Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Masculism - what are your thoughts on it?
Options
Comments
-
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!0 -
fly-
You seem to be referencing 1960s radical feminism. Would that be right? We are in 2006. Come on.... time to catch up.0 -
Because some (not all, but some) issues are gender based.clown bag wrote:Why is it necessary to pick a gender based cause.
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".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
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: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.
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Universially campaigning for what ... curing cancer isn't a tangable goal. At the end of the day you don't campaign to "cure cancer".clown bag wrote:I still fail to see how universal campaigning is counter productive.
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.
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"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.
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
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:Surely an alliance would create a stronger lobby group and ensure that funding wasn't given to just the most focal group.
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.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.
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.
What problem is this exactly?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.
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/0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
But clown bag every group everywhere attempts to achieve its goals at the expense of other areas of interest.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.
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.clown bag wrote:How is this constructive in the overall scheme of things except to give greater access to one section of the community?
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"clown bag wrote:I'm not against campaigning on one issue by a subgroup that is part of a wider inclusive group.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.0 -
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!:D0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?0 -
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:You seem content to work within the parameters of bad government.
And how exactly do you suggest they change it?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.
I'm sure it can. But you aren't asking for that.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?
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.
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: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.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.0 -
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).0 -
Election in this state this time next year:Wicknight wrote:And how exactly do you suggest they change it?
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.0 -
And then what?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.
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.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.
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ban marketing, cosmetic ads cheapen us all.
No, you do not need an iPod. No, danone vitalinea will not give you that flat tummy you crave. No, you will not absolutely *die* if you don't buy that mobile phone.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: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.).
Well, there are feminists across the political spectrum and so far I havent come across one that seeks a dictatorship. This is the WORST idea ever. It will not achieve anyones goals,fly_agaric wrote: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..).
Yes I am. The interesting thing about fathers for justice. I would also like to see them figthing for it to be illegal for fathers to ignore and neglect their paternal responsibilities or walk out in newborns or their pregnant wives. That a man cannot be legally obliged to see his kids is also an injustice. WHen that gets addressed then they can start making demands with some credibility.
THe fact is the US fathers will complain about child support and alimony, and in some cases this is justified, but in reality they dont want 50/50 custody because they have jobs and lives and lets face it when your the weekend custodial parent your always the "good guy."fly_agaric wrote: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". ..).
My knowledge isnt so great on it either and its been a long time since I learned about it. The context that I did learn about this was ancient greece believe it or not. Pre farming and land ownership, greece was matriarchal, and wasnt Ireland also -pre Christianity? [I'll see if I can dig up a source on Greece for you].
http://shark.comfsm.fm/~crgood/Mythology/EN206_Matriarchal_Society.htm
Here's a list:
http://www.rdos.net/eng/matr-soc.htmfly_agaric wrote: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).
What feminists are seeking and have souhgt is access to decision making [public policy & governemt], some recognition and respect for the work women do [reflected in salaries and promotion], access to education [women were not allowed into many of universities here untul the middle of the 20th century]. They fought for that just as they fought to end sexual harrassment in the workplace, or to end the stigma of the slut, or the obligation to act demure and smile when your husband comes home.
But, I will also acknowlege that Ireland needs to find its own form of feminism which will fight for a better future for its little girls and young women of today. American feminism has been around for a long time, since I believe slavery ended and black men got the vote. Black women said "hold on a second" and it all started from there. But Ireland has a different history with how it relates to oppression and freedom at large and with its masculinites [this is increasingly complicated by its relationship to colony and the Church].0 -
The government doesn't look at funding in isolation.clown bag wrote: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.
The way it works at the moment is if you have a cause or campaign you go to the government and say "Hey, we have a good cause that is being ignored/unfunded etc at the moment, we want this this and this". The government then goes "sure," or "piss off we aren't going to fund 3 million euros for research into penguin farms in Kerry"
The problem isn't that there isn't enough money for issues that would be considered "male isssues." The problem is that there are not enough people interested in these. There are not enough people banging on the door of the government saying "Hey, we have a good cause that is being ignored"
The government, or private funding, will only throw money behind something that is viewed as important by society. So the first thing a group needs to do is get society to view something as important. The breast cancer campaigns have been very successful about that. Testicular cancer campaigns have been much less successful, partly because men traditional don't pay as much interest in health issues, but also because (i feel) there haven't been nearly as much noise about testicular cancer as their should be. I don't blame the feminists for shouting loud, I blame the male issue groups for whispering.
This is starting to change, with campaigns from groups like Cancer Ireland with their Action Prostate Cancer campaign.
Lack of money isn't the problem. Lack of interest is. The system is fine, but not enough male issue groups are using it, or even existing in the first place.clown bag wrote:Once that broad effort to improve the mechanisms which supply the money succeeds then there will be more to go around to each group.0 -
The problem isn't that there isn't enough money for issues that would be considered "male isssues."
