sexist which is quite an interesting irony given your condescending misintterpretation of my previous post.

Feminism was too busy freeing women to have sex it didn't spend enough time teaching women did they actually want to have sex.

Where's this infatuation with feminism and sex coming from? You'd swear that the movement was interested in nothing else.

In the vacume of unknown identity people tend to retreat to what they know. The phenomona of people like Paris Hilton is a retreat back to the pre-60s times when a womans sexual identity was defined by the men around her. Paris Hilton is this idea taken to the extreme, she is almost completely defined by how appealing she is to men.

Really? I don't know many men that find her all that appealing tbh. I can see your point but I think the way Paris Hilton behaves is far more a reflection of the influence of too much money and not enough parenting. The girl has quite clearly never grown up. We see the exact same behaviour from many of the children of those who sacrificed their family lives to capitalise on the Celtic Tiger economy in our own capital.

It is a rather sad state of modern celebrity that things are reverting back to this. How many Hollywood women can get by these days without appearing in at least one Lads mags to promote their movie or song. The entire projection of female sexuality from Hollywood is designed to be a male fantasy, not what female sexuality actually is.

As P!nk pointed out after male reaction to her song "Stupid Girls", this airhead style isn't a fault of men, or even that desired by men.

Men actually don't like this phemonma that much. Sure they like seeing a good looking girl naked in the latest edition of FHM, but they don't actually want to go out with this girl. They don't actually want an airhead bimbo for a girlfriend. How many people would actually like to go out with Jade Goody or Paris Hilton?

So what ever people say about neo-feminism there is still a need for modern day feminism to educated girls and women and help them discover their real sexual identity.

I actually agree with most of this, however, where we disagree is in the need for their to be a monosex approach to dealing with these problems. If we were to educate all our children about their sexualities when they were in the early to mid teens I think we'd find much better results than treating issues like teenage pregnancy as "women's problems".

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

I would consider any movement that demands specific legislation for issues like 'violence against women' to be looking for legal superiority over men.

Ah I see. Well that isn't actually what legal superiority means or implies

For example there are special laws for children, but children are legally inferior to adults in the majority of ways. Likewise in countries that used to practise slavery, there would be special rules for slaves, but these obviously didn't make slaves legaly superior to slave owners.

There is a difference between specialists laws for certain groups, and specialists laws for certain groups that make these groups superior in legal standing. The later following the former is not a given.

Do you have any examples where a law was introduced or campaigned for that actually made women legally superior to men, generally or in certain circumstances. For example has any feminist campaign ever campaigned to make rape against women illegal but to make rape or sexual assault against men legal?

Sleepy wrote:

This has nothing to do with the fact that women don't deserve protection from violence, of course they do, however that protection does not need to be provided on a single-sex basis.

I actually agree with that (though not because I believe this makes women superior in the eyes of the law). I think violence is violence. If a law cannot deal with this violence without getting down into the sex of the victim then the law if flawed in the first place.

But at the same time I think you slightly miss-understand what things like a violence against women act does. It is simply a specific law to tackle a specific issue in society. You can argue if this needs a specific law or if a general one will do, but because the law is specific it doesn't lessen the standing of more general laws. It doesn't make violence against men legal or acceptable Women are not given a legal protection that men don't possess, any more than saying a specific law on gun crime means killing someone with an axe is acceptable.

I would also point out that a lot of laws that are championed by feminists for women actually become both sex orientated when they reach the law books. Feminsts want the law for women to tackle a certain issue facing women, but they don't mind (or even care) if the law is equally applied to men when it reaches the law books.

Sleepy wrote:

Ivana Bacik and her cohorts that seem to oppose the very idea of father's rights regarding their children would be another example of attempting to defend an area where women have legal superiority over men.

I'm not familar with Bacik position on parental rights in seperations, only that she broke a TCD student mandate while president of the TCD Student Union and that she looks like a well slapped arse having a bad hair day.

She did seem to do some good work with getting legal respresentation for rape victims (male and female AFAIK) put in the Sex Offenders Act, though I might be wrong about that (don't know much about her as I said)

Link?

Sleepy wrote:

I think you're focusing far too much on the "sexual liberation" of the movement rather than on the good it achieved.

Well the sexual liberation bit is the only bit that really concerns my point. I'm not saying feminism failed, I'm saying this is a failing of feminism.

Sleepy wrote:

So, boys have no responsibility in this area at all?

Actually I was trying very hard to not emphassise the responsibility of the boys in this regard to avoid the cry of "stop blaming men!" There is a line of taught that says this is all the boys responsibility because they are pressuring young girls to have sex without a condom because they either don't have one at the time or don't like wearing them. I don't totally agree with this line of thinking, though you are right the boys have some responsibility.

Sleepy wrote:

The main aims of Feminism were achieved when they won the vote, the right to equal education and salary as men, etc.

No, the goals of voting, equal education and equal salary were "won" when they got these things. These were not the "aim" of feminism, they are goals towards that aim. The aim of feminism is to help, support and improve the lives of women everywhere. The goals are long, numerious and constantly appearing.

The idea that feminism should just stop now is rather silly. Feminism is an on going process. It should never stop, because women, as a group, are always going to exist and face challanges in their lives.

Of course there is not much point campaigning on with goals that have already been met. I think most people would have little time for someone if they claimed women don't have the same voting rights as men in Ireland, they obviously do. Likewise, women have very good standing in Irish education, and consistantly do better than boys, so campaigning on teh basis that girls are discrimated against in Irish education is a bit silly (BTW this isn't the same as campaigns to get women into industries they are very under represented in)

Sleepy wrote:

Sure, it's easy to label the problem with a "women's issue" tag but you'd be wrong in the application of that label.

I didn't label it a "women's issue"

Sleepy wrote:

Unwanted pregnancies and lack of sexual education are problems for all members of society, not just those that have wombs.

*Groan*

Sleepy you have to get out of this idea that if someone says something like "feminism needs to address young girls sexual identity" it automatically means "feminism need to address young girls sexual identity at the expense of addressing boys sexual identity" :rolleyes:

The feminists movement might not be concerned with educating boys on their sexual responsibilities (it wouldn't really be the feminists movement if they were). That doesn't mean no one should be concerned.

