Do you think feminism has gone too far?

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

Why would you

A) Get involved with someone like that? (and for the record someone hitting furniture doesn't qualify as domestic violence)

Stay with someone like that?

And how does the fact that you choose a violent partner have anything to do with sexism? This says more about your taste in men than anything else.

domestic violence doensn't have to be about a partner. It was a family member, and, as you know, you can't choose your family

AngryBadger

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

domestic violence doensn't have to be about a partner. It was a family member, and, as you know, you can't choose your family

I still fail to see how domestic violence has anything to do with sexism. Especially if they stick to hitting the furniture.

thebman

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

I can understand the employer's point of view - why employ a woman who may get pregnant and disrupt productivity etc.
But you know what I think it depends on the employer - read the webchat with Nicola Horlick http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/04/live_qa_with_nicola_horlick.html
She mentions that she was fortunate that two (male) bosses at work who had very strong family values and understood that she was a mother first. But she also had a very strong will to succeed and perservered when others (male and female)may have given up.
And those two progressive-thinking bosses she had gained an invaluable employee.

Women get pregnant.. men usually get them pregnant. Employers have to deal with it, and they can have the attitude that the writer of the Times article has or they can have the attitude that Nicola Horlick's bosses had - I know which one I'd prefer.

Well pregnancy and maternity leave is pretty much seen as a valid reason to choose a man over a woman.

Its sad IMO but there ya go. Personally I think the easiest way to solve it is to give the father the same length of maternity leave. It won't do the kid any harm and it helps remove the problem of bias when hiring and the problem of women getting paid less for the same work because they might get pregnant and need time off.

Anytime I've brought that point up with a women I've been roared at saying why should men get the same time off when they don't have the baby. Well for the above reasons thats why. I'm not saying I know the ins and outs but nobody has ever given a decent reason against the above to me. I don't really want kids so it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Some women seem torn between wanting equal rights for women and having one up on men.

taidghbaby

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

men usually get them pregnant. .

those damn bastards

Nevyn

brim4brim wrote: »

Well pregnancy and maternity leave is pretty much seen as a valid reason to choose a man over a woman.

Its sad IMO but there ya go. Personally I think the easiest way to solve it is to give the father the same length of maternity leave. It won't do the kid any harm and it helps remove the problem of bias when hiring and the problem of women getting paid less for the same work because they might get pregnant and need time off.

Anytime I've brought that point up with a women I've been roared at saying why should men get the same time off when they don't have the baby. Well for the above reasons thats why. I'm not saying I know the ins and outs but nobody has ever given a decent reason against the above to me. I don't really want kids so it doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Some women seem torn between wanting equal rights for women and having one up on men.

Cost seems to be the issue.

Statutory Paternity Leave in Europe:

Ireland is right down the bottom of the European league table:

* Iceland - 3 months paid paternity leave
* Slovenia - 90 days paid paternity leave
* Norway *(Outside EU) - 6 weeks paternity leave
("use it or lose it")
* Finland - 18 days paid paternity
(proposing to raise it to 25 days)
* Denmark - 14 days paid paternity
* Estonia - 14 calendar days
* France - 2 weeks paid paternity
* Italy - 2 weeks paid paternity
* UK - 2 weeks paid paternity (from 2003)
* Sweden - 10 days paid paternity leave
* Latvia - 10 calendar days
* Austria - 10 days paid paternity
* Romania - 5 days paid paternity leave
* Hungary - 5 days paternity leave
* Portugal - 5 days paternity
* Belgium - 3 days paid paternity
* Spain - 2 days paternity
* Holland - 2 days paid paternity
* Luxembourg - 2 days paid paternity
* Ireland - NO entitlements to paternity leave

AngryBadger

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

men usually get them pregnant. .

I can't understand how you seem to be PRO-feminism, and yet you completely divest women of any actual power or responsibility when it comes to pregnancy.

Please explain this to me.

Acid_Violet

AngryBadger wrote: »

I can't understand how you seem to be PRO-feminism, and yet you completely divest women of any actual power or responsibility when it comes to pregnancy.

Please explain this to me.

I think what she probably means is that both men and women are responsible for a baby being conceived. Which is obviously true...

AngryBadger

Acid_Violet wrote: »

I think what she probably means is that both men and women are responsible for a baby being conceived. Which is obviously true...

Well then I think she should PROBABLY say what she means instead of making stupid statements like "men get them pregnant", this kind of garbage (and a lot fo the other garbage being spouted by angelina) doesn't make me in any way sympathetic to the supposed "plight" of women.

Maximilian

Dudess wrote: »

Well I am a woman I suppose.

I have cause for concern...

transitive verb
1 a: to lay down tentatively as a hypothesis, assumption, or proposal <suppose a fire broke out> <suppose you bring the salad> b (1): to hold as an opinion : believe <they supposed they were early> (2): to think probable or in keeping with the facts <seems reasonable to suppose that he would profit>

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

Well then I think she should PROBABLY say what she means instead of making stupid statements like "men get them pregnant", this kind of garbage (and a lot fo the other garbage being spouted by angelina) doesn't make me in any way sympathetic to the supposed "plight" of women.

Of course I meant that both women and men have equal responsibility when it comes to pregnancy. Woman can't get pregnant by themselves - they need a man (or sperm in a cup) to get them pregnant - hence usually men get them pregnant. You're splitting hairs and I'm sorry you feel its a stupid statement.

AngelinaJolie

brim4brim wrote: »

Well pregnancy and maternity leave is pretty much seen as a valid reason to choose a man over a woman.

Its sad IMO but there ya go. Personally I think the easiest way to solve it is to give the father the same length of maternity leave. quote]

I agree with you 100%. I think women can be 'control freaks' when it comes to looking after a baby and a bit cagey about getting the father involved. Although there maybe some men out there who want nothing to do with the nitty-gritty of looking after a baby too. Either way, the prevailing attitude is that women are the main care-givers to infants. Having no paternity leave in this country just reinforces this attitude in the workplace, which in turn reduces a woman's chances in the work environment.

It's funny for a country that believes itself to be family centred (it's even in the constitution) I don't think Ireland is very family orientated these days.

Dudess

Maximilian wrote: »

I have cause for concern...

LOL

AngryBadger

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Of course I meant that both women and men have equal responsibility when it comes to pregnancy. Woman can't get pregnant by themselves - they need a man (or sperm in a cup) to get them pregnant - hence usually men get them pregnant. You're splitting hairs and I'm sorry you feel its a stupid statement.

I'm splitting hairs because you're presenting incoherent arguments.

The statement "men get them pregnant" is completely different to the statement "following mutually consentual sexual intercourse semen is deposited within the cervix by the male ultimately leading to fertilisation of the ovary which produces a gestation-ready zygote".

The latter is an accurate and unbiased account of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. The former is a completely biased statement that implies men are somehoe entirely responsible for women become pregnant as if women themselves have no say in the matter.

My point is you maintain feminism has not gone far enough. Fair enough you're entitled to that view. however if you want feminism to progress then the onus is on you, as a woman, to facilitate this progression. Using arguments built around statements like "men get them pregnant" makes you sound as bad as the supposedly chauvinistic male hordes who you maintain are keeping you down.

thebman

Thaedydal wrote: »

Cost seems to be the issue.

That's not really a reason why people should be against it, more why companies would be against it.

People should still be pushing for it and if achieved companies will no longer have their excuse for paying women less. The EU upheld companies rights to bias against women on this basis I believe. Can't remember if it was for pay or for the hiring process, think it was pay.

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

I'm splitting hairs because you're presenting incoherent arguments.

The statement "men get them pregnant" is completely different to the statement "following mutually consentual sexual intercourse semen is deposited within the cervix by the male ultimately leading to fertilisation of the ovary which produces a gestation-ready zygote".

The latter is an accurate and unbiased account of WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. The former is a completely biased statement that implies men are somehoe entirely responsible for women become pregnant as if women themselves have no say in the matter.

My point is you maintain feminism has not gone far enough. Fair enough you're entitled to that view. however if you want feminism to progress then the onus is on you, as a woman, to facilitate this progression. Using arguments built around statements like "men get them pregnant" makes you sound as bad as the supposedly chauvinistic male hordes who you maintain are keeping you down.

Your response to my use of the observation 'usually men get them pregnant' just goes to show the issues surrounding the whole notion of conception and pregnancy. Women cannot asexually reproduce and neither can men but women do have more control over pregnancy and birth than men. But I think men have more control over conception, just by the very notion that they have 'to deposit semen within the cervix' as you put it. If a man refuses to do this, there is very little a woman can do about it. A woman can be forcibly impregnated but, in most cases, a man can't be forced to impregnate a woman. Decieved, yes. Forced, no. And, don't forget, women can be decieved into pregnancy by men too.

The statement 'usually men get them pregnant' was not part of the thrust (ahem) of my argument anyway. It was a statement to illustrate that men are involved in the process.

I think you mean fertilisation of the ovum, not fertilisation of the ovary

Mushroom..

Is this one of those things were both sides try to divest themselves of reponsibility? At the end of the day someone needs to take the maternity/paternity leave... i could be wrong but i think that if the bloke stays home with a child on 'maternity' he gets the same benefits that she would get when she does it. It's just that its normally the female doing it, being a mother and all... and possibly wanting to be with the child!! But men and women can swap roles if they so wish!! Sometimes i guess it comes down to practicalities like who earns more?

AngryBadger

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Your response to my use of the observation 'usually men get them pregnant' just goes to show the issues surrounding the whole notion of conception and pregnancy....And, don't forget, women can be decieved into pregnancy by men too.

I abhor the notion of a woman being forced into sexual acts. So let's just get that out of the way.

However, how can a woman be "deceived" into getting pregnant?

Also, how does this link in any way to sexism?

Surely if a woman is "deceived" into pregnancy that has more to do with her stupidity/naivete than sexism?

Once again I'ma sking you to defend what you're saying, I've done this several times now and not once have you given a coherent irrefutable argument supporting what you're saying.

YES. Rape happens, and is a sickening crime which any right thinking individual should be appalled by. You've yet to prove that rape is in any way connected to sexism in Ireland.

YES. Domestic abuse happens, again how is this linked to sexism in ireland?

My whole point here is that you keep banging on about feminism needing to do even more, fine I say, you're a proponent of feminism, so let's see you propose some progressive changes, or at the very least let's hear you defend your wild assertions that sexism is rampant in ireland today.

So far you've failed at both those tasks, erego your whole argument is redundant.

Finally, I'd like to know exactly what "issues surrounding the whole notion of conception and pregnancy" you're referring to. In my mind it's very clear, it take a man AND a woman to conceive a child, but ONLY a woman can become pregnant. Is there some other magical link that only women are aware of?

Please do enlighten me.

Also pardon my chauvinistic attitude in expecting you to back up your arguments with more than sensational platitudes.

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

I abhor the notion of a woman being forced into sexual acts. So let's just get that out of the way.

However, how can a woman be "deceived" into getting pregnant?

Also, how does this link in any way to sexism?

Surely if a woman is "deceived" into pregnancy that has more to do with her stupidity/naivete than sexism?

Once again I'ma sking you to defend what you're saying, I've done this several times now and not once have you given a coherent irrefutable argument supporting what you're saying.

YES. Rape happens, and is a sickening crime which any right thinking individual should be appalled by. You've yet to prove that rape is in any way connected to sexism in Ireland.

YES. Domestic abuse happens, again how is this linked to sexism in ireland?

My whole point here is that you keep banging on about feminism needing to do even more, fine I say, you're a proponent of feminism, so let's see you propose some progressive changes, or at the very least let's hear you defend your wild assertions that sexism is rampant in ireland today.

So far you've failed at both those tasks, erego your whole argument is redundant.

Finally, I'd like to know exactly what "issues surrounding the whole notion of conception and pregnancy" you're referring to. In my mind it's very clear, it take a man AND a woman to conceive a child, but ONLY a woman can become pregnant. Is there some other magical link that only women are aware of?

Please do enlighten me.

Also pardon my chauvinistic attitude in expecting you to back up your arguments with more than sensational platitudes.

Definition of sexism according to Wikipedia:
Sexism is commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred towards people based on their sex rather than their individual merits, but can also refer to any and all systemic differentiations based on the sex of the individuals.
Sexism can refer to subtly different beliefs or attitudes: the belief that one gender or sex is inferior to or more valuable than the other (male and female chauvinism); hatred or distrust towards the opposite or same sex as a whole (misogyny and misandry); imposing stereotypes of masculinity on males or femininity on females.[1]

Women are discriminated against in the workplace because they could become pregnant/are pregnant. Granted there is legislation to stop discrimination but it still happens. Women have taken cases to court under this legislation- and won. This means (in the eyes of the law) that the discrimination happened in the first place. Is this sexist? Well it is discrimination against a particular sex. And women can be guilty of this discrimination just as much as men can.

As for the rape issue. This for me is about stereotyping women. So if a woman was out of her face on drugs or alcohol, wearing a short skirt and a skimpy top and kissed the her would-be rapist, she was 'asking for it' or 'what did she expect?' Women feed into this stereotype too. BUT the biggest offender is the legal system,which as a whole is sexist towards women because of the out-dated rape laws. Consider the following: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=mhaukfsnsnau
You say rape is a sickening crime - but the fact is, because of the law of the land, if a man sets out to rape a women, he more then likely will get away with it. Where is the justice in that? (which was what my original point was anyway, not sexism) Thankfully, the overwhelming majority of men are not like that, or I don't think I'd ever leave the house.

Domestic violence is, for the most part, a crime against women - it too is under reported because of fear. To me, a man who perpetrates violence against women has absolutely no respect for women, and believes she is worth less than the sh*t on his shoes. I think this is a sexist attitude, don't you. She can leave, but will his attitude change?

A woman be "deceived" into getting pregnant the same way a man can - by tampering with contraception. Its about respecting the others wishes. I know two women who got 'accidentally' pregnant - I think that's sexist.

Finally, I never said sexism was 'rampent' -but I did point out the above very serious issues as an argument that feminism hasn't gone far enough.

tech77

imp wrote: »

I hate it when a woman assumes that I'm holding the door open for her because she's female.

I hold the door open for anyone who happens to be walking with/just behind me and it irritates me to think that making the effort to do something kind for someone would cause them to be pissed off at me.

Well said.
Why should common courtesy suffer at the hands of silly presumption.
(If the act is clearly a common courtesy and not some ostentatious display of chivalry by a patronising ar$ehole of course).

AngryBadger

AngelinaJolie wrote:

Definition of sexism...[/QUOTE

I don't need a definition of sexism.

AngelinaJolie wrote:

Women are discriminated against in the workplace because they could become pregnant/are pregnant...

This paragraph is your PROOF that sexism exist in the workplace?

Where I work several of the higher-ups are women, that's not an issue for anyone working in this company. I've never come across sexism in any job I've had, and I've worked across several industries/countries. I'm not saying that's proof that sexism doesn't exist, I am saying that I've never encountered it.

AngelinaJolie wrote:

As for the rape issue. This for me is about stereotyping women. So if a woman was out of her face on drugs or alcohol, wearing a short skirt and a skimpy top and kissed the her would-be rapist, she was 'asking for it' or 'what did she expect?' Women feed into this stereotype too.

I don't see how this is sexism. If someone (male/female) is out of their face on drugs then they're not capable of being responsible for themselves. That's a fact. Whether you (or indeed anyone else) like it or not, every person has a duty of care to themselves, and a great many people (both men and woman), routinely fail to exercise this duty. In those circumstances a great many instances of sexual intercourse exist in a very murky area where you have some genuine cases, and some where a woman wakes up and regrets sleeping with some guy so claims that he raped her. For the record there was a piece in the News & Star last year reporting that something like a third of all reported "rapes" were in fact women who wanted to get some kind of revenge on ex-boyfriends or men who spurned their advances. In my view this is every bit as bad as an actual rape since guys inc ases like these will become virtual social pariahs regardless of guilt/innocence.

I've never heard anyone (male/female) state/imply that a woman was "asking for it" just because she was dressed a certain way. in fact I've never heard anyone (male/female) say that a woman "deserved" to be raped. Until I do this notion is a myth as far as I'm concerned.

AngelinaJolie wrote:

To me, a man who perpetrates violence against women has absolutely no respect for women, and believes she is worth less than the sh*t on his shoes. I think this is a sexist attitude, don't you. She can leave, but will his attitude change?

That's YOUR interpretation of that situation. It's equally possible these kinds of men are simply bad people who will lash out at anyone within reach. Unfortunately their aprtners tend to be the most within reach.

If she leaves who cares if his attitude changes? My point here is that someone who abuses other people can only do so if there are people for them to abuse. if a woman is in an abusive relationship she can remove herself from that situation and the offender will no longer have the power to abuse her, better still she could exercise sufficient judgement in character to not get involved with an abusive partner. I realise there are many instances where abusive partners stalk previous victims, I still maintain that if you remove yourself from that situation you're exercising far more power over the situation and your own circumstances than if you stay and remain subject to this abuse.

AngelinaJolie wrote:

A woman be "deceived" into getting pregnant the same way a man can - by tampering with contraception. Its about respecting the others wishes. I know two women who got 'accidentally' pregnant - I think that's sexist.

I know several women who got pregnant to keep their partners. I dont' see how you can attempt to defend "deceived" women and completely white-wash the fact that many men find themselves in the same situation.

AngelinaJolie wrote:

Finally, I never said sexism was 'rampent' -but I did point out the above very serious issues as an argument that feminism hasn't gone far enough.

And my point is that if you want feminism to progress further fine, the onus is on you. But if you claim to want equality then you have to have equality for all, and whether you intended it or not the tone and wording of several of your posts have a very anti-male feel to them.

Fine if that's the way you choose to further feminism, however in reality all that achieves is to further demean your own cause.

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

AngelinaJolie wrote:

Definition of sexism...[/QUOTE

I don't need a definition of sexism.



This paragraph is your PROOF that sexism exist in the workplace?

Where I work several of the higher-ups are women, that's not an issue for anyone working in this company. I've never come across sexism in any job I've had, and I've worked across several industries/countries. I'm not saying that's proof that sexism doesn't exist, I am saying that I've never encountered it.



I don't see how this is sexism. If someone (male/female) is out of their face on drugs then they're not capable of being responsible for themselves. That's a fact. Whether you (or indeed anyone else) like it or not, every person has a duty of care to themselves, and a great many people (both men and woman), routinely fail to exercise this duty. In those circumstances a great many instances of sexual intercourse exist in a very murky area where you have some genuine cases, and some where a woman wakes up and regrets sleeping with some guy so claims that he raped her. For the record there was a piece in the News & Star last year reporting that something like a third of all reported "rapes" were in fact women who wanted to get some kind of revenge on ex-boyfriends or men who spurned their advances. In my view this is every bit as bad as an actual rape since guys inc ases like these will become virtual social pariahs regardless of guilt/innocence.

I've never heard anyone (male/female) state/imply that a woman was "asking for it" just because she was dressed a certain way. in fact I've never heard anyone (male/female) say that a woman "deserved" to be raped. Until I do this notion is a myth as far as I'm concerned.



That's YOUR interpretation of that situation. It's equally possible these kinds of men are simply bad people who will lash out at anyone within reach. Unfortunately their aprtners tend to be the most within reach.

If she leaves who cares if his attitude changes? My point here is that someone who abuses other people can only do so if there are people for them to abuse. if a woman is in an abusive relationship she can remove herself from that situation and the offender will no longer have the power to abuse her, better still she could exercise sufficient judgement in character to not get involved with an abusive partner. I realise there are many instances where abusive partners stalk previous victims, I still maintain that if you remove yourself from that situation you're exercising far more power over the situation and your own circumstances than if you stay and remain subject to this abuse.



I know several women who got pregnant to keep their partners. I dont' see how you can attempt to defend "deceived" women and completely white-wash the fact that many men find themselves in the same situation.



And my point is that if you want feminism to progress further fine, the onus is on you. But if you claim to want equality then you have to have equality for all, and whether you intended it or not the tone and wording of several of your posts have a very anti-male feel to them.

I did not intend my posts to be anti-male. But the simple fact of the matter is that there are men who do very bad things to women rather than vice versa. I am not trying to blacken the whole gender. I wouldn't say that all pre-war Germans hated the Jews because of Adolf Hitler but then again there was a whole societal consensus going on there. Yes, a woman has a duty of care to herself, yes, she can remove herself from a violent situation. But putting it like that, I feel, is just blaming the victim. Any woman who finds herself in a threatening situation with a man has a different set of circumstances to contend with. And you can't generalise that each one has the power to remove herself from that situation - you don't know what the individual circumstances are. Those murky issues you speak of, about women 'taking revenge' by claiming rape - this may well occur. But do those instances justify the current difficulty of securing a rape conviction? That 'man' who raped the deaf woman was so out of it, he couldn't even remember perpetrating the rape. He escaped a serious punishment - by default of the law. A woman who was so out of it, she just about remembers the rape - well she was drunk, so how can we be sure that she didn't consent? is the argument, and the rapist gets away with it. Win/win for the rapist.

The notion of 'asking for it' is not a myth; many women will not persue a rape case because they think it was somehow their fault, ie because they were drunk, because of the outfit they wore. No one has say it out loud, but it is implicit, believe me.

As for domestic violence - so these men are 'bad people' who happen to lash out on their partner. I don't see it that way. Yes they are bad people but the violence they use against women is about power and control over women- why? Perhaps to dominate a weaker sex? To show them who's boss for getting ideas above themselves. To punish them for their insolence. Just bacause they can? The issue is far more complex than declaring that these are 'bad people' who don't discriminate by sex.

I know women who get pregnant to keep their partners as well - I didn't mean for that statement to come out so one-sided.

Sexism does exist in the workplace and it largely happens with promotion and hiring. I would have thought firing a woman for no other reason then the fact that she was pregnant was damning enough. Great that you haven't experienced sexism but some women have. And that's too much in my book.

AngryBadger

I'm aghast at how determined you are to actually remove pwoer from women while arguing that there needs to be more progress. I also don't understand how you refuse to actually support any of your arguments.

Before I deconstruct your latest offering I'd like to ask, what do you think would be the best course of action to eliminate sexism in Ireland?

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

I did not intend my posts to be anti-male. But the simple fact of the matter is that there are men who do very bad things to women rather than vice versa.

I'm not disputing that some men do bad thigns to women. I am disputing that this automatically warrants accusations of sexism. You've yet to present anything that makes me thing otherwise.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

I am not trying to blacken the whole gender. I wouldn't say that all pre-war Germans hated the Jews because of Adolf Hitler but then again there was a whole societal consensus going on there.

Ok, now it sounds to me like you're implying that ALL men are in some way responsible for sexism? There's no way in hell you'll ever get me to accept that.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Yes, a woman has a duty of care to herself, yes, she can remove herself from a violent situation. But putting it like that, I feel, is just blaming the victim.

In my view putting it like that stops people from being/becoming victims. I have to be honest and say that your whole argument seems based on the assertion that women are physically weaker than men. Which is irrelevant because it assumes that the core of any good defense is physical strength. Which is complete bunk.

I'm about 6ft, I can bench press twice my own weight, and I have martial arts training. By your reckoning I should be practically invulnerable. This my shock you but I am not, in fact, invulnerable. If a group of guys decided to attack me ultimately they'd succeeding in pummelling me. My solution would be to run away. And I'd do it without feeling emasculated in the way that your kind of reasoning dictates i should feel.

I'm suggesting women should make better chocies and attempt to be more responsible for themselves because I feel that if a person (male/female) chooses to be as aware as they can be, and make chocies accordingly that protect themselves as best is possible, then that person is doing the utmost within their power to take care of themselves. These kinds of people don't tend to be victims.

It's odd that the person who claims to be pro-feminism seems to view all women as victims-in-waiting, because whatever your intent that's actually the message you're putting across here.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Any woman who finds herself in a threatening situation with a man has a different set of circumstances to contend with. And you can't generalise that each one has the power to remove herself from that situation - you don't know what the individual circumstances are.

I never said all situations were the same, this whole paragraph is totally irrelevant to the discussiona t hand.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Those murky issues you speak of, about women 'taking revenge' by claiming rape - this may well occur.

In fact those situations DO occur.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

But do those instances justify the current difficulty of securing a rape conviction?

Where are you getting this garbage from? I NEVER said/suggested/implied that ANYTHING justified the current difficulty in securing a rape conviction. but since you've decided to throw that accusation at me to let's turn it aorund.

We agree that securing a rape conviction is extremely difficult, and a source of on-going frustration for both of us. Surely you accept that women making FALSE allegations of rape are only making it even more difficult to secure convictions in actualy rape cases? But you completely fail to note that. interesting, once again this is coming from you the self-proclaimed "pro-feminist".

You've agreed that these "murky" situations occur, but if (as you seem to be asserting with every psot you make) "men" are such devils, who willt ake advantage of drunken women, would it not make sense for women to drink less? In that instance they'd have more control over what was happening, they'd be in a better position to decide "I'm not comfortable with this guy, so I'm leaving before he tries to get me alone somewhere". But I'm going to gamble that you'll respond with somethign along the lines of "Why should women have to manage their drinking when men are the wrong-doers?", to which I say you're the one asserting that all women are victims-in-waiting, and you're basically arguing that the vast majority of men are sexism, so they obviously can't expect men to take a hand in their protection, which only leaves the option of fending for themselves, and limiting yoru drink/drug consumption seems like a simple way to do that.

Or maybe I'm just crazy.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

That 'man' who raped the deaf woman was so out of it, he couldn't even remember perpetrating the rape. He escaped a serious punishment - by default of the law. A woman who was so out of it, she just about remembers the rape - well she was drunk, so how can we be sure that she didn't consent? is the argument, and the rapist gets away with it. Win/win for the rapist.

This shows your complete lack of understanding of how the jsutice system needs to work. You have to have an assumption of innocence, you also have to have proof, irrefutable proof that ties the accused to the crime. Granted you can get convictions on circumstantial evidence, btu then you run the risk of appeals and sentence shrinkage.

The system is not perfect, but to be blunt, it's mainly not perfect because most people (men AND women) refuse to even attempt to co-operate with the system that does exist. If a woman allows herself to get intoa situation where she's completely intoxicated, and is assaulted, then unfortunately it's her word against the accused.

I'd genuinely like to hear what better system you might propose?

T

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

he notion of 'asking for it' is not a myth; many women will not persue a rape case because they think it was somehow their fault, ie because they were drunk, because of the outfit they wore. No one has say it out loud, but it is implicit, believe me.

I don't believe you. By your own admission women "think" it's their own fault. Are you now going to try and convince me that men have telepathic abilities they use to subvert all womens free will so they can get away with rape?

I have the utmost respect for women who come forward to see that rapists are brought to justice. I can't imagine the difficulty they go through, or the kind of courage that act takes. In aprticular the case you mentioned where a deaf woman was raped, the rapist got away with it, and she went public to make sure he got convicted. That took brass, and we could use a lot more of that brass in the world.

As far as I'm concerned if a woman decides not to bring a case forward, that's her choice and no-one elses. If she's strong enough to bring the case then more power to her, if she's not, then that's her call too, and no-one can fault her for that. But it's not my job as a man to make her bring a case. Certainly not because you seem to think that in some way I, and other men, are responsible for attitudes which discourage women from such actions.

There's no way you can convince me that I, as a man, am somehow implicitly responsible for the fact that some women decide not to bring rape cases to court.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

As for domestic violence - so these men are 'bad people' who happen to lash out on their partner. I don't see it that way.

How can you not see it "that way"??? Whether it's sexism or not, that description of abusive male partners is 100 % accurate. Seriously, you might as well tell me you believe the world is flat, or NASA really did fake the moon landing. Jeebus!

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Yes they are bad people but the violence they use against women is about power and control over women- why? Perhaps to dominate a weaker sex? To show them who's boss for getting ideas above themselves. To punish them for their insolence. Just bacause they can? The issue is far more complex than declaring that these are 'bad people' who don't discriminate by sex.

Wow...I...really, i jsut want to shake you at this stage.

You corrected me for making sweeping generalisations earlier, and now you're doing the same thing yourself. Certainly there are men for whom what you're saying is true, but not all men who are abusive. Some people are just evil, some people jsut want control over ANYONE, male/female/confused.
The issue is far too complicated for me to allow your madly uninformed, wildly speculative statements, which is why i keep coming back to this thread.

AngelinaJolie wrote: »

Sexism does exist in the workplace and it largely happens with promotion and hiring. I would have thought firing a woman for no other reason then the fact that she was pregnant was damning enough. Great that you haven't experienced sexism but some women have. And that's too much in my book.

I don't agree. Primarily because I've seen plenty of instances which women claimed were "sexist" but were in fact just average, non-sexist guys reacting badly to women behaving like planks.

I've heard plenty of women talk about how women don't get positions of power because they're not willing to do the same thigns as men. A common one is they won't work the same hours, using the excuse that they have kids. Or that they're not willing to be as mercenary as men are.

Neither of these holds any water.

I know plenty of guys who will never reach positions of power because they aren't mercenary enough, ro won't go that extra mile for one reason or other. Do you feel they're being discriminated against as well?

If you want something you go for it. If you encounter obstacles, you find a way to overcome them. if you're not willing to do these two things, then I'm sorry, but get off the stage and give someone ewho is willing a chance.

If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother, (for example, and that's a completely valid life-choice), then best of luck to her. i can completely understand her motivations, and I respect that she wants to have time to be more involved with her kids.

However i don't think that by dint of the fact that she's having kids she should automatically be given two promotions, and complete