Masculism - what are your thoughts on it?

simu

We get many posters complaining about feminism on here but you hear very little about masculism (the male version of feminism). Well, it's a bit more complicated that that - see here for more info. So, would people here who are annoyed about feminism "going too far" or "creating advantages for women at the expense of men" (to mention two common criticisms levered at feminism on these boards) be interested in setting up or getting involved with a masculinist group? Or is it better to go for pure egalitarianism? Is that even possible? Any other thoughts on masculism?

bizmark

Plenty of good anti feminist pro men sites and blogs springing up all over the place if men are interested personally i read a large number of them every day.

simu

bizmark wrote:

Plenty of good anti feminist pro men sites and blogs springing up all over the place if men are interested personally i read a large number of them every day.

linkehs?

Dirk Gently

is it better to go for pure egalitarianism? ----> YES,
with equality meaning the celebration and acceptance of difference (not between sexes but between all individual humans)with no barriers put up against any individuals personal development based on sexual stereotypes. Equality meaning there is no such thing as male and female outside of the boundaries of biology

My opinion on Masculism is the same as that on Feminism, down with this sort of thing.

No matter how noble the original intentions of both forms of these elitist attitudes they end up just being mouthpieces for sexist propaganda. Just as Feminism was born out of female inequality so too is Masculism born out of discrimination and negative stereotyping against males. Both movements put the promotion of their own sex as priority by their very name and do little to promote equality.

Dirty Feminist cnuts:
I am sick to death of women going on about multi-tasking and giving themselves the monopoly on emotions and sensitivity. Social engineering I reckon. Why is it that women have no accountability for their actions. Everything they do is justified as girl power (remember that lot ) and they accept no criticism for what they do( while criticising everything male). What’s with all these urban myths about women being the more compassionate sex, the more caring and understanding sex, while men are labeled as mono emotional retards incapable of having feelings (or at least not on the same level as our female superiors).

From my own experience I find that there is no such thing as a male or female mindset, only men and women behaving the way they feel they should behave because of the influences of their environment. I have met plenty of women who are closed books and have no idea how to communicate beyond following the lead their popular friends give. I also know loads of blokes who are emotional in the extreme and never shut up talking about their feelings( usually because some woman was insensitive and trampled all over his feelings). The point is that people left to themselves without pressure from either the pro-male or pro-female groups will pretty much form their own unique personality which doesn’t fall into the stereotypical male or female brackets.

Society has changed from the past where we were dominated by an anti-woman church and when men worked long hours in physically demanding jobs. This environment polarized men and women into the bread winner man beast and the feeble only good for making babies and cleaning woman. Today, with equal access to education, training and career choices it is more likely that you will find groups of like minded men and women within the circles of their interests.

From personal observation of society and how little cliques and groups work I reckon the differences between the sexes are a lot more to do with environment and promotion and discouragement of certain attitudes rather than a natural difference. Feminism and Masculism are the lowest common denominators which scrape the barrel of humanity and keep HUMANS ignorant of their true individual nature by creating an artificial divide between the sexes.

Why Feminism or Masculism, why not just promote equality and not try to attribute certain positive and negative characteristics to a certain sex. Just let people develop naturally.
I don’t except that because I’m a man I am not up to the female standard when it comes to emotions / sensitivity / multi tasking / communication / feelings. I do except that some women may be better skilled in some of those areas than I am just as I accept that some women are a lot less skilled in those areas than me also.

Remember that Mary black song……my heart is low, so low, only as low as a womans heart can be. Mary Black is a feminist cnut oppressing the male population by stating that men can’t feel as deeply as women do. How’s that for an overreaction, stick that in your vibrator and smoke it.

Equality ftw

metrovelvet

clown bag - are you sure your not a feminist? THere are many who would agree with a lot of what you say.

BTW a man using the word **** is like a white person using the word ******.

lostexpectation

is masculism about equality?, i agree that men's role is changing and this needs to be addressed I don't the change as bad thing


BTW a man using the word **** is like a white person using the word ******.

really, I've always used cnut in a equal opportunity way.

Dirk Gently

If the word in question is cnut, I believe that word has lost all significance with it’s over usage such as how the word b!tch has being reclaimed as meaning powerful woman. I use cnut in a gender nutral way to describe a person who annoys me. Why is a man using the word more unacceptable than a woman?

Why do you assume I’m a feminist just because I favour equality. The problem feminists have is a lot of women deviate from the party line and use feminism as an excuse to bash men and justify their own sexist attitudes. I’m sure a lot of pc feminists would agree with what I have to say but the point is feminism has been hijacked by extremists and the only policy a person needs to advocate is equality. Why call yourself something which refers to only one sex. why not recognise the futility of labeling people and reject outdated stereotypes. Is Jordan spread naked over page 3 a symbol of female power or does she degrade women by institutionalising women as sex objects.

My personal opinion is that she is neither, she is simply one individual human making her own choices and I don't feel she owes women anything and I don't feel she deserves to be put under pressure by anyone who claims she is disgracing her sex. She is only degrading herself and only doing so if she feels herself that she has degraded herself. I am recognizing Jordan’s right to exercise her own decisions without the stigma of her having to represent a higher ideal. I don't like claims being made on people by certain groups.

Only when people stop referring to themselves as feminists or masculinists will the artificial differences engrained in people disappear.

Feminist-masculinist
Republican-unionist
Catholic-protestant
Religious-atheist

All of the above divide people and artificially create inequality and superiority, with those claiming to belong to a particular group discriminating ( a lot of the time unaware that their group discriminate) against the opposing group even though that was not the intention on the formation of each group.

Ironically I would call myself a humanist (which is in itself a group) as I don’t believe in labels and prefer to be self sufficient. I believe my own logic, reason and heart should determine my actions and attitudes towards others. This logical process points in only one direction- equality, because if I was to discriminate against anyone I would be creating the conditions for those I discriminated against to oppose me. If I accept each person as they are and don't impose my will on them they would find it very hard to in turn oppose me as I am not a threat to them.



*exception to the rule is women paying for things in shops, cnuts

fly_agaric

simu wrote:

So, would people here who are annoyed about feminism "going too far" or "creating advantages for women at the expense of men" (to mention two common criticisms levered at feminism on these boards) be interested in setting up or getting involved with a masculinist group?

Smells like yet more "look - I'm a poor, poor victim" BS to me. It's not pretty, and it is a dead-end IMO. Look at NI for examples of two opposed groups playing a zero-sum game and engaging in an "I'm the bigger oppressed victim" píssing contest!

lostexpectation

well there is a difference between masculism and masculists. one needs to study and regonise maleness.

Sleepy

Clown Bag, I think I just heard a hammer hit a nail on the head.

And metrovelvet: it is not a man's fault if some women have issues with a slang name for part of their anatomy being used as an insult. It's no different from calling someone a 'dick' or a 'knob' tbh. Trying to liken it to a derogatory word used to describe an entire race is sensationalism as only an American can sensationalise tbh.

metrovelvet

Why do you insist on pinning things down to blame?

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. What I was trying to say is that some theorists liken to to tribal permission, where its ok for example for black americans to say nigga but has a different charge than when I white person says it. It has a different resonance when a woman says it. Oh and are you trying to degrade my nationality with the latter part of that statement?

Trying to liken it to a derogatory word used to describe an entire race is sensationalism as only an American can sensationalise tbh.

clown bag - IM not assuming your a feminist. I said you share a lot of similar opinions with them. Take it easy.

Black Swan

Like what do the French say? Long live the difference? There are some good things about the differences between the sexes. So while we are doing battle here, let's not forget this!;)

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

clown bag - IM not assuming your a feminist. I said you share a lot of similar opinions with them. Take it easy.

Some of the more rational feminists might share my opinions alright however I don't choose to aline myself with an ideology which advocates that males need challenging in order to have equality. People who discriminate need challenging, not males (the category I conveniently fall into). Feminists discriminate against me because they can't look past my sex as a consequence of their polar view of the sexes as a competing phenomenon. We are not competing, we simply exist and I for one wish to nullify any promotion of either males or females as a collective consciousness. We as males or as females are not a collective consciousness, we are all different and think and feel differently from our fellow males and females.

Down with artificial defensive alliances!
Up with personal freedom unhindered by restrictive ideals which we must conform to.
also down with sticking it to the yanks sleepy head. ( I always appreciate when people point out what an excellent point I just made though. You earned a few brownie points there and are on my safe list now)


Again on the word cnut, offense is in the ear of the receiver. Most people would accept that cnut is a gender free word in the context its used here in Dublin, if you took offence its a cultural difference between us rather crude Dubs who have been desensitised to it and you who still view the word as derogatory. It wasn't meant as an insult; look at it as me being a black person using the N word in the company of other black people.


p.s. I always take it easy, just had a Cadburys caramel a few minutes ago in fact.

to blue lagoon - I’m not doing battle against any particular sex here, I'm only pointing out the futility of partaking in a battle between the sexes. (except when it comes to women paying for things, see thread in AH for truth)

I believe in the possibility of equality. I'm all for it, and I "try" to apply it every day. Which is why I wonder why it has to be a battle for men to gain the same level of rights that women have, while throwing out the extreme double standards that are being applied across the board from the Law, to social conditioning.

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights? Whereas when a woman talks about equality (not fem-nazi) its whats being withheld from them all these centuries?

And the awful thing is that my desire to treat women as equals is being erroded. I see constant discrimination against men in custody laws, sex laws, car insurance, and very little happening to address these issues. If a woman complains about a situation its perfectly acceptable, whereas if a man complains about this, he's either unfair or a wuss.

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are. Its not as if things will get better if we stay quiet, they haven't so far. In fact they've gotten worse because we've accepted everything, even the guilt for holding women back a century ago (regardless of our ages). Things need to change, and soon.

simu

Deleted User wrote:

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights?

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

female are superior?

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are. Its not as if things will get better if we stay quiet, they haven't so far. In fact they've gotten worse because we've accepted everything, even the guilt for holding women back a century ago (regardless of our ages). Things need to change, and soon.

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

simu

simu wrote:

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

The most I've seen from any males, friends or otherwise, is loads of bluster about the subject. How its wrong. How it interferes with our lives etc. I haven't met or heard these male extremists you mention.

lostexpectation wrote:

female are superior?

No. But they currently have superior rights.

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

Never said they were.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

And this is the problem I see. As new laws are brought in and society changes to accomadate female superiority, men are being relegated to a "lesser" role. And this is generating more anger, and frustration than before.

What "new" laws?

fly_agaric

Simu wrote:

I'd say it's because ordinary men don't talk about it that much - there seem to be a lot of bitter extremists out there!

Eh, nice bit of circular reasoning there Simu.
So if ordinary men start talking about that stuff would that mean they have all become "bitter extremists"? Why the hell did you start this thread anyway, I wonder?

Was is so you could "out" what you consider to be "bitter extremists" - somewhat like a boards version of Mao's 100 flowers program?
Give an example of bitter extremism on this thread?

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote:

Why is it that when a man talks about equality its assumed we're attacking womens rights?

Because most of the time it is talk along the lines of "women have to much", and the answer seems to be take it back, rather than give men more. You even mention this a number of times in this very post :rolleyes:

For example, any time a body for women (BrestCheck, Minster for Women (in Austrialia I think)) is brought up the answer seems to be get rid of these, rather than provide men with similar services. Or the idea seems to be that women have enough and they should just stop campaigning now. Or men just want to complain about them

BreastCheck is great. There should be way way more BreastCheck clinics. Breast cancer should be cured.

I would love to have a discussion on Boards.ie that focuses purely on what men need, rather than what women have and shouldn't be allowed have :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote:

If a man complains about this, he's either unfair or a wuss.

When women first started "complaining" they were arrested and beaten .... I think men can put up with being called a wuss by other men and women.

That is of course if they actually want to get things done, rather than just complain about how better it is to be a women.

God its like some men want this all to just happen, for someone else to do it, so they don't have to put up with any battles are hardship. I've even heard calls on other threads that the feminists themselves shoudl be doing it, presumable so the men can put the feet up and watch the game.

Deleted User wrote:

Personally I believe the time has come for men to stop accepting the way things are.

I agree ... go do something about it ... start a legal challange to the insurance schemes, join a campaign to get transparency in parental hearings.

metrovelvet

There are extremists and there are moderate views also in every advocacy group. THe extremists tend to get the most attention because they know how to demand it. They serve also to make the moderates look good.

clown bag - you seem to be advocating an androgynous world? Would that be right?

There are men like John Waters who's bugbear is things like fathers rights and domestic violence and then there's Robery Bly who [Iron Man] who wanted to reinstall masculinity [or at least his version of it] as a genuine viable option for men. The way I see it is there are two ways to talk about this: about legalities and rights or about identity.

To look at masculinity in an Irish context is particularly interesting, given their history, "mother Ireland," the dominace of the virgin Mary as an icon, the castration which comes from colonialism and matriarchy, and how Irish machismo works.

IMO it is impossible to talk about these things without taking nationhood into account. For example in the US, macho is back with a vengeance in this post 911 world, and its not such a bad thing imo. Applying the same paradigms to American machismo, English effimancy [cultural bias from an American perspective as thats how they seem through my frame of refernce -probably dont seem that way to English women], or Irish masculinities doesnt seem all that productive imo.

fly_agaric

lostexpectation wrote:

the idea that women are now equal (in Ireland) is ridiculous!

Okay. It is.