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, I find your attitude in this rather sexist which is quite an interesting irony given your condescending misintterpretation of my previous post.

Do you find my attitude sexist or the huge assumptions you have made as to my attitude sexist (see above)?

Sleepy wrote:

You'd swear that the movement was interested in nothing else.

You'd be wrong (and you shouldn't swear)

Sleepy wrote:

Really? I don't know many men that find her all that appealing tbh.

That was my (and P!nk's) point. Men actually don't find this appealling, and wish girls would stop. They don't want to date Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie. They find them annoying and pointless.

Which shows this isn't coming from what men are actually saying to women (well maybe Hip-Hop), its mostly coming from what the commersial media is saying, and from what other girls are saying. Which is why I'm blaming women (and feminism) not men in general

Sleepy wrote:

I actually agree with most of this, however, where we disagree is in the need for their to be a monosex approach to dealing with these problems. If we were to educate all our children about their sexualities when they were in the early to mid teens I think we'd find much better results than treating issues like teenage pregnancy as "women's problems".

I agree with educating all our children (did I ever not).

But like it or not Sleepy women face issues that effect only women (just like men face issues that effect only men). To ignore this for some a-sexual utopia is to ignore the basis of human nature.

This is what some branches of feminsim tried to do in the 60s, they tried to get women to simply act the way men had been doing for centuries, because it was believe that this is the way a sexually liberated, sexually free person acted. What they failed to see is that was how a sexually liberated, sexually free man acted. They didn't know how a sexually liberated, sexually free woman acts. And you ended up with a whole load of very confused women because women aren't men. You can't carbon copy the sexual identity of mankind onto womenkind

Women, through feminism, need to spend a bit of time discovering what modern female sexuality is actually about, rather than looking to how men for the answers.

hepcat

So now women are letting feminism down by buying magazines? The success of Paris Hilton / Jade Goody is seen as some form of "neofeminism"? What a load of crap.The women here who shout "who is Jade Goody," and "I would never read those mags" are just playing into the hands of this ridiculous attempt at declaring a gender effected trend without any ANY evidence whatsoever.

For starters, let us not forget where gratuitous pics and "low-brow" stories have their origins - those most cherished of publications The Sun / The Sport et al. These are hugely popular - far surpassing sales of broadsheets. But is this because of neofeminism? The innate stupidity of women? I think not. It is just that the market responds to the greatest demand which comes from the ordinary working person, and this drives the output and content of these papers.

Secondly, I read Now magazine, nearly every week. Shock horror I must be dumb, no? NO. Again, what on earth is wrong with frivolous and undemanding entertainment? I love fashion and I quite like a bit of celeb gossip. I like interior decoration and love the health and beauty pages. And I don't think I should be ashamed of this. I have an IQ as high as any of my male colleagues, but I am not about to throw away my feminine tastes and proclivities just to fit in with some disgruntled male idiots ideas. Declaring women have lost the plot because of the existence and popularity of Chantelle or Paris Hilton is like saying men have done likewise because of the existence and popularity of Pete Burns or Prince Harry.

Thirdly the culture of celebrity for its own sake is a modern phenomenon alright. Whatever my opinion on its merits or otherwise, however, I think it is plainly ridiculous to attribute same to females / neofeminists / whatever. Perhaps Jade Goody has managed to extend her 15 minutes because of clever marketing and management and a canny awareness of what the market wants. This is not quite the same as saying that all girls now aspireto be like Jade Goody, women / womens magazines are solely responsible for the rise of celebrity culture and women have betrayed the femiinst movement.

AAAAAAH...end of rant.

Zombrex

hepcat wrote:

So now women are letting feminism down by buying magazines?

No, feminism is letting women down by not spending enough time thinking about or attempting to define modern female sexual identity, and the vacum left by this is allowing real female sexual identity to be replaced by an imagines of sexual identity that are cynically designed to simply sell things, like magazines, hip-hop albums and perfum.

Well that was my point anyway .. you seem to have a load of things going on in that "rant" of yours, so I will stick to the points from my posts

fly_agaric

Sleepy wrote:

These celebrity nobodies embody everything wrong with the post-feminism woman. Gone are the days where girls grow up reading Evelyn Waugh and being determined to have successful careers and relationships with men that respect them and treat them as equals. Most young girls now see the likes of Jade Goody, Paris Hilton etc as role-models because they get to act out the little girl's dreams of wearing pretty clothes and going to lots of fabulous parties. I'd liken those grown women who buy these magazines etc to grown men who still play with trainsets. They're refusing to grow up.

My experience is limited to Ireland (and limited in general) but I'd be very surprised if many young girls here look up to the likes of Jordan, Paris Hilton and Jade Goody as lifestyle role-models. Education stats would certainly suggest that Irish girls don't need Pink to tell them they should have goals and work hard.

I'd also be surprised if many adult women really take all that celeb. rubbish seriously.
The obsessives are probably less common than male anoraks and technogeeks that fiddle with train sets and electronics into their middle age.

I think Scorplett is right about it being mostly a harmless diversion. Except maybe for the few who do take it seriously.

Sleepy wrote:

I'd imagine the cartoonist Scorplett linked to falls into this category, those cartoons are as out-dated as the traditional British seaside resort postcards.

Sleepy, the site is for the Gender Equality bit of the Irish Govt.'s National Development Plan. You did notice that didn't you?

How dare you criticise it, when they fighting for a better society for the glorious women of Ireland who have been trodden down by the harsh cruel and ruthless testosterone-soaked manure-covered Culchie wellington of virulent, oppressive,...eh.., eh, maleness. Yeah, thats it. Maleness. Ah, too many adjectives!

Forget about 800 years! Men have 100's of thousands of years of brutal patriarcy to atone for! I bet Lucy was oppressed before she was fossillised.
Men must pay! I'd humbly suggest you get started now.

I'd advise giving all of your wages gained by virtue of male priviledge to the National Womens' Council of Ireland!

Wicknight wrote:

True, and it is also feminisms fault. Whats that, wicknight blaming feminism for something rather than the evil men! Yes my fellow readers its true!

You'd want to go easy with that blaming feminism stuff there Wicknight. Don't get too carried away.
*They* might revoke your Valued Feminist Auxilliary Gold Card for that type of loose talk.:eek:

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Women, through feminism, need to spend a bit of time discovering what modern female sexuality is actually about, rather than looking to how men for the answers.

What? Can you elaborate? I think i'm spending way too much time lately doing that.

I really do not know many women who find this stuff interesting and suspect it is generational.

Whatever about these so called celebrities' cleverness in marketing, its their exhibitionism and not their business acumen which is being celebrated.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

My experience is limited to Ireland (and limited in general) but I'd be very surprised if many young girls here look up to the likes of Jordan, Paris Hilton and Jade Goody as lifestyle role-models.

You should hang out in front of the Dundrum Shopping Centre on a Saturday afternoon! Sweet Jesus if I ever wanted a flame thrower from Grand Thief Auto ...

fly_agaric wrote:

*They* might revoke your Valued Feminist Auxilliary Gold Card for that type of loose talk.:eek:

How will I pay for petroil

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

What? Can you elaborate? I think i'm spending way too much time lately doing that.

Good, thats a good thing.

What conclusions have you reached?

When you see Christian Agularia jumping around in a bikini in a boxing ring with naked men feeling her up do you think that represents your sexual identity as a woman?

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

What conclusions have you reached? ?

They are not exactly conclusions.

Wicknight wrote:

When you see Christian Agularia jumping around in a bikini in a boxing ring with naked men feeling her up do you think that represents your sexual identity as a woman?

I am ambivalent about this and base this on having seen the video once a long time ago.

No. It doesnt represent my sexual identity as a woman. Its a video - an over produced 3 minute daydream. That cant come anywhere close to my sexual identity.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

You should hang out in front of the Dundrum Shopping Centre on a Saturday afternoon!

I have never been to the Dundrum Shopping Centre.

Sometimes I feel like life is passing me by...

Wicknight wrote:

Sweet Jesus if I ever wanted a flame thrower from Grand Thief Auto ...

That is not very nice.:(

Nevyn

why do people assume that other people are nice, personally a flame thrower is being too nice imho I'd prefer nahpalm.

Sleepy

Thaedydal wrote:

why do people assume that other people are nice, personally a flame thrower is being too nice imho I'd prefer nahpalm.

Nah, napalm is too distant, with the flamethrower you'd experience your good deed more.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

Ah I see. Well that isn't actually what legal superiority means or implies

For example there are special laws for children, but children are legally inferior to adults in the majority of ways. Likewise in countries that used to practise slavery, there would be special rules for slaves, but these obviously didn't make slaves legaly superior to slave owners.

There is a difference between specialists laws for certain groups, and specialists laws for certain groups that make these groups superior in legal standing. The later following the former is not a given.

If one group of people has more protection in the law than another, I'd consider that legal superiority. We'll just have to agree to differ on this.

Do you have any examples where a law was introduced or campaigned for that actually made women legally superior to men, generally or in certain circumstances. For example has any feminist campaign ever campaigned to make rape against women illegal but to make rape or sexual assault against men legal?

Our current family law and age of consent laws discriminate against men.

I actually agree with that (though not because I believe this makes women superior in the eyes of the law). I think violence is violence. If a law cannot deal with this violence without getting down into the sex of the victim then the law if flawed in the first place.

Nice to see we can agree on some things!

But at the same time I think you slightly miss-understand what things like a violence against women act does. It is simply a specific law to tackle a specific issue in society. You can argue if this needs a specific law or if a general one will do, but because the law is specific it doesn't lessen the standing of more general laws. It doesn't make violence against men legal or acceptable Women are not given a legal protection that men don't possess, any more than saying a specific law on gun crime means killing someone with an axe is acceptable.

If the laws don't make violence against one group of people less acceptable, what's their purpose? Also, given that they would be two separate pieces of legislation, with two separate sets of clauses, statutes and loopholes, surely there would be an imbalance one way or the other?

I would also point out that a lot of laws that are championed by feminists for women actually become both sex orientated when they reach the law books. Feminsts want the law for women to tackle a certain issue facing women, but they don't mind (or even care) if the law is equally applied to men when it reaches the law books.

There are very few instances I can think of where either sex would have to campaign separately for something. At present the only examples I can think of are breast screening or prostate/testicular screening clinics and in reality both of these things should be provided for by a properly run health service.

I'm not familar with Bacik position on parental rights in seperations, only that she broke a TCD student mandate while president of the TCD Student Union and that she looks like a well slapped arse having a bad hair day.

She did seem to do some good work with getting legal respresentation for rape victims (male and female AFAIK) put in the Sex Offenders Act, though I might be wrong about that (don't know much about her as I said)

Link?

I'm afraid my source for this was an article she wrote in Hot Press (who require membership to view their back catalogue on-line) last year in response to one by John Waters in which she defended the current imbalance in the Irish family courts. I like the 'well slapped arse having a bad hair day' comment.

Well the sexual liberation bit is the only bit that really concerns my point. I'm not saying feminism failed, I'm saying this is a failing of feminism.

Fair enough.

Actually I was trying very hard to not emphassise the responsibility of the boys in this regard to avoid the cry of "stop blaming men!" There is a line of taught that says this is all the boys responsibility because they are pressuring young girls to have sex without a condom because they either don't have one at the time or don't like wearing them. I don't totally agree with this line of thinking, though you are right the boys have some responsibility.

That viewpoint is just as wrong as suggesting that it's all women's fault. Sex is an equal act between two people so it's repercussions are the equal responsibility of two people.

No, the goals of voting, equal education and equal salary were "won" when they got these things. These were not the "aim" of feminism, they are goals towards that aim. The aim of feminism is to help, support and improve the lives of women everywhere. The goals are long, numerious and constantly appearing.

The idea that feminism should just stop now is rather silly. Feminism is an on going process. It should never stop, because women, as a group, are always going to exist and face challanges in their lives.

Of course there is not much point campaigning on with goals that have already been met. I think most people would have little time for someone if they claimed women don't have the same voting rights as men in Ireland, they obviously do. Likewise, women have very good standing in Irish education, and consistantly do better than boys, so campaigning on teh basis that girls are discrimated against in Irish education is a bit silly (BTW this isn't the same as campaigns to get women into industries they are very under represented in)

What does it matter if there are industries in which men or women are unde-represented? Given that we all have equal educational opportunities, we can all pursue our careers of choice, if this leads to an imbalance of the gender ratio in a given career, I don't see a problem with this. The phrase "Different but Equal" comes to mind.

It was my understanding that the original aim of the feminist movement was equality. This has been achieved in a legislative sense. Social attitudes are changing where there were imbalances and I believe these will be gone in a matter of a few generations (pretty quick for social change tbh). Ergo, I don't see the need for the continuation of the feminist movement.

Sleepy you have to get out of this idea that if someone says something like "feminism needs to address young girls sexual identity" it automatically means "feminism need to address young girls sexual identity at the expense of addressing boys sexual identity" :rolleyes:

The feminists movement might not be concerned with educating boys on their sexual responsibilities (it wouldn't really be the feminists movement if they were). That doesn't mean no one should be concerned.

You see, I don't believe that feminism needs to addresss young girls sexual identity. I believe society needs to address young peoples sexual identity. I think it is a fundamental mistake to tackle any problem from a unilateral perspective. By tackling both young men, and young women together we I believe we would achieve far better results.

Do you find my attitude sexist or the huge assumptions you have made as to my attitude sexist (see above)?

I can only take your attitude from what you post and until you clarified your reasoning for posting that in the fashion you did, it was sexist.

That was my (and P!nk's) point. Men actually don't find this appealling, and wish girls would stop. They don't want to date Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton or Nicole Ritchie. They find them annoying and pointless.

Which shows this isn't coming from what men are actually saying to women (well maybe Hip-Hop), its mostly coming from what the commersial media is saying, and from what other girls are saying. Which is why I'm blaming women (and feminism) not men in general.

I think we can almost agree on this issue. These women seem to me to be result of a backlash against the 'man hating' of certain sections of the feminist or their focus on attaining equality through mimicry of male traits. Unfortunately, these women seem to be rejecting some of the more positive traits of the male stereotype: logic, reason and responsibility.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Do you have any examples where a law was introduced or campaigned for that actually made women legally superior to men, generally or in certain circumstances.

The quirks in the legal system are holdovers from the time when their was extra power and responsibility associated with wielding the testosterone-soaked manure-covered wellington over women which had to be compensated for in the legal system.

AFAIR, another one of them bit the dust last week.

The interesting thing is whether feminists fight to keep things which may be unfair but currently give an advantage to women or step aside and let things take their course.

Wicknight wrote:

For example has any feminist campaign ever campaigned to make rape against women illegal but to make rape or sexual assault against men legal?

No.

The closest I could probably come to this is a UK Home Office campaign to raise awareness of the fact that no != yes obliquely threatening that getting a (consensual I'm sure:) ) rodgering in prison is part of a rapist's punishment! Very eye for an eye there, eh, heh!

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/consent-campaign/Prison.pdf?view=Binary

Ha Ha!

BTW
The bould Jade Goody herself was in action on LivingTV tonight.

I hope you were all watching. I wasn't.

http://www.livingtv.co.uk/schedule/index.html?offset=0

Brand-new and exclusive reality documentary following Jade Goody in her bid to become a successful businesswoman. What happened to Jade after she opened her salon, 'Ugly's'? Jade considers releasing her own perfume brand and opening up more branches of her salon.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

If one group of people has more protection in the law than another, I'd consider that legal superiority.

Well again I would argue they don't have any more protection under the law, just like having specific laws to target gun crime doesn't mean you are more likely to get off stabbing someone.

Sleepy wrote:

If the laws don't make violence against one group of people less acceptable, what's their purpose?

Their purpose is to target specific areas of problems within the law, and you tend to get these forms of specific laws as a kind of knee jerk reaction to campaigns. For example at the moment everyone is crying out for the government to tackle gun crime in inner cities. That doesn't mean people think killing someone some other way is ok, or a more acceptable way of offing someone, but they see gun crime as something that is not being tackled properly by the current police force and legal system.

Another example would be the laws introduced in Britian and Europe to tackle attacks by drug addicts with suringes. These laws weren't saying that a drug addict can attack someone so long as they don't use a suringe.

Similar with things like abuse against women by husbands or partners. The specific laws brought in in various western countries to tackle these problems come after a up-surge of campaigns to address these issues. Now you can argue that these things aren't really that much of an issue, or that they aren't an exclusive womens issue (the famous example being the American ad campaign about abuse towards women that failed to point out abuse towards men in marriages was actually higher). But it would be unfair to claim that these campaigns wish to undermine the rest of the laws or make the specific crime more important, just like it would be unfair to claim that people who want gun crime brought under control don't care if people are killed with knifes.

Sleepy wrote:

There are very few instances I can think of where either sex would have to campaign separately for something.

Well some feminsts would argue that you don't see a whole lot of men campaigning for women's issues, so who is going to? They might also argue why should men have to devote a whole lot of time to issues that effect women in the first place, they should be busy helping tackle male issues.

I don't really see the issue people have with women campaigning for issues that effect women. It doesn't mean that they believe that issues that effect men aren't equally important, but people only have limited time to give, or attention to give. Does it not make sense that you would be naturally more inclined to be interested in issues that are closer to you.

Men shouldn't take it as a person insult that women are more interested in campaigning for women's issues. Women don't seem to take it as a person insult that more men don't take up women's issues.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm afraid my source for this was an article she wrote in Hot Press

No problem, I kinda lost respect for her over the whole TCD thing, so I wouldn't really hold a lot of what she says in high regard. She seems like one of these people who is in politics just to be in politics

Sleepy wrote:

Sex is an equal act between two people so it's repercussions are the equal responsibility of two people.

True, but at the same time the individuals need to take ultimate repsonsibility for what they allow to happen with their bodies.

Sleepy wrote:

What does it matter if there are industries in which men or women are unde-represented?

Not a whole lot, but at the same time it is generally regarded as unhealthy for the industry to be too limited in its outlook. New people bring new perspectives and ideas

Sleepy wrote:

Given that we all have equal educational opportunities, we can all pursue our careers of choice, if this leads to an imbalance of the gender ratio in a given career, I don't see a problem with this.

True, but then what is the harm in trying to attracted people to industries they might not have thought about joining. I have a friend who never dreamed of doing IT during the Leaving Cert, but when she got into it after dropping out of college she loved it, and is really good at it.

People should be shown the full range of options they have, especially options they might not have thought about or considered possibly due to old fashioned stereotypes

Sleepy wrote:

It was my understanding that the original aim of the feminist movement was equality.

The original and continuing aim of feminism is to help tackle issues that effect women. Equality with relation to business and the law was (is) one of these issues, but it isn't the only one.

Sleepy wrote:

Ergo, I don't see the need for the continuation of the feminist movement.

So long as their are women there will be a need for feminism.

Sleepy wrote:

You see, I don't believe that feminism needs to addresss young girls sexual identity. I believe society needs to address young peoples sexual identity.

Well feminism is society, so I don't really see the different.

Are men really in a position to address young girls (or women in general) sexuality? Are male writers lining up to give insights into female sexuality, or to discuss what women actually want out of sex and relationships?

Sleepy wrote:

By tackling both young men, and young women together we I believe we would achieve far better results.

You can tackle them at the same time but it would be silly to tackle them with the same approch.

Men aren't women. Women aren't men

Men are better suited to discussing the attitudes and feeling of young men and their emerging sexuality because they understand them. I personally wouldn't give a whole lot of heed to what a group of my females believe being a 18 year old boy is like, or the experiences they think we might have had or issues we faced.

metrovelvet

Feminists have long complained about womens magazines and the plight of internalised oppression. This is nothing new. As long as there are low status women who want a bit of glamour there will be publishing houses that will profit from it.

When you say sexual identity what do you mean? Are you sure you dont mean gender identity? And how does this relate to tabloid magazines?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

When you say sexual identity what do you mean?

By sexual identity I mean how a women defines herself with relation to sex and relationships.

I suppose the easiest example to explain would be the characters on Sex in the City. Each one has a clear (if a little stereotypical, simplified and obvious) indentity when it comes to their relationships and what they want out of them. Samantha is unapologetically a man eatter, she likes casual commitment free relationships with men until she finds the right one. Charlot is the opposite, she is wants strong emotional attactment to people in a relation.

Of course this is a very simplified example, since it has to fit inside a quite glossy and easy to understand television show. Real female sexual identity could be a lot more complicated. But you get the idea.

metrovelvet wrote:

And how does this relate to tabloid magazines?

The issue a lot of people have with people like Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson, and the way they are portraded or portraits themselves in the media, is that they seem to be giving off a kind of fake sexual identity that they believe appeals to men, in an effort to sell their "brand", for want of a better word. That on its own isn't so bad, the problem comes when other women attempt to emulate this sexual identity, under the false notion that this actually is Paris Hiltons sexual idenity and that this actually is what you should act like to be successful and attractive.

Now I don't think a whole lot of women or girls are doing this, but some of them clearly are. There was an interesting article on Salon.com about how contestants on the America Idol show seem to be now "dumbing it down" on purpose because they believe that is what the American voting public want or expect of their celebrities.

Sleepy

There's a lot of your post we're either going around in circles on or that I agree with so I'm just going to tackle a few points...

Wicknight wrote:

it would be unfair to claim that these campaigns wish to undermine the rest of the laws or make the specific crime more important

Well, while they may not wish to undermine other aspects of law, that's exactly what they're doing tbh. I don't see the problem with simply pressing for the current laws to be enforced. I can see why new legislation can be a means for a politician to make it look like he/she is genuinely concerned about an issue but it's a knee-jerk reaction which often only serves to undermine the current legislation.

True, but at the same time the individuals need to take ultimate repsonsibility for what they allow to happen with their bodies.

Is that just clumsy wording or are you saying women are more responsible for unwanted pregnancies than men? Because that's exactly the attitude that needs to be driven out of young men in Irish society. It's that attitude which allows so many bastards to walk out on their children. A child is the equal responsibility of both it's parents.

Not a whole lot, but at the same time it is generally regarded as unhealthy for the industry to be too limited in its outlook. New people bring new perspectives and ideas

True, but then what is the harm in trying to attracted people to industries they might not have thought about joining. I have a friend who never dreamed of doing IT during the Leaving Cert, but when she got into it after dropping out of college she loved it, and is really good at it.

People should be shown the full range of options they have, especially options they might not have thought about or considered possibly due to old fashioned stereotypes

So? Why waste money on campaigns aimed at attracting one sex or the other into a specific industry when all we really need is proper career guidance counsellors in our schools?

Well feminism is society, so I don't really see the different.

No, feminism is a movement within one half of society.

Are men really in a position to address young girls (or women in general) sexuality? Are male writers lining up to give insights into female sexuality, or to discuss what women actually want out of sex and relationships?

No, but equally a woman cannot give these same girls insights into male sexuality or what men want from sex and relationships. I'm sure if left to most women this would equate to an "all men are randy bastards that only want one thing" rant...

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Well, while they may not wish to undermine other aspects of law, that's exactly what they're doing tbh.

I don't really see how

Sleepy wrote:

Is that just clumsy wording or are you saying women are more responsible for unwanted pregnancies than men?

Neither

I agree totally that the ultimate responsible for a child rests with both his/her parents. Thats a given.

But at the same time you talk about an unwanted pregancy as if it is a single event where responsibility is assigned after the fact in the form of blame. It isn't really though, an unwanted pregnancy is caused by a string of individual events that lead up to it. And the responsibility for these events isn't assigned after the fact, it should be taken right then and there as they are happening.

It is nearly impossible to discuss this at such a general level because the combinations of events that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy are so numerious to make any general discussion of responsibility largely pointless.

Instead I will take an example of something I know happens because it happened to a friend of mine. Her boyfriend and her were fooling around, they didn't have a condom but he wanted to have sex and told her it would be fine he would pull out before he did the deed. She relucantly agreed. She told me she knew it was a stupid thing to do at the time but she went along with it anyway because she was horny. Of course the worst thing happened. Luckly they got the morning after pill and she didn't get pregnent but it was quite a scare, and they both regretted ever having unprotected sex.

Now its all very well to say that if they had got pregnent they are both equally responsible at some high abstract general level. And at a general high "who is going to raise the kid" level that is true, they both take ultimate responsibilty for the child if there was one.

But the reality is that each person is responsible for the string of actions and decision they do or allow be done that lead to any event. In the example above the boy is responsbile for suggesting the pull out method, for hasseling my friend to do it, for not pulling out in time etc. My friend is responsible for not standing firm when she didn't want to do it, for not listening to her head when it was telling her it was a bad idea etc etc.

Your problem Sleepy is that you insist of discussion something like this in the high level "ultimate responsibility" terms, as if you can draw general blame for every eventuality, in a this is your fault you raise the damn kid way.

So you seem to think I must be saying women always have responsiblity/blame for unwanted pregnancies, or men always have responsibility/balme for unwanted pregnancies. I'm saying neither, because the reality is you cannot draw general claims for a string of event that will be largely unique every time they happen.

I am not talking about responsibility as in who is to blame.

I am talking about teaching and taking responsibility for what you are doing while you are doing it. In the example above my friend should have taken responsibilty for her body right then and there and said no she was not happy with having unprotected sex, therefore she isn't going to have unprotected sex. But that doesn't mean because she didn't she there for is solely to blame for the pregnency. It doesn't work like that. In the moment she is responsible for what she allows happen to her, and she needs to be affermative with that responsibility.

The point this all goes back to is that some young girls are not taking responsiblity for their bodies, and this is something they need to be helped with (not blamed for, its always about blame with you isn't it).

They are allowing things to happen that they are not totally happy with, and this is partly down to a lack of assertivness with relation to sex on the part of young women. The issue is why is this happening and how can it be helped. Responsibility can be taught, through discussion, education and example. Women and girls should be encouraged to stand up for their bodies since they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for what they allow to happen to them.

Sleepy wrote:

A child is the equal responsibility of both it's parents.

I agree entirely.

Sleepy wrote:

So? Why waste money on campaigns aimed at attracting one sex or the other into a specific industry when all we really need is proper career guidance counsellors in our schools?

Why are they wastes of money?

Surely it is a better use of public money to run a cheap (relatively speaking) media campaign to attrack say women into engineering, that to revamp the entire career guidence system in secondary schools?

Sleepy wrote:

No, feminism is a movement within one half of society.

Exactly, and it is a movement within society that is particularly suited to tackling issues effecting women don't you think, since its purpose is to tackle issues effecting women?

"Society" isn't a single entity, it will be made up of sub-groups. You seem particular interested in getting men (who wouldn't consider themselves feminsts seemingly) involved in the discussion of women's issues and young girls sexual identity. I have no great objection to that but I would ask why exactly are you so driven by that idea? Do you believe that these men can give some form of better guidence than women?

Sleepy wrote:

No, but equally a woman cannot give these same girls insights into male sexuality or what men want from sex and relationships.

I don't think anyone is expecting them too.

The point of this is self-discovery, discovering the female sexual identity for the women of the modern world, not teaching girls the best way to get or please a man.

The issue of relationships between men and women is a completely different one.

Sleepy wrote:

I'm sure if left to most women this would equate to an "all men are randy bastards that only want one thing" rant...

Quite :rolleyes:

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

I don't really see the issue people have with women campaigning for issues that effect women.

Almost all of the "issues" are at base zero-sum men-women games. Perhaps health and reproduction are not but outside this, when you campaign for women's or men's advancement in one area - if you win the net result must be a loss in that area for the other side. That is the problem.

Those engineering careers you mentioned are a perfect example.

The thing about attempts to attract women into studying engineering in university is that no thought has been given to some of the likely knock on effects if it succeeds in a big way (I have a vibe that it will TBH).

I don't think it will change the fact that alot of boys still will aim for engineering careers - or will we have a social reeducation program to encourage them to try out nursing and public relations instead?

If more girls apply for engineering, the male students who would have studied it get displaced (where?, to IT's to PLC's, to do a trade [another employment sector dominated by men which is singled out by feminists as in need of some feminisation because so much money can be made out of it]).

The gap between boys/girls educational attainment the boys' results won't be up to snuff vis-a-vis the girls - just like they are not up to snuff at the moment for law and medicine (which are about 70/30 F/M AFAIR).

Engineering depts. in universities are quite large generally. If everything else remains constant, Irish uni's as a whole will probably then be well on the way to a "acheiving" an 80-20 F/M student body.

Another victory on the road to equality eh?

edited for syntax:

Anyway I shouldn't really be posting these reactionary opinions from work. It could bite me in the ass.:)

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

By sexual identity I mean how a women defines herself with relation to sex and relationships.

I suppose the easiest example to explain would be the characters on Sex in the City. Each one has a clear (if a little stereotypical, simplified and obvious) indentity when it comes to their relationships and what they want out of them. Samantha is unapologetically a man eatter, she likes casual commitment free relationships with men until she finds the right one. Charlot is the opposite, she is wants strong emotional attactment to people in a relation..

There are tons and tons of feminist writing on what you call female sexual identity. There alternative role models to choose from. From what I can see feminists are and have been doing what they can. If young women choose to ignore it and model themselves on lollipop girls they have to take some ownership over those choices. Frankly, I think some constituencies are so used to being dominated that once they find autononomy its initially very hard for them.