I would consider the GAA a male issue. They have enough money for that!0 -
-
The GAA have the money because of the historic role they played in the creation of the state. The GAA and politics were in the past one in the same, with the GAA acting as a cultural buffer against English activities, giving Irish people a sense of common purpose and giving them an outlet to express their Irishness in a non-violent way. Many politicians since the founding of the state came from the GAA and are sympathetic to them, this is why they get huge funding. The GAA is by no means a male orientated organisation. They are an athletic organisation catering for men and women equally. For every male GAA team there is a female GAA team too. A lot of women I know train and play for their local GAA club, more so in fact than the men I know who play soccer or go to the gym instead.The male teams just get more attention because not as many people turn up to the female games.
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree over tactics used by small pressure groups. If people are content to compete against each other for limited resources without wishing to expand the overall resources available then so be it. No excuses though when they all don't get what they asked for because the system can’t cope with everyone’s demands.0 -
I've mentioned Amen a few times recently as an example of a male support group.
I wasn't aware of the fact that Womens Aid and Amen seem to having a bit of a bitching session going on at the moment, mostly based around this thesis by Rachel Mullen (a worker for Womens Aid Ireland)
http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Rachel%20Mullan.pdf
It paints Amen as being part of the anti-feminists "backlash" against idea of domestic violence (which I know does exist because I've actually seen it, and met people with these views), stating that Amen has, with little actual evidence to support their claims, grossly over estimated the actual amount of domestic violence against men that is actually taking place. The thesis also attacks Amen's choices of speakers at conferiences, some of who seem to have very extreme views (including strong homophobic)
Of course Amen aren't too happy about this, they claim that domestic violence against men is just as wide spread a problem as violence against women and that they hold no views on homosexuality either way
So both sides seem to think the other side is attempting to undersmine and discredit their cause.
Not sure if this is evidence that gender issues should be combined or kept as far apart as possible. I'll let other make up their mind.
At the very least I suppose it does challange what we think we know. I assumed domestic violence against men was wide spread and common, based on the Amen webpage (15,000 reports). But after reading this thesis I'm not so sure. But then that begs the question, does it matter. If only a small handful of men are actually being seriously abused then does Amen still not have a place in society
[wicknight puts on thinking cap]0 -
Wicknight wrote:I've mentioned Amen a few times recently as an example of a male support group.
I wasn't aware of the fact that Womens Aid and Amen seem to having a bit of a bitching session going on at the moment, mostly based around this thesis by Rachel Mullen (a worker for Womens Aid Ireland)
http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Rachel%20Mullan.pdf
It paints Amen as being part of the anti-feminists "backlash" against idea of domestic violence, stating that Amen has with any actual evidence to support their claims, grossly over estimated the actual amount of domestic violence against men that is actually taking place. The thesis also attacks Amen's choices of speakers at conferiences, some of who seem to have very extreme views (including strong homophobic)
Of course Amen aren't too happy about this, they claim that domestic violence against men is just as wide spread a problem as violence against women and that they hold no views on homosexuality either way
So both sides seem to think the other side is attempting to undersmine and discredit their cause.
Not sure if this is evidence that gender issues should be combined or kept as far apart as possible. I'll let other make up their mind.
At the very least I suppose it does challange what we think we know. I assumed domestic violence against men was wide spread and common, based on the Amen webpage (15,000 reports). But after reading this thesis I'm not so sure.
Would that example you just gave not support the view that gender should be taken out of the equation when dealing with domestic violence. Instead of bashing (no pun intended) each other on who is most oppressed would they not be better combining forces to stamp out (no pun intended again) all forms of domestic violence, making it unacceptable for a person to hit or mentally abuse another person, instead of one group claiming women are the instigators and the other claiming men are worse.
Both groups want an end to domestic violence but instead have been reduced to competing against each other on statistics. Both have the same aims but only regarding their own sex. If they joined forces and campaigned together to get the message across that all abuse in the home is wrong regardless of who is on the receiving end would that not be better than making it a male issue or a female issue.0 -
Wicknight wrote:What about the World Cup
If Im not mistaken its public money that supports the GAA.
I hope as women gain earning power and become greater contributers to the public purse they will start making some demands for themselves.0 -
Advertisement
-
metrovelvet wrote:If Im not mistaken its public money that supports the GAA.
I hope as women gain earning power and become greater contributers to the public purse they will start making some demands for themselves.
It is public money which supports the GAA, (I never said it wasn't) handed out to them by the government. The reason the GAA (a cross gender organisation) gets so much money is because the political parties have a strong bond with GAA and are more sympathetic to GAA than say soccer which is under funded in this country. That money benifits women as well as men. It has nothing to do with womens earning power. In fact many men and women complain that GAA gets favourable treatment over soccer and other sports. I'm sure a lot of female GAA members would object to other women demanding that they don't get funding.
It is a sport issue, not a man/woman issue.
by you're logic you would expect there to be no female GAA members and that it is a big male conspiracy to divert money into a man sport (which the GAA is actually not)
What happens when all these women you speak of demand that the GAA dont get any money and that in turns means that the thousands of women who make up the GAA can't practice their sports.
Its a sport issue, not gender issue.
p.s. it is not exclusivly public money which supports the GAA. It is also supported by its own members (men and women).0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement