Neo Feminism

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

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

We already have legislation to deal with this issue. Men are legally as responsible for the children they father as the child's mother is (until you get to the area of custody where under the Irish court system the mother is given preference though the father retains equal financial responsibility).

Laws can't be made for individual cases. They're written for the population at large and the courts system is used to take the particulars of individual cases into consideration.

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

Well, it's a good thing we've moved into an era where social responsibilty counts for something or there'd be a lot more single mothers on the welfare system.

Because they sound sound that way.

In your subjective opinion. Clearly Wicknight agrees. In my subjective opinion, most of your posts sound like incoherrant ravings of a woman living in a delussional world. Though, that's just my opinion.

You mean sensitivity training?

If you want to call it that. I'd call it teaching them respect for others.

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

WTF?:eek: What has that got to do with anything? Or was that meant to be funny? If not, I suggest you get some professional help.

What?

Sex is an act that (usually) occurs between both men and women. Therefore being taught 'both sides of the story' so to speak will obviously be of more benefit to any teenager than simply hearing it from one side. I thought that would be pretty obvious, tbh. Clearly not for some though.

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

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?

Well, to use your example of spousal abuse, what's the point in feminism raising a big deal about husbands beating their wives if they get a-sexual laws about beating one's spouse which is already covered by our assault/grievious bodily harm laws? Just seems a huge waste of effort and legislative time to me.

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.

So if in this example the boy is responsible for his actions, the girl is responsible for hers and they are both equally responsible for any repercussions where's there anything but equal responsibilities?

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.

Initially, I would consider it the role of the child's parents, then their educators and finally their peers so essentially everyone. If some sections of society see this behaviour as acceptable it can be seen as validation for the child if they have an unacceptable viewpoint (mysogeny in this case). This is why I say it's the responsibility of society as a whole.

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.

Surely a woman who wants to be an engineer is perfectly aware that their are engineering courses in college?

Who is it that is going to actually help women understand their own sexual identity better?

Well, since there's no such thing as a universal sexual identity for any group of people (male or female), it could be quite literally anyone: a friend, a teacher, a parent, a lover... I honestly don't get this idea of a general sexual identity for a particular gender. Why bother with one at all?

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Well, to use your example of spousal abuse, what's the point in feminism raising a big deal about husbands beating their wives if they get a-sexual laws about beating one's spouse which is already covered by our assault/grievious bodily harm laws?

Because they are often not already covered by assault/grievious bodily harm laws, or those laws are ineffective at tackling specific circumstances.

For example the laws with regard to rape have evolved a lot in the last 100/50 even 25 years, because, through campagining mostly bey feminists or rape groups, it was realised that the current laws and system of court appearance were not effective in dealing with the problem of rape.

Sleepy wrote:

So if in this example the boy is responsible for his actions, the girl is responsible for hers and they are both equally responsible for any repercussions where's there anything but equal responsibilities?

The boy is responsible for his actions, and the girl is responsible for hers.

You don't really need to go any further than that, because if they are both responsible for their actions and their actions both lead to a baby then they are both responsible for the baby.

The girl is not equally responsible for her actions and the boys actions. The boy is not equally responsible for his actions and the girls actions. They take responsibility for themselves, what they do and what they agree to.

Sleepy wrote:

Initially, I would consider it the role of the child's parents, then their educators and finally their peers so essentially everyone.

Ok, maybe I phrased the question wrong. Another example, assume a young woman is thinking about her place in the world, her identity, sexual or other wise, what group of discussion is she going to turn to for ideas and stimulation? Most likely to female writers etc to have and still are discussing these questions and issues. That is feminism.

Now she might also turn to male writers etc still within the heading of feminism, and she might even turn to male or female writers outside of the grouping of feminism, but to me that seems less likely.

Sleepy wrote:

Surely a woman who wants to be an engineer is perfectly aware that their are engineering courses in college?

They are, but what about the ones that don't realise they want to be an engineer yet. They are also aware these courses exist, but they might not have considered them as something for them.

Simply knowing something exists is no help to a young person trying to discover what they want to do in college. If it was we wouldn't need career guidence counselors.

They need to not only be made aware the courses exist but shown what these courses are about and that they are not just for boys. It needs to become more social acceptable for women to take up these courses. And, from my time at college, I can say there is still a lot of work to be done in that area.

Sleepy wrote:

I honestly don't get this idea of a general sexual identity for a particular gender.

Well of course there isn't one unifying identify, but don't you agree that there is more of a general sexual identity for a particular gender than there a general one for both genders. I find it strange that you accept the idea that even certain women are not able to fully understand other women's unique sexual identity, but that some how men will, or should.

I mean I would consider myself a feminist, in that I'm interested in issues women face in society at the moment. But even I wouldn't pretend to be able to put a whole lot of valuable input into the discussion what it is like to be a women in this day and age, because I don't know beyond my 2nd hand observations of what I believe it is like.

As I said, the more specialised you get the closer you come to dealing with specific issues. You want to be narrowing things down, not widening things up to an abstract general sense, saying that feminism as a movement is too specific to do any good.

Saying boys and girls, men and women, are all pretty much the same so pretty much the same advice, wisdom, areas of discussion etc apply to them equally is nonsense.

Feminism is women (mostly women, men as well) discussing and tackling issues that women face. That can get narrower still, young girls and the issues they face probably aren't going to heed a whole lot of use from advice from 70 year old feminsts.

African women probably aren't going to find discussion of the issues facing soccer moms in up state New York that relivent. So you keep narrowing it down, under the banner of feminism or womens issues.

But the kinda highest common denomonator is that they are all women, because if you go a step further and say they are all human you become too abstract because the differences between men and women are too great on certain issues.

Not all issues, but certain issues, and it is these issues where you have to let specific groups attempt to tackle them.

metrovelvet

Oh sleepy you really love women dont you?

Why dont you start a thread about what victims men are instead of wah wahing on this one, which is supposed to be about dumb magazines and the dumbing down of feminism.

fly_agaric

Metrovelvet - Apologies for dragging the thread off topic and onto "men" again. I'll shut up after this.

Wicknight wrote:

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

I can't help it. I don't like it. I think it won't work anyway.
Information campaigns I can accept but other more active measures (indeed - such as are sometimes used to get women into male dominated fields) - no.

Wicknight wrote:

But I've seen very little movement in this area (men into childcare + other "female" sectors).

It'll be a cold day in hell. Engineering may be a tough nut to crack because girl's attitudes to it have to be changed but the situation in childcare (and primary teaching) is different.
You may have to change boys' attitudes (harder to change than girl's I wonder??) but there are issues of child protection involved too. Men are, to be blunt, considered a higher risk than women. They are always going to be scrutinised in these jobs more than their female counterparts and many will find this very offputting. It is discriminatory but it seems utterly unavoidable.
Castigate me for that comment all you want but it is the reality of the situation.

Wicknight wrote:

A lot of people seem to think feminists should be doing it

Well, I don't think feminists should be doing it (trying to get men into childcare + other "female" jobs).

Wicknight wrote:

a more interesting question is where are all the men groups trying encourage men into areas like nursing and child-care.

What "men's groups"? There are complete and utter crackpots in the US and the UK who have probably spent too much time indulging in one or both of those substances who call themselves "men's groups" when they get together. Is that who you mean?
Anyway, these are very antagonistic towards the whole idea of now its all changed but its got to change more which you are putting forward.
The very idea of "men's groups" in the same way as you mean "women's groups" is something that seems a bit risible and kind of sad to most men anyway IMO.

Wicknight wrote:

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 competition for me. But I don't think I would get very many sympathetic votes on that one.

No, assuming Irish schools and exams are fair (I think they are) it is not unfair. I don't like the fact that if girls do go for engineering in a big way it will accelerate the trends in university education in Ireland but I can't say it is unfair.

In fact I do feel some sympathy for the losers in this race (hence my post), but if boys drop out of education way more than girls and are doing progessively crapper in exams vis a vis girls, what can you do really? If they are out-competeted for the courses they want by girls in a fair system, its just too bad.