Wicknight wrote:

The issue a lot of people have with people like Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson, and the way they are portraded or portraits themselves in the media, is that they seem to be giving off a kind of fake sexual identity that they believe appeals to men, in an effort to sell their "brand", for want of a better word. That on its own isn't so bad, the problem comes when other women attempt to emulate this sexual identity, under the false notion that this actually is Paris Hiltons sexual idenity and that this actually is what you should act like to be successful and attractive..

The unfortunate aspect of there being no offstage anymore is that we dont see the publicity machines behind who is the latest it girl. That we pay attention and reward women with fame and fortune for this rather than for more admirable accomplishments tells me that we have a lot of work to do as a culture in terms of what we decide is valuable.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

I don't really see how

By having two laws protect one person while only one to protect another you're almost guaranteed separate charges/sentences for crimes against the two people.[/QUOTE]

It is nearly impossible to discuss this at such a general level because the combinations of events that can lead to an unwanted pregnancy are so numerious to make any general discussion of responsibility largely pointless.

Well, how do you suggest society legislate for these events then? Just not bother at all?

Your problem Sleepy is that you insist of discussion something like this in the high level "ultimate responsibility" terms, as if you can draw general blame for every eventuality, in a this is your fault you raise the damn kid way.

So you seem to think I must be saying women always have responsiblity/blame for unwanted pregnancies, or men always have responsibility/balme for unwanted pregnancies. I'm saying neither, because the reality is you cannot draw general claims for a string of event that will be largely unique every time they happen.

I am not talking about responsibility as in who is to blame.

I am talking about teaching and taking responsibility for what you are doing while you are doing it. In the example above my friend should have taken responsibilty for her body right then and there and said no she was not happy with having unprotected sex, therefore she isn't going to have unprotected sex. But that doesn't mean because she didn't she there for is solely to blame for the pregnency. It doesn't work like that. In the moment she is responsible for what she allows happen to her, and she needs to be affermative with that responsibility.

The point this all goes back to is that some young girls are not taking responsiblity for their bodies, and this is something they need to be helped with (not blamed for, its always about blame with you isn't it).

I don't see why you equate my posts about responsibility with blame. I see an event as occurring and it being the responsibility of both parties involved to deal with the repercussions of those events.

They are allowing things to happen that they are not totally happy with, and this is partly down to a lack of assertivness with relation to sex on the part of young women. The issue is why is this happening and how can it be helped. Responsibility can be taught, through discussion, education and example. Women and girls should be encouraged to stand up for their bodies since they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for what they allow to happen to them.

Just as the boys should be educated that it's not okay to even try to pressure a woman into doing something she's not comfortable with. There's a definite value in educating boys to associate the word sex with the word Daddy. A teacher of mine tried to instill this in our class and for me at least, it had an effect.

Why are they wastes of money?

Surely it is a better use of public money to run a cheap (relatively speaking) media campaign to attrack say women into engineering, that to revamp the entire career guidence system in secondary schools?

Because there's very little value to society in having more men/women working in particular industries whereas there's huge value to society in having people choose their careers more carefully (savings regarding people dropping out of college courses, suffering depression from working in jobs they hate etc)

Exactly, and it is a movement within society that is particularly suited to tackling issues effecting women don't you think, since its purpose is to tackle issues effecting women?

You see, the difference here is that I don't particularly see any issues that only affect women any more. The issues women face today are part and parcel of the issues being faced by society at large: poor sex education, poor health provision etc.

"Society" isn't a single entity, it will be made up of sub-groups. You seem particular interested in getting men (who wouldn't consider themselves feminsts seemingly) involved in the discussion of women's issues and young girls sexual identity. I have no great objection to that but I would ask why exactly are you so driven by that idea? Do you believe that these men can give some form of better guidence than women?

Not at all, but I believe that guidance given by both men and women will be superior to that given by either men or women.

I don't think anyone is expecting them too.

The point of this is self-discovery, discovering the female sexual identity for the women of the modern world, not teaching girls the best way to get or please a man.

The issue of relationships between men and women is a completely different one.

Take the example of a one night stand. It's important for both parties in this situation to understand their own sexual identity, their limits on what they're comfortable doing and to having an understanding of the other's sexual identity and limits too. This works both ways and is only magnified when dealing with the issue of relationships.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

or will we have a social reeducation program to encourage them to try out nursing and public relations instead?

You can, I think it would be a good idea, though you tone seems a bit dimissive of the idea.

It would be a good idea for any industry that is dominated by one gender to have fresh blood as it were. The obvious example for a female dominated area is child care. This industry has blocked male entry based on the sexist and discrimatory idea that men aren't good with kids. The only way that is going to change is to get more men involved with child-care.

But I've seen very little movement in this area. Instead of asking why all these women's groups want to encorage women into engineering and like, a more interesting question is where are all the men groups trying encourage men into areas like nursing and child-care. Why are men not nearly as active in tackling male related issues in socitey and employment. A lot of people seem to think feminists should be doing it, but why if it isn't a female issue? Do the male groups just not care, or do they have trouble getting support from society as a whole?

fly_agaric wrote:

If more girls apply for engineering, the male students who would have studied it get displaced

You seem to be implying that that is some how unfair on the boys.

That theory only really works if you assume the girl is unfairly taking the place of a boy. But she isn't, she is earning that place as an equal. She has to do exactly the same as the boy to get the place, does she not deserve it as much as him?

I mean I could argue I don't want Secondary Schools to start teaching computers in pre-leaving cert classes because it is going to encourage a lot more people into computer courses and therefore make a lot more compatition for me. But I don't think I would get very many sympathetic votes on that one.

fly_agaric wrote:

The gap between boys/girls educational attainment the boys' results won't be up to snuff vis-a-vis the girls - just like they are not up to snuff at the moment for law and medicine (which are about 70/30 F/M AFAIR).

Again you seem to be implying girls shouldn't be encouraged to studying engineering in college because it will make the standard to high for the boys and this is unfair?

I would have thought raising the standard of engineers in Ireland would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

Ok, I'm going to stop here because I'm really not sure what you are saying, and no doubt you will think I'm putting words in your mouth etc etc, so I will politely ask you to clarify exactly what your point is

Do you think it is unfair on boys that campaigns encourage women to look at entering into traditionally male industry areas because there will be less jobs for men (though the same number of actual jobs) and that the standards in college classes will rise making it harder for boys to match these standards?

Like I said I'm not assuming that is your point, but it sounds like it is, so please clarify

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

Well, how do you suggest society legislate for these events then? Just not bother at all?.

How much legislation do you want exactly? Who's going to legislate it? The courts? Judges? Parliaments? Who?

Biologically, women carry the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy. No amount of legislation can change that fact.

Sleepy wrote:

I don't see why you equate my posts about responsibility with blame.

Because they sound sound that way.

Sleepy wrote:

Just as the boys should be educated that it's not okay to even try to pressure a woman into doing something she's not comfortable with. .?.

You mean sensitivity training?

Sleepy wrote:

There's a definite value in educating boys to associate the word sex with the word Daddy. .?.

Oh daddy .. please... do it to me again... ive been so bad...

Sleepy wrote:

Not at all, but I believe that guidance given by both men and women will be superior to that given by either men or women..?.

What?

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

By having two laws protect one person while only one to protect another you're almost guaranteed separate charges/sentences for crimes against the two people.

Well possibly, but as I said most of these laws become a-sexual when they are made law.

Do you have examples of where, for example, a husband beating his wife recieves a completely seperate sentence than a wife beating her husband?

Sleepy wrote:

Well, how do you suggest society legislate for these events then? Just not bother at all?

I wasn't aware we were suggesting anything to do with legislation either way. As I said, i'm not talking about who is to blame for the child in a legal sense.

Sleepy wrote:

I see an event as occurring and it being the responsibility of both parties involved to deal with the repercussions of those events.

It is, but I'm not talking about the repercussions, I never was.

I am talking about responsibility for the actions in the moment, not the end result.

Yes both the boy and the girl should take full responsibility for the child, but that is dealing with things after the fact. The equal responsibilty for the result of the sex doesn't filter down to when you actually have two people lying in bed together. Saying something like the boy and girl are both equally responsible for the boys body, or equally responsible for what the girl does, doesn't make sense.

In the heat of the moment the girl should be (and can only be) taking responsibility for what is she is doing and what is happening to her (just like the boy should). The girl has enough to be thinking about without expecting her to also take responsibility for what the boy is doing (i'm not even sure how that would work)

Using my example from the other post, if the girl is not happy with having unprotected sex she needs to make sure she doesn't have unprotected sex, since it is her body and she is responsible for it. Applying a uniform "equal responsibility" clause makes no sense in this context.

Of course it would be a crappy thing for a boy to hassle is girlfriend into having sex, I'm not saying that a boy can do what he likes unless the girl stops him. He has responsibilities as well, for what he does. It isn't one or the other.

Sleepy wrote:

Just as the boys should be educated that it's not okay to even try to pressure a woman into doing something she's not comfortable with.

I agree. But who do you think is the best group in society to do this? Feminists?

And please don't say society "as a whole" because that doesn't mean anything. Society is made up of groups of people, it is not a single entity.

I would also point out that there isnothing stopping a man from being a feminists, if they are intersted in contributing to the discussion on issues facing women in society. I would consider myself both a feminist, and a maleist, I am interested in issues facing men and the issues facing women. Some people are one or the other but not both. A lot of my male friends would discuss a lot about male issues, but woudl give very little thought to issues women face, which is fine.

Sleepy wrote:

Because there's very little value to society in having more men/women working in particular industries whereas there's huge value to society in having people choose their careers more carefully (savings regarding people dropping out of college courses, suffering depression from working in jobs they hate etc)

That only works if you assume the women who move into industries like IT or engineering don't want to work in these industries, which isn't true and misses the entire point of these campagins. The only women who go into these industries after being effected by the campaigns are the ones who want to. So you start to fullfill your "value to society" in that you start getting women into jobs they really enjoy and want to work as but who would not have necessarily considered before.

This isn't about forcing women into certain industries, it is about raising awareness of these industries with women and letting them decide.

Sleepy wrote:

You see, the difference here is that I don't particularly see any issues that only affect women any more.

Well, a feminist would probably say thats probably because you aren't one

There are certainly a lot of issuse that only really effect men in this day and age, or effect men in a different way than they effect women. Is it not safe to assume that the same is true of women.

Sleepy wrote:

The issues women face today are part and parcel of the issues being faced by society at large: poor sex education, poor health provision etc.

But only in a high level abstract general sense.

When you get down to the ground you see that some (not all) of the sexual education issues facing women are different than the sexual issues facing men, the educational issues facing women are different than the educational issues facing boys.

To me it is silly to suggest that women, as a group through feminism, shouldn't discuss what it means to be a women in the 21st century, and the issues that face women, without dragging what it means to be a man into that as well.

It's like saying that a womans magazine like Now or Woman's Own should include a sports section at the back just in case a man is reading it.

These issues are too complicated to tackle in some large "humanists" banner where every position should be discusses with equal time in some kind of massive free for all.

Some whould argue that "feminism" itself is too large a banner for constructive discussion, since for example the issues facing women in African are going to be wildly different than issues facing women in New York or London, and as such you will actually find that womens groups in London are not that similar to womens groups in Nigeria.

The more specific you get in your aims and objectives, in your field of discourse and discussion the easier it is to identify problems and solutions. The more general you get the more likely things fall into unworkable abstract concepts that hold little value on the ground.

Saying there is a need for an abstract "society" level of discussion is fine (for example saying men and women should learn to respect themselves), but this still needs to be filtered down to a specific level when you actually want to do something about it (eg. western feminsts and women discussion how girls can respect themselves in this modern commersial world)

Sleepy wrote:

It's important for both parties in this situation to understand their own sexual identity, their limits on what they're comfortable doing and to having an understanding of the other's sexual identity and limits too.

But thats the point, these are going to be different if you are a man or woman.

A womans sexual identity is going to be different than a mans. Of course they need to be aware of the others feelings, but it is far far more important that they are aware of their own feelings in these situations.

This cannot be tackled in some general abstract sense. Who is it that is going to actually help women understand their own sexual identity better?