I wonder though, what exactly will it take to acheive this mystical state of "equality of the sexes" that feminists aim for?
I suppose the typical feminist daydream wish-list would read something like:

1. An end to male violence of all types against women.
2. Equal numbers of men and women, (or greater numbers of women) in politics.
3. Equal numbers of men and women (or greater numbers of women) in all high-power, high status careers (incl. top level sports, entertainment) which are male dominated.
4. Men and women controlling equal amounts of money (or women having more if thats how things work out).
5. Women should be free to choose to do whatever they like (some feminists may like to exclude the choice of being a housewife!).

As an example for 5, if you have a baby. Daddy should do his fair share with the children and help out about the house so you can pursue your career too. Eminently fair.

But if you prefer, he can disappear off into the wild blue yonder and limit his contribution to money for the child freeing you to find a new disposi-partner who can act as your preferred disposi-father to your children - its all your choice, on your terms! Or you could use some joy-juice from a clinic to cut pesky men out of the loop enirely - again - your choice!

And about that baby - if you want to have it, no expense should be spared for you and the precious baby-to-be healthcare-wise. Excellent.
But of course if you decide you don't want it - hey-presto, it becomes an inanimate cluster of cells to be disposed of all the way up to the start of the 3rd trimester if you take your time making your mind up, or you find out that it is not perfect in some way! It's all your choice. Have it your way.

Afaics, Feminists reason that because we haven't got anywhere close in all of these areas it is because of the "patriarcy"/male oppression of women or the fact that "male and female gender roles imposed by our evil society need to be changed" or whatever. However, the biggest reason we haven't got close enough to satisfy the feminists IMO, even in Western countries, is because their program would require the brutality of a totalitarian state to implement fully. Going through the big wishlist:

For 1 - how the hell do they think they are going to achieve this without a eugenics program aimed at removing violence fom humanity. Violence is part of human nature - no?
The only other stopgap way as I see it would be laws where any act violence by men against women, verbal, physical, mental etc becomes part of some class of special offences with special punishments cf other acts of violence to deter and prevent reoffending and subject to special efforts on the part of the police.
Maybe women sould be free to retaliate against men who are violent towards them without ever fearing any legal consequences themselves. Or men could get some reward for punishing men (violently?:)) who are violent to women?

For 2, and for 3, intensive campaigns will be required to encourage women into politics and the male-dominated high-status careers, and maybe campaigns to encourage men into the "female" careers also.

But what happens to 2 and 3 if it turns out that there are strong innate reasons why men and women tend to be drawn to different career areas no matter what campaigns and elimination of sexism drives are launched?

Well, the only way to solve that little bump on the road would be to impose quotas and in the case of politics maybe try to somehow ensure that women never vote for male candidates.
How do you do that in a secret ballot?

4 could follow from 2 and 3.
However, if we can't get exactly equal numbers of men and women doing every single type of job (incl. staying at home) and working just as hard at them as each other (assuming any remaining wage discrimination within the fields is eliminated), we will have to have the govt. setting wage levels for every job so that overall stats come out that men as a group will not earn more than women!

For 5, If women attain infinite freedom of choice in all areas of their lives the result will be that noone else will have any rights at all in areas of their lives that impinge on women! The old rule about swung cats and neighbours noses applies here.

To repeat - the entire feminist project wishlist is not really achieveable except in a totalitarian state where men have been relegated to second-class citizens and in fact, everyone has their rights curtailed in some way or other by that state in pursuit of its gender-equality will 'o' the wisp.

How close can we get to the realisation of the feminist goals without democracies becoming totalitarian states?

Well, since feminist ideology is getting such a grip on govt. thinking in Western countries, and IMO, most of the extra women who will go into politics will be feminists (people who go for politics usually have some political axe to grind and political women's favourite axe is feminism), I think we will find out in the coming years!

As far as I'm concerned, the feminists can take it and shove it where the sun dont shine.

metrovelvet

Um. I thought this was about masculinism?

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

Um. I thought this was about masculinism?

"Masculinism"/(Masculism) is just an utterly pathetic "me-too" backlash/response to feminism, wailing on about unfairness in society to men - the very worst of which was around thousands of years before feminists came on the scene.

The success that feminism has had in winning more rights for women exposes some male-female double standards in society [many of which cannot ever be eliminated IMO] which didn't grate as much when men were compensated far more just for being men than they are today.

Masculinism has no power at present and IMO it never will have any real political clout as a movement in its current form.
As I said before, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the backlash turns quite nasty at some point and govt's classify these groups as terrorists. Maybe masculinism will have more clout then.

The only good thing about masculinism may be that it could throw a few wrenches in the feminist efforts towards attaining their nasty and dangerous "gender equality through better government" dream.

Anyway I think Simu was just using this thread as bait to sniff out so-called "extremists" anyway and couldn't really give a crap so I don't feel too bad going off topic.

lostexpectation

Deleted User wrote:

No. But they currently have superior rights.

I don't think you could call their rights superior, not at all.

They are unbalanced (unequal) in things like parentage etc but not superior...

I think it has its place.

even F4J do (although the're some unsavoury characters involved.)

metrovelvet

If you notice, the place where there is imbalance is around domestic issues, which is no doubt a bi product of the constitutional, thereby institutional sexism in the Irish consitution, which aligns a womans place in the home.

The only good thing about masculinism may be that it could throw a few wrenches in the feminist efforts towards attaining their nasty and dangerous "gender equality through better government" dream.

Why is it nasty and dangerous to want to see some women in government? Or to encourage girls to go into science and technology? To become athletes? To encourage sport for girls, to want your daughters to have more role models other than some tits and ass bimbo and to teach her to take ownership over her body and her sexuality? What is so wrong about restoring dignity to femininity? To learning how to respect and be respected? To be aware that women can and have accomplished things?

Your listings of 1-5 are not a problem with feminism per se, but more about big government. The less micromanaging powers national government has the less likely your paranoid fantasy of a feminist totalitarian state will come true.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

There are extremists and there are moderate views also in every advocacy group. THe extremists tend to get the most attention because they know how to demand it. They serve also to make the moderates look good.

clown bag - you seem to be advocating an androgynous world? Would that be right?

There are men like John Waters who's bugbear is things like fathers rights and domestic violence and then there's Robery Bly who [Iron Man] who wanted to reinstall masculinity [or at least his version of it] as a genuine viable option for men. The way I see it is there are two ways to talk about this: about legalities and rights or about identity.

To look at masculinity in an Irish context is particularly interesting, given their history, "mother Ireland," the dominace of the virgin Mary as an icon, the castration which comes from colonialism and matriarchy, and how Irish machismo works.

IMO it is impossible to talk about these things without taking nationhood into account. For example in the US, macho is back with a vengeance in this post 911 world, and its not such a bad thing imo. Applying the same paradigms to American machismo, English effimancy [cultural bias from an American perspective as thats how they seem through my frame of refernce -probably dont seem that way to English women], or Irish masculinities doesnt seem all that productive imo.

I highlighted your post above because of some good points you raise.

If by an androgynous world you mean a world where there are no preconceptions about a person’s personality or persons ability based on their sex then yes. I am not advocating that people lose sight of the biological fact of their own sex, I'm just saying that a persons sex is a physical thing (those of us with a womb and those of us with male genitalia). You are physically either a man or a woman and from there on it’s up to you as to how you develop your personality and attitudes. It is not a predefined rule that you must have certain characteristics because of the physical fact of your sex.


Advocacy groups such as in this case- Masculinists and Feminists by definition advocate issues favourable to one gender. This results in them becoming adversarial and contributes to public perception of irreconcilable differences between the sexes by excluding one sex forcing them to aline with the group which advocates their sex. If both groups wish to attain equality then a gender neutral approach to rights would be better than a gender exclusive approach which is ultimately counterproductive.
I prefer universal Human rights over women’s rights or men’s rights.

Your example of nationhood is also important but I would go further to saying that popular culture in society also plays an important part in polarisation of the sexes. Things like repressive religious attitudes, education, role models and government policy all play a part. These external factors influence people into behaving a certain way. With gender neutral government policy, education and marketing of products people would be more personality independent.

I can understand why groups form to campaign solely on male or female issues such as fathers rights or stronger women’s representation in certain professions. They are born out of inequality but to address the problem we need gender neutral Human rights and not gender specific rights which compete with the other sex.

The fact is that attitudes are neither male or female. Some people will be aggressive in nature. Some people will be sexually liberated and view sex as a physical thing while others will favour monogamy. Some people will be adventureous,conservative,selfish, caring,emotional,logical or whatever attitudes you care to list. The point is that none of these attitudes are gender specific. They only become gender specific when held up as an ideal for your own sex or as negative propaganda against what you see as the rival sex.

It is not right for a woman to tell a man he must be more sensitive and communicate his feelings more only for the next woman to come along and tell him he is not manly enough and should be more macho, just as it is unacceptable for a man to complain about a womans aggressive nature and tell her to be more gentile and compassionate only for the next man to tell her she should be more assertive. Certain women and men have strong sometimes selfish and individualistic attitudes. They are competitive and strong willed. It is an individual personality which dictates their actions and not their sex.
Any attempt to characterize personality traits and to have gender specific laws is sexist and promotes inequality and the stigmatisation of those members of each sex who don’t conform to the rule.

Unfortunately people are influenced by the society around them and the loudest critics, the dominant religious institution and best marketing techniques usually have an effect on the individual resulting in an artificial perception of the role they must play in that society.

Why the need to define men and women in any way other than the fact of biology?

Masculinists and Feminists both contribute to inequality and I reject them both. I don’t except any organization which tries to define my personality and actions while either competing against my rights or promoting my rights above the rights of others. I view both Masculinists and Feminists as reactionary and ultimately counterproductive and competing ideologies(or same ideology adopted by competing groups). There is no such thing as a typical man or a typical woman, only different attitudes displayed by many different people from both sexes.

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

If you notice, the place where there is imbalance is around domestic issues, which is no doubt a bi product of the constitutional, thereby institutional sexism in the Irish consitution, which aligns a womans place in the home.

Ironically this sexist reality works both ways, by defining a womans role as in the home it undermines men’s rights concerning anything related to children or homelife. No doubt this unequal legislation is a result of heavy church influence in the wording of the constitution.(an artifical and biased influence on the indivdual)

All the more reason for gender neutral legislation to avoid discriminating against one sex which in turn balances itself out by coming full circle by discriminating against the opposite sex through the same sexist legislation.
Only through gender neutral policy, promotion and legal rights will inequality and as a result sexist attitudes fade away.

metrovelvet

clown bag wrote:

Advocacy groups such as in this case- Masculinists and Feminists by definition advocate issues favourable to one gender. .

Not always. Some yes, often no. Many are in collaborative discourse.

clown bag wrote:

I prefer universal Human rights over women’s rights or men’s rights..

Yes, except that globally, human rights tend to skip the female gender.[China, Africa, the Middle East etc etc]

clown bag wrote:

Your example of nationhood is also important but I would go further to saying that popular culture in society also plays an important part in polarisation of the sexes. Things like repressive religious attitudes, education, role models and government policy all play a part..

OF course. And every nation has its own pop culture which plays into this, from what you learn in school, to what you hear on the radio to advertising.

clown bag wrote:

I can understand why groups form to campaign solely on male or female issues such as fathers rights or stronger women’s representation in certain professions. They are born out of inequality but to address the problem we need gender neutral Human rights and not gender specific rights which compete with the other sex...

Like it or not, we are competing with each other now at least in the marketplace.

clown bag wrote:

Why the need to define men and women in any way other than the fact of biology?

Well, we are more than our genitals, aren't we?

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

Masculinists and Feminists both contribute to inequality and I reject them both.

Rather unfortunately though, without them nothing gets done.

Who is going to campaign for more BreastCheck centres if a women group that does aren't suppost to? As soon as they do they are branded feminists demanding superior medical treatment for women over men, all because they aren't rushing around spending equal time demanding testicular cancer check centres.

As I said in an early post on another thread, at some point you have to specialise in what you are campaigning for otherwise everything states is wishy-washy general "ideals" and nothing ever gets done. Eventually you have to actually pick a cause to campaign for.

Women, naturally, will in general be interested in issues that effect themselves, women's issues (and traditionally children's issues). Not all women, plenty of women campaign for male issues (AMEN was started by a women after all).

Dirk Gently

To metrovelvet:

yes we are more than our genitiles, thats my point. We are indivdual human beings with our own outlooks and attitudes on life. Why try to link these attitudes and actions or inactions to our genitiles.

Gender nuetral human rights and legislation discriminate against no-one based on their sex. Gender specific human rights can disciminate against the opposite sex. Why do we have to compete in the work place. Co-operation and not competition. The reason you are competing is because you see someone who is different to you. If you didn't recognise that difference who would you be competing against?- other humans maybe instead of the other sex.

Wicknight:

Why is it necessary to pick a gender based cause. Would the women’s groups and men’s groups not better spend their time campaigning together for increased access to treatment for all cancer patients, demanding facilities to accommodate both sexes and not investment in one area at the expense of the other sex. why make it a breast cancer issue or a testicular cancer issue, why not make it a cancer prevention/treatment issue. Focusing on treatment for either men only or women only is nothing to do with equality, its about looking out for number 1. Campaigning for balanced investment to meet everybody’s needs would cancel out certain groups being marginalised and feeling discriminated against.

fly_agaric

Metrovelvet wrote:

Why is it nasty and dangerous to want to see some women in government? Or to encourage girls to go into science and technology? To become athletes? To encourage sport for girls, to want your daughters to have more role models other than some tits and ass bimbo and to teach her to take ownership over her body and her sexuality? What is so wrong about restoring dignity to femininity? To learning how to respect and be respected? To be aware that women can and have accomplished things?

I don't believe I ever said encouraging people to do well in whatever they enjoy and/or have a talent for was nasty or dangerous, did I?

Metrovelvet wrote:

Your listings of 1-5 are not a problem with feminism per se, but more about big government. The less micromanaging powers national government has the less likely your paranoid fantasy of a feminist totalitarian state will come true.

It is not a paranoid fantasy [well, okay, maybe it is a bit:)]. Its a statement of the kind of govt. feminists will need if they are to achieve their goals in a reasonable timeframe. Feminists seem to be quite impatient IMO.

1-5 are a good summary of the end-goals of feminism, no? The basic reasons why there is, in their opinion, so much work still to be done, even in the West, until we attain this wonderful gender-equal, 50/50 straight down the line in outcome (or if it is still somewhat over the line in certain areas, who cares, so long as its on our side of the line;) ) society we are falling so far short of.

Some of the goals [especially numbers 1 and 5, but maybe 2-4 depending on the strength of the innate differences between men and women contributing to the gender gaps/differences] are unattainable without very "big" govt. actions.

Of course, committed feminists don't care a whit about that and will demand government bullies everyone (esp.men) just as much as is found to be necessary to achieve their wonderful dream.

After all, they are on the side of the angels - just like many great idealists before them.

That is what is nasty and dangerous about the feminist project.

Feminazi is a really excellent and apt word on a few levels IMHO!

metrovelvet

fly-

You seem to be referencing 1960s radical feminism. Would that be right? We are in 2006. Come on.... time to catch up.

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

Why is it necessary to pick a gender based cause.

Because some (not all, but some) issues are gender based.

clown bag wrote:

Would the women’s groups and men’s groups not better spend their time campaigning together for increased access to treatment for all cancer patients

No, they wouldn't because that is too general a request/demand. Simply campaigning for increased access to all cancer treatment would be counter productive because at some point you need to answer the question "What do you actually want".

Campaigning in a high level abstract sense for all treatments, for all types of cancer for all groups of people is too much for all but the biggest organistation. So you have organisations filter down to specific campagings. It is at that point where a breast cancer group goes, well we want a BreastCheck centre in every town in Ireland etc. This is even true in gender wide organisations like the Cancer Society of Ireland. Even they realise they can't do everything at the same time, so you have specific gender campaigns within the organisation, Action Prostate Cancer and Action Breast Cancer.

In the process of this necessary sepecification, you get people drawn to campaigns they are personally invested in. A lot of women are invested in breast cancer, because it is a serious diesase that could effect any of them.

Other examples highlight other areas where a general gender nuterial system would be counter productive. Womens refugee systems need to be gender specific. Saying we want a end to all abuse in the home is fine, but you can't put abused women and abused men in the same refugees, you need them seperated. It has been proven that women on the run from abused marriages feel much safer in refugees run by women and containing only women, and I imagine the same is true for men. So with the realisation that you will need seperate refugees women will naturally go for the womens refugee for a start. It is hard enough to get one of those up and running, with proper funding etc, without expecting the same organistation to have to get two up and running at the same time.

clown bag wrote:

Focusing on treatment for either men only or women only is nothing to do with equality, its about looking out for number 1.

And wanting to cure cancer means you don't give a sh*t about people dying of AIDS :rolleyes:

Thats nonsense clown bag. It is about choosing a cause you care about, not about choosing a side in some ridiculous gender war. Being involved in something like breast cancer campaigning doesn't mean you don't care about any other cause. It doesn't mean you hope men are dying in the street from testicular or lung cancer.

It is a realisation that there is only so much one person or group can do. Demanding that they attempt to do everything is ridiculous, or demanding that they stop work because the other "side" hasn't bothered to catch up is equally ridiculous.

Dirk Gently

Wicknight wrote:

Because some (not all, but some) issues are gender based.


No, they wouldn't because that is too general a request/demand. Simply campaigning for increased access to all cancer treatment would be counter productive because at some point you need to answer the question "What do you actually want".

Campaigning in a high level abstract sense for all treatments, for all types of cancer for all groups of people is too much for all but the biggest organistation. So you have organisations filter down to specific campagings. It is at that point where a breast cancer group goes, well we want a BreastCheck centre in every town in Ireland etc. This is even true in gender wide organisations like the Cancer Society of Ireland. Even they realise they can't do everything at the same time, so you have specific gender campaigns within the organisation, Action Prostate Cancer and Action Breast Cancer.

In the process of this necessary sepecification, you get people drawn to campaigns they are personally invested in. A lot of women are invested in breast cancer, because it is a serious diesase that could effect any of them.

Other examples highlight other areas where a general gender nuterial system would be counter productive. Womens refugee systems need to be gender specific. Saying we want a end to all abuse in the home is fine, but you can't put abused women and abused men in the same refugees, you need them seperated. It has been proven that women on the run from abused marriages feel much safer in refugees run by women and containing only women, and I imagine the same is true for men. So with the realisation that you will need seperate refugees women will naturally go for the womens refugee for a start. It is hard enough to get one of those up and running, with proper funding etc, without expecting the same organistation to have to get two up and running at the same time.


And wanting to cure cancer means you don't give a sh*t about people dying of AIDS :rolleyes:

Thats nonsense clown bag. It is about choosing a cause you care about, not about choosing a side in some ridiculous gender war. Being involved in something like breast cancer campaigning doesn't mean you don't care about any other cause. It doesn't mean you hope men are dying in the street from testicular or lung cancer.

It is a realisation that there is only so much one person or group can do. Demanding that they attempt to do everything is ridiculous, or demanding that they stop work because the other "side" hasn't bothered to catch up is equally ridiculous.

I still fail to see how universal campaigning is counter productive. I'm not suggesting that everything happen all at once. I have no problem with a group focusing on the issue which needs to be addressed most urgently but fail to see why relatively small groups should focus on single issues while competing with other groups for funding. Surely an alliance would create a stronger lobby group and ensure that funding wasn't given to just the most focal group. It is in the interest of both those looking for breast cancer facilities and testicular cancer facilities to combine forces so as it is known to the powers that be that neither side can be marginalised and efforts must be made to address the problem universally and not in a way which only appeases one party at the expense of another party.
The problem is people look only at issues which affect them directly without looking at the bigger picture and failing to see how other issues affect their cause indirectly.

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

fly-

You seem to be referencing 1960s radical feminism. Would that be right? We are in 2006. Come on.... time to catch up.

LOL. I'm not very well up on all the various shades of feminism. I believe those 5 main goals are something all feminists aiming for gender equality in Western countries would agree on today.
What is out of date about them?
I hope most people won't want a totalitarian state just to attain their goals but I say its the only way it is going to happen.

Please tell me, how can one eliminate violence against women, get a 50/50 gender distribution in all jobs, and have women able to have complete freedom in all their relationships with men without a big government bossing people [including women] about?

Heres a pair of good quotes on Feminism from a book called The Blank Slate which I have sitting beside me at the moment:

(Incidentally the differences between feminists you talk of are mentioned in it and apparently the more extreme [radical] group of feminists in the US apparently say the others are not really feminists at all! Very confusing!)

"The obvious benefits of equality-of-outcome policies is that they might neutralise the remaining discrimination against women. But if men and women are not interchangeable, the costs have to be considered aswell."

hmmm...costs like governments bossing people around and ramming square pegs into round holes for the sake of the gender-equality dream.

"Feminism as a movement for social and political equity is important, but feminism as an academic clique committed to eccentric doctrines about human nature is not.
Eliminating discrimination between men and women is important but believing that women and men are born with indistinguishable minds is not.
Freedom of choice is important but ensuring that women make up exactly 50% of all professions is not. And eliminating sexual assault is important but advancing the theory that rapists are doing their part in a vast male conspiracy is not."

Anyway, as you said earlier - I am dragging things offtopic from "masculinism" or whatever so I'll stop now.

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

I still fail to see how universal campaigning is counter productive.

Universially campaigning for what ... curing cancer isn't a tangable goal. At the end of the day you don't campaign to "cure cancer".

You campaign for a BreastCheck centre to be opened down your road, you campaign for a new testicular cancer screening. You eventually have to get down from your universal campaigning to what you actually want to achieve, day by day. It is at this level where things fall into specific areas. There is simply too much to do everything so you have to be specific at some point.

clown bag wrote:

I have no problem with a group focusing on the issue which needs to be addressed most urgently but fail to see why relatively small groups should focus on single issues while competing with other groups for funding.

How should it work? BreastCheck should go "Hold on lads, we opened 5 new centres in Dublin this year but the AIDS research department in Dongal now needs new microscopes, so maybe we should hold off on getting the 6th centre open with that grant from the government so we can give the money to them"

So the BreastCheck group give the money to AIDS reserach. But why not Lung Cancer research? Why not starving children in Africa? Why not to rebuild the M50 motor way? Why not to build a school in Kerry?

It doesn't, and really shouldn't, work like that. The government, or the funding organisations makes sure the money goes to the causes, and the groups themselves try (and should try) to lobby for as much money as the government or funding agencies are prepared to give them.

There goal should be their cause, helping as many people as possible within their specific cause. As I said, it is counter productive to have them worry about their specific cause, and every other cause out there too who could also use the money. Because really every cause could use the money

clown bag wrote:

Surely an alliance would create a stronger lobby group and ensure that funding wasn't given to just the most focal group.

No, its the governments responsibility to decide who gets the money. Would you really want an unelected body deciding which areas of medical research are more worthy of public funds than others?

clown bag wrote:

It is in the interest of both those looking for breast cancer facilities and testicular cancer facilities to combine forces so as it is known to the powers that be that neither side can be marginalised and efforts must be made to address the problem universally and not in a way which only appeases one party at the expense of another party.

It is the interest of breast cancer facilities and testicular cancer facilities that no one gets sick or dies ever, from cancer, AIDS or bird flu.

But it isn't in the interests of breast cancer research or screening that public funds are given to some huge multi-campaign body that then decides how to divide the money up to the individual campaigns.

clown bag wrote:

The problem is people look only at issues which affect them directly without looking at the bigger picture and failing to see how other issues affect their cause indirectly.

What problem is this exactly?

You speak as if the reason we don't have more testicular cancer screening in Ireland is because the breast cancer groups have taken all the money. That is nonsense. The reason we don't have more testicular cancer screening in Ireland is because groups interested in testicular cancer screening are far and wide and very quiet. Why? Because men aren't intersted in getting involved in this. In fact most of the people involved in these screening programs that I've met are either professional doctors or women.

So if you want to actually do something, get involved.

http://www.cancer.ie/prostate/

simu

fly_agaric wrote:

Eh, nice bit of circular reasoning there Simu.
So if ordinary men start talking about that stuff would that mean they have all become "bitter extremists"? Why the hell did you start this thread anyway, I wonder?

Ordinary men might whinge about feminism the odd time on boards or in real life but very few actually make an effort to change any problems or inequalities they perceive by starting a group or campaigning or whatever. From loking at masculist blogs etc online (for example, some of the links from that wiki page in my first post), most men who are involved seem to be a bit extremist. This could change if it became more widespread for men to rally against cases where they are treated injustly and this could be a good thing just as it's important to have the voices of extremist feminists tempered by more moderate ones.

Personally, I'm not always convinced by masculist arguments but there are certainly examples of blatant discrimination in Ireland such as say, unmarried fathers not getting automatic custody of kids like unmarried mothers do, but men don't seem to care enough for it to become an election issue or anything.

Was is so you could "out" what you consider to be "bitter extremists" - somewhat like a boards version of Mao's 100 flowers program?
Give an example of bitter extremism on this thread?

No, Sherlock. It was to increase my postcount! Besides, I didn't say the extremism was ITT.

Dirk Gently

All you have convinced me of is the reality that single issue groups achieve single issue goals at the expense of other areas of interest. How is this constructive in the overall scheme of things except to give greater access to one section of the community? I'm not against campaigning on one issue by a subgroup that is part of a wider inclusive group. Its people who look at single issues in isolation and pay no attention to other issues which don’t directly affect them that I find unconstructive towards a common good.
Of course they are constructive to their own isolated needs.

The problem of course is limited funding which puts single issue groups against each other. Perhaps a broad campaign for an increase in corporate taxation to exclusively fund everybody’s health needs and an end to the health service apartheid between public and private hospitals would be better than single issue groups competing for the scraps thrown from a limited government purse. This way everyone gets a slice of a big pie instead of single issues getting minor concessions from a smaller inadequate pie.

Another broad campaign could be a push for a referendum to put wording in the constitution that every area with a population over a certain amount has a right to certain basic facilities and facilities should be located within x amount of miles from populated areas. This would force the government’s health policy to accommodate everybody’s needs and would benefit more people than a small vocal group acting in isolation on an issue.

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

All you have convinced me of is the reality that single issue groups achieve single issue goals at the expense of other areas of interest.

But clown bag every group everywhere attempts to achieve its goals at the expense of other areas of interest.

For every cent of public funds that goes into AIDS research, that is a cent that didn't go into cancer research, african babies, public schooling, health care reform, new roads.

There is no group anywhere that says "Actually on second thought TB treatment in East Africa is more important than this, give our money to them"

clown bag wrote:

How is this constructive in the overall scheme of things except to give greater access to one section of the community?

Access to what? Money? You could argue that about anything, how is it constructive to give money to breast cancer when people are homeless on the streets of Dublin. How is it constructive to give money to public education when people are dying in hospital waiting rooms.

If you think a worthy cause or group is not getting the attention it needs, join the group and lobby the government or private funding for more money for that cause. That is what every other cause or group has to do. In a room full of people shouting you have to shout just as loud, not try and get everyone to be quiet.

clown bag wrote:

I'm not against campaigning on one issue by a subgroup that is part of a wider inclusive group.

The wider inclusive group is called society. Unless you think there should be some univseral campaign called "Lets try and fix everything now"

clown bag wrote:

Its people who look at single issues in isolation and pay no attention to other issues which don’t directly affect them that I find unconstructive towards a common good.

Its not their responsibility or even a good thing, for groups to have to consider all ramifications for their funding bids. How is it even practical for a breast cancer charity in Mayo to know if a HIV treatment centre in Dundalk actually need the money more than them.

It is the responsibility of the government, or the private funders, to determine who needs what money when.

clown bag wrote:

Perhaps a broad campaign for an increase in corporate taxation to exclusively fund everybody’s health needs and an end to the health service apartheid between public and private hospitals would be better than single issue groups competing for the scraps thrown from a limited government purse.

If the government ran everything perfectly then there would be no need for any groups. They don't, unfortunately, and I think you will be a long time waiting for it.

clown bag wrote:

Another broad campaign could be a push for a referendum to put wording in the constitution that every area with a population over a certain amount has a right to certain basic facilities and facilities should be located within x amount of miles from populated areas.

I think it would be a bit impractical to list "basic facilities" in the constitution. For a start the list would probably be longer than the consitution is at the moment. If its not listed in the consitutation, the question begs where is it listed, and who decides what goes on the list? You will ineveitable get lobby groups trying to get something listed on the list that wasn't before.

But as I said, if the government was providing everything we needed there would be no need for lobby or pressure groups. They aren't, and i doubt they ever will.

fly_agaric

metrovelvet wrote:

IMO it is impossible to talk about these things without taking nationhood into account.

I don't know, maybe not impossible. At the end of the day, men are men and women are women and people are people wherever you go regardless of culture.
For example, has there ever been a society where men did the majority, or to make it even easier, close to half, of the job of caring for children?
Has there ever been a proper matriarchy, with women dominant over men in the public/political sphere? Making it easier again, has there ever been a society where men and women were equally represented in the leadership/political decision-making class?
Those are genuine questions by the way so if you have read about this stuff or studied it please feel free to answer.

If the answers are no then Feminism's big end-goals will require a change of human nature rather than society or culture which will be much more painful, but not impossible. At the least it will need a big government holding the whiphand over us all, and maybe a bit of the old eugenics and genetic engineering thrown in too!

But of course, assuming people won't put up with too much of this stuff from their governments, it will always be easier for the feminists to blame their failure on the gigantic all-controlling male conspiracy against women.

No doubt, if the backlash in the US/UK gains strength [which IMO it will the more govt.'s push the feminist agenda], the masculinist/mens-rights kooks will come in for some stick too.

Or maybe feminists in the West will turn on all the immigrants polluting their dream-society with their highly patriarchal cultures?
That should provide a fun test of how "progressive" Feminists are!:D

Dirk Gently

Wicknight wrote:

But clown bag every group everywhere attempts to achieve its goals at the expense of other areas of interest.

For every cent of public funds that goes into AIDS research, that is a cent that didn't go into cancer research, african babies, public schooling, health care reform, new roads.

There is no group anywhere that says "Actually on second thought TB treatment in East Africa is more important than this, give our money to them"


Access to what? Money? You could argue that about anything, how is it constructive to give money to breast cancer when people are homeless on the streets of Dublin. How is it constructive to give money to public education when people are dying in hospital waiting rooms.

If you think a worthy cause or group is not getting the attention it needs, join the group and lobby the government or private funding for more money for that cause. That is what every other cause or group has to do. In a room full of people shouting you have to shout just as loud, not try and get everyone to be quiet.


The wider inclusive group is called society. Unless you think there should be some univseral campaign called "Lets try and fix everything now"


Its not their responsibility or even a good thing, for groups to have to consider all ramifications for their funding bids. How is it even practical for a breast cancer charity in Mayo to know if a HIV treatment centre in Dundalk actually need the money more than them.

It is the responsibility of the government, or the private funders, to determine who needs what money when.


If the government ran everything perfectly then there would be no need for any groups. They don't, unfortunately, and I think you will be a long time waiting for it.


I think it would be a bit impractical to list "basic facilities" in the constitution. For a start the list would probably be longer than the consitution is at the moment. If its not listed in the consitutation, the question begs where is it listed, and who decides what goes on the list? You will ineveitable get lobby groups trying to get something listed on the list that wasn't before.

But as I said, if the government was providing everything we needed there would be no need for lobby or pressure groups. They aren't, and i doubt they ever will.

You seem content to work within the parameters of bad government. Trying to compete within a dysfunctional system justifies that system. Your talk of babies in Africa and homeless people has nothing to do with a potential fund for the health needs of the Irish population.

Your right, the system is not likely to change anytime soon if groups are happy to scrap it out within the current system without challenging it.
Why can a greater public health purse not be created through a corporate tax fund to deal with all issues regarding public health within the state?
Why not pressure the biggest businesses in each county to provide a fund to the county’s health budget out of a percentage of their profits. Boycott businesses that don't share profits with the community and promote business which do help out, resulting in profit sharing to a public fund being good for business and good for the community.

Your argument accepts the status quo of insufficient funds and does nothing to challenge it. In fact you are cementing bad government by competing in the health lottery, accepting the fact only a lucky few are going to achieve their goals.
The tactics you advocate are the only real tactics you can employ within a competitive society but a co-operative society would negate the need for competition for funds. Unfortunately competing for funds without campaigning for a co-operative society will always leave losers.

metrovelvet

There were matriarchies pre-farming and land ownership.

Yes you do have to take in culture. Wouldnt I have more in common with lets say you, than I would with a 85 year old massai warrior woman?

Big governmenet would make things worse. Just awful. No, bad idea.

But of course, assuming people won't put up with too much of this stuff from their governments, it will always be easier for the feminists to blame their failure on the gigantic all-controlling male conspiracy against women.

What failure?


No doubt, if the backlash in the US/UK gains strength [which IMO it will the more govt.'s push the feminist agenda], the masculinist/mens-rights kooks will come in for some stick too.

The "backlash" doesnt have that much of a voice here. There are so many groups competing for attention that it doesnt have the amplification that it does in the UK. ALso gender relations are far less adversarial then what it used to be or what my impression of it is in the UK & Ireland.

Or maybe feminists in the West will turn on all the immigrants polluting their dream-society with their highly patriarchal cultures?
That should provide a fun test of how "progressive" Feminists are!:D[/QUOTE]

No kidding. This would be my main gripe with the slacking off of feminsm. What only white girls and african americans need protecting from clitorectomies and kitchen fires?

clownbag, wanting feminists to do these things, isnt that like wanting mammy to do everything?

Dirk Gently

metrovelvet wrote:

clownbag, wanting feminists to do these things, isnt that like wanting mammy to do everything?

I assume that was a typo. did you mean to address fly agaric?

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

You seem content to work within the parameters of bad government.

Its not contentment, its realisation that while you are attempted to completely restructure the Irish governmental system, people still need to actually get things done. Telling everyone women with a lump in her breast that "sorry the system is unfair at a very high level so we are going to spend all our time trying to restructure the national and local health systems completely", ain't very good. She wants a breast check centre, not a new public service system.

clown bag wrote:

Your right, the system is not likely to change anytime soon if groups are happy to scrap it out within the current system without challenging it.

And how exactly do you suggest they change it?

clown bag wrote:

Why can a greater public health purse not be created through a corporate tax fund to deal with all issues regarding public health within the state?

I'm sure it can. But you aren't asking for that.

You are asking for a state wide body to handle all national issues, no matter how big or small, effecting both men women and children, so it would not be necessary for any body to lobby the government for a specific cause because the government would already be handling every cause already.

That is a little far fetched to be honest.

clown bag wrote:

Why not pressure the biggest businesses in each county to provide a fund to the county’s health budget out of a percentage of their profits.

As I said before clown bag that is a noble cause but rather irrelivent to the discussion. The problem isn't that there isn't enough money.

clown bag wrote:

co-operative society would negate the need for competition for funds.

We have a co-operative society, its called the government. The government decides who gets the money.

fly_agaric

Metrovelvet wrote:

What failure?

Sorry. Future failure if I am correct and it would take a dictatorship [which hopefully people won't put up with] to actually achieve feminist goals in full.

Metrovelvet wrote:

The "backlash" doesnt have that much of a voice here.

Are you back in the US at the moment?

In the UK media the "Fathers for Justice" people are ignored unless they are doing something foolish and dangerous. Even then it will mainly be details of the crazy-stunt of the day, what mad-bad people they are etc. that gets reported on.

edit:

Metrovelvet wrote:

There were matriarchies pre-farming and land ownership.

Really? My knowledge on this is really quite pathetic (10-15 mins spent reading this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy)
but it seems to depend very much on exactly what people mean by "matriarcy".

Women doing all the traditional "male" roles [an inversion implying the 50/50 dream is possible without excessive coercion] vs women being at least equal, (or more than equal) in importance in the society, but yet still different to men and doing different stuff (- i.e. not being relegated to being practically slaves of men as they are in very strong patriarchies).

Dirk Gently

Wicknight wrote:

And how exactly do you suggest they change it?

Election in this state this time next year:

Instead of many small competing health groups begging for funds, an alliance of these organisations could demand that each political party who wanted their support would have to re organise the health purse to an adequate level through something like an increase in the percentage of corporate tax. Also demands made on the political parties to organise training and location of relevant medical staff to areas needed. Political parties who agree to proposals are given support at campaigning during the election campaign next year.

Political parties who don't agree to the proposals have to face competition in tight constituencies from members of the broad medical group who stand candidates in those areas taking votes away from the political parties who don't agree to an organisational change with public health funding. This approach was suggested recently by the GRA but had to be retracted because the Gardai must be politically neutral. A broad medical group wouldn't have that restriction and would be free to stand people in marginal areas at the expense of Political parties who choose not to re-organise. Help from trade unions should be sought to broaden the campaign even further adding the threat of national strikes if changes aren’t forth coming.

This approach pressures the system in place and doesn’t reinforce the dysfunctional system by working within it.

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

Instead of many small competing health groups begging for funds, an alliance of these organisations could demand that each political party who wanted their support would have to re organise the health purse to an adequate level through something like an increase in the percentage of corporate tax.

And then what?

You still have the problem that you need something, be it a large number of small groups or a massive state body, looking out for the interests of every special interest, from breast cancer sufferers, to homeless people, to groups like Concern (all recieve funding from the public, through charity or state donations)

You are talking about replacing every special interest group and campaign in the country with public service workers. Do you have any idea how big a job that would be?

For a start what would you do with the large number of volentary workers?

clown bag wrote:

This approach pressures the system in place and doesn’t reinforce the dysfunctional system by working within it.

The system we have currently of small special interest groups lobbying for their exact needs isn't dysfunctional. In fact it works rather well.

Dirk Gently

Why the need for a massive state body. Why not just have each region send a report to the relevant government minister stating their needs. Minister reads the report and allocates funds according to the needs laid out in the report; only this time he has a bigger purse with which to fund more projects.

Result is more gets done for more people. Venezuela recently increased corporation tax on some of the biggest industries in that country resulting in massive health gains giving people access to health care which they previously hadn't got. They also eliminated illiteracy and greatly improved access to education and housing, all as a result of reorganising how the public funds were acquired. Considering Venezuela is a lot less developed than Ireland with regards to communication, logistical problems due to poor infrastructure and suffered from chronic under spending in the past surely it wouldn't be beyond a developed country like Ireland to do something similar. As in the past small single issue groups begged for funding in Venezuela, large sections of the community didn't receive any help, today with the increased funds the society as a whole benefits as opposed to single groups.

The system we have in Ireland only works well if it is your own particular group which receives the funding, which would suggest that no one should complain when they don't receive anything if they believe the system is so good.

Zombrex

clown bag wrote:

Why the need for a massive state body. Why not just have each region send a report to the relevant government minister stating their needs.

Because one body of a handful of people for each are most likely won't be able to judge, apprecate, or even understand all the needs of a population base. It only works for universal needs, which is what the government does already. Not unless they are again a massive body of people constantly running studies into all possible needs.

Everyone needs schools and hospitals. Not everyone needs a drug centre, and most of the time a local authority finds out they need a drug centre is when a charity specifically intersted in drug treatment, comes to them and says "You need a drug treatment centre"

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that government is, or even can be, aware of all the needs of a population base without that population first telling them what they need.

Dirk Gently

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not quite sure where you got the idea that government is, or even can be, aware of all the needs of a population base without that population first telling them what they need.

That’s not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that the population at the moment won’t get all they need if they look at their issues in isolation without looking at the bigger picture on how funds are raised. Once that broad effort to improve the mechanisms which supply the money succeeds then there will be more to go around to each group. It is necessary to look at the bigger picture first in order for each group to achieve their needs. Of course local needs will be reported to government in order to inform them but after a united movement forces change in how those funds are raised it will result in more to go around. Campaigning now just looking for money for one issue while not campaigning for change in the system means fewer groups are going to achieve their aims.