Wicknight wrote:

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

Even if you were (you are not), I won't start that again. I'm wasting too much time waffling on this place (boards) as it is. I'll get to the "point" thing next.

Wicknight wrote:

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?

No, it is not unfair if we are only talking publicity campaigns. If it is any more than that, it is unfair IMO because women are hardly a disadvantaged group when it comes to education as a whole.

Anyway, as you suggest, I don't have a point here. In the end, it is tough titty:) really.

I suppose I see the writing as being very much on the wall for "men". I see a future approaching where apart from doing some nasty and/or dangerous jobs that machines can't do yet, providing some entertainment, and costing the govt. money by rotting in prison - they could become women and noone will notice the difference in the morning. Except that the crime rate has gone down or something, and the world is a generally better, fitter, happier, more productive place. It depresses me. I don't think these kind of things are enough to pin any kind of "role" on. Though maybe govt. mandated sperm milking could be just the role men will need!
I like to have a nice and pessimistic wah-wah about it at times and this thread seemed like a good place for that! There hasn't been a "feminism" thread to crap on in oh, like, forever! /jk

For all you fans, "Just Jade" is on Living TV right now! Hooray!:)

Dudess

wheres me jumpa wrote:

Heard this on Dave Fanning the other night and was suprised with the response. Basically they were discussing the ditzy women such as Jade Goody, Chantelle etc who are millionaires. The point was made that it was women who were making them millionaires by buying mags and such for a glimpse of their lives.

The conversation then suggested that the women of today are no longer the powerful, independant individuals they thought they were.

Now im not starting a women vs men thread, Im curious to know what the women out there actually think of complete morons such as Jade. We all hate these people but yet someone is interested in them as they sell mags.

Oh these shows drive me mental and so do the people who pay attention to them (mostly women, I'm assuming). My flatmates were all crowded around the TV last night watching Big Brother and taking it really seriously and discussing it like it was an important issue and constantly blabbing about the length of the girls' skirts. Then they put on Celebrity X Factor and all they did was comment on appearances again and call Rebecca Loos a slut and in need of a nose job etc. Then they were asking each other if the performers "had any shame" etc. Dumb-asses.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

The very idea of "men's groups" in the same way as you mean "women's groups" is something that seems a bit risible and kind of sad to most men anyway IMO.

Which is the problem IMHO

A lot of men see joining a group or making a fuss about these issues as being somewhat of a sign of weakness, a bit "gay" for want of a better expression.

Thankfully this is some what changing, but then you have the different problem of extremism taking hold in new men's issue groups, like the nut jobs who are involved in some of the father's right groups in Britian and Austrialia. Just like the extreme feminists ("kill all men" etc) gave feminism a bad name in the past, these extreme maleists give the male issue movement a very bad name.

Zombrex

Dudess wrote:

and call Rebecca Loos a slut and in need of a nose job etc. Then they were asking each other if the performers "had any shame" etc. Dumb-asses.

I always find it funny that men are constantly berated by women for "objectifing women" by looking at things like Playboy and porn etc, yet women seem perfectly happy to objectify other famous women a lot more but also in the most horrible nasty mean spirited fashion. These famous or well known women become verbal punching bags for all the vile venom women want to unload to others.

At least when guys look at porn they are objectifing in a nice way (well regular porn, not talking about all the bondage crap). These women are objects but they are objects of desire, not objects of hatred to be despised

I always point that out when any of my female friends get on their high horse about my porn collection ... strangely they don't really get my point

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

I always find it funny that men are constantly berated by women for "objectifing women" by looking at things like Playboy and porn etc, yet women seem perfectly happy to objectify other famous women a lot more but also in the most horrible nasty mean spirited fashion. These famous or well known women become verbal punching bags for all the vile venom women want to unload to others.

It has been observed by a friend of mine [male] that womens relationships consist of 95% affection and 5% pure unadultered hatred. What you are talking about here WK i think is the cheap gratification we get out of things like www.awfulplasticsurgery.com. Good old fashioned shaden [whatever that german word is].

Wicknight wrote:

At least when guys look at porn they are objectifing in a nice way (well regular porn, not talking about all the bondage crap). These women are objects but they are objects of desire, not objects of hatred to be despised

Is it desire? Arent they just there to facilitate a ****? Arent they just recepticles for the viewers imagination rather than having any subjectivity themselves. Are women still complaining about this? I thought this was a battle long forgotten.

Wicknight wrote:

I always point that out when any of my female friends get on their high horse about my porn collection ... strangely they don't really get my point

Perhaps you should buy them some womens porn. That might get your point across more effectively while also appearing benevolent.

metrovelvet

fly_agaric wrote:

Metrovelvet - Apologies for dragging the thread off topic and onto "men" again. I'll shut up after this. !:)

No need to apologise. I encourage you or someone to start a discussion somewhere on masculinities. There seem to be people who want to talk about it, but oddly tend to do so only in feminist threads, which to me seems ironic - that they complain about feminism and yet its the very arena in which they find the space to air their fears, grievences, etc about the role of men and of women for that matter

Wouldnt it be more organised and productive to have another conversation altogether?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Is it desire? Arent they just there to facilitate a ****? Arent they just recepticles for the viewers imagination rather than having any subjectivity themselves. Are women still complaining about this? I thought this was a battle long forgotten.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, no

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

Which is the problem IMHO
A lot of men see joining a group or making a fuss about these issues as being somewhat of a sign of weakness, a bit "gay" for want of a better expression.

Let us go with our good instincts on this. If the idea of "men's groups" bewailing the lot of the (compared to the past, and the present in other parts of the world) extremely pampered group of men in modern Western societies feels really "ghey" and sad and pathetic it probably is!
Feg, after I posting my rants on this thread I felt somewhat embarrassed by it this morning.:o That is the little voice of sanity speaking IMO.

Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers would probably say stop whining and be very thankful for what you've got.

Wicknight wrote:

Thankfully this is some what changing, but then you have the different problem of extremism taking hold in new men's issue groups, like the nut jobs who are involved in some of the father's right groups in Britian and Austrialia. Just like the extreme feminists ("kill all men" etc) gave feminism a bad name in the past, these extreme maleists give the male issue movement a very bad name.

As I said, the men's issues groups are fruitloops (so I wouldn't be thankful about men forming these kind of groups). I admit they provide a bit of entertainment at times (chucking eggs at Labour Ministers, disrupting the UK Lottery:)) but they may be dangerous too.
How long will it be before one of their nuttier members commits an act of terrorism?

Metrovelvet wrote:

There seem to be people who want to talk about it

Nah. I think most people somewhat interested in this stuff prefer to rant about it rather than discuss it.
You can't have a good rant without people (in this case feminists) to bounce it off.

EDIT: I watched one of the BBC's "If" type-programs last night (on "Peak Oil"). They were also plugging heavy engineering jobs for women [one of the main characters was a woman in charge of an exploratory oil drilling derrick in Alaska, fighting the good fight against sexist co-workers while trying to find oil to keep our cars on the road].
Seems a bit late for any (v. young) girls to be watching it but it must have been a repeat I suppose.

Now I really will belt up.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

Oh sleepy you really love women dont you?

I dislike you and a lot of your views, not all women. Don't be so arrogant. Fortunately you're not the perfect representative of women.

Why dont you start a thread about what victims men are instead of wah wahing on this one, which is supposed to be about dumb magazines and the dumbing down of feminism.

The dumbing down of feminism? The women who read, buy, write and star in these dumb magazines are clearly not feminists as they have no respect for themselves or their gender. Most intelligent women I know hate these celebrity non-entities and their simpering as much as I do.

Some posters have argued that these women are doing no harm but the damage can already be seen in our teenaged girls who instead of admiring intelligent or talented women now glamourise and idolise simpering idiots like Chantelle Houghton or Paris Hilton. Sure these women are rich, have fashionable clothes but they're ditzy, talentless, idiots. Not exactly something we want our children aspiring to be. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with a woman being rich or wearing glamourous clothes. There are plenty of examples of women who are rich, glamourous, talented and intelligent without being media whores (Nicole Kidman, Halle Berry, Hilary Clinton, Kelly Holmes, Anita Roddick etc). Surely these are the women we should be encouraging our children to admire rather than some ignorant idiot with a loud mouth that appeared on a reality TV show?

Sleepy

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Just a point: most men I know wouldn't be prepared to work for the salaries on offer in childcare. My sister works in the field and tbh, I think she's mad to allow herself be so underpaid. She's got a degree and a number of other qualifications and still earns only slightly more than minimum wage.

Now, my sister is happy to work for this kind of salary because as she'd admit herself, she's always been mad about babies and young children and so she loves the work itself. I don't think I've ever met a man who'd be so mad about children that they'd sacrifice their earning power for it.

metrovelvet

fly_agaric wrote:

As I said, the men's issues groups are fruitloops (so I wouldn't be thankful about men forming these kind of groups). I admit they provide a bit of entertainment at times (chucking eggs at Labour Ministers, disrupting the UK Lottery:)) but they may be dangerous too.
How long will it be before one of their nuttier members commits an act of terrorism?.

Isnt this partly because credible people wont speak up for them? Also there are plenty of intelligent men around who advocate for masculanism [at least in the US].

The bizarre thing about them, is that despite my supporting a lot of what fathers advocacy groups say, the ones who get the attention are the last ones youd want your kids near.

fly_agaric wrote:

Nah. I think most people somewhat interested in this stuff prefer to rant about it rather than discuss it.
You can't have a good rant without people (in this case feminists) to bounce it off..

Yes you can. And also there are plenty of people talking about this and not ranting.

As for women and science - I think a lot of it comes down to role models. Or having parents who will kick your ass.

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

I don't think I've ever met a man who'd be so mad about children that they'd sacrifice their earning power for it.

Well thats obviously not the case for all men because there was a long discussion about this topic a few months back on Boards.ie (which I though you were involved in, maybe not) where a lot of posters seemed rather angry at the discrimination men face in this area. So obviously there are some men who would want to work in this area (no men, no discrimination).

It might be a reason men who do want to work in this area don't get much support from other men though I suppose

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

I dislike you and a lot of your views,

Then I know I'm on the right track.

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

As for women and science - I think a lot of it comes down to role models. Or having parents who will kick your ass.

Very true about the parents getting under you.

I just want to point out that science is a different kettle of fish to engineering.

Most science students/future graduates in Ireland would be women now I think - but the "glass ceiling" effect exists for careers there too.

http://www.entemp.ie/press/2005/20050414a.htm

Some sections (the physics/maths end of things) still have a large excess of men over women but the rapidly growing, cutting edge end of things (IMO) is really biologial/medical and its various interfaces with the others (e.g. with physics for the new imaging/diagnostic techniques in medicine). Biology/Medical is very much female-dominated (in terms of numbers of students and young researchers).

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote:

Then I know I'm on the right track.

How arrogant are you? Do you actually think you represent the majority of women? Because, frankly, that's quite insulting to them.

Dudess

Wicknight wrote:

I always find it funny that men are constantly berated by women for "objectifing women" by looking at things like Playboy and porn etc, yet women seem perfectly happy to objectify other famous women a lot more but also in the most horrible nasty mean spirited fashion. These famous or well known women become verbal punching bags for all the vile venom women want to unload to others.

At least when guys look at porn they are objectifing in a nice way (well regular porn, not talking about all the bondage crap). These women are objects but they are objects of desire, not objects of hatred to be despised

I always point that out when any of my female friends get on their high horse about my porn collection ... strangely they don't really get my point

Couldn't agree more, Wicknight. So many women constantly CONSTANTLY bitch about other women's appearances - whether they are images in a magazine or TV or real women (behind their backs of course:rolleyes:). And yes, there is some shocking viciousness in the tones they use. There is but one explanation for it: jealousy.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote:

How arrogant are you? Do you actually think you represent the majority of women? Because, frankly, that's quite insulting to them.

Not at all. I find it flattering that people like you find me repulsive. I dont think your in a position to say what the majority of women would find insulting or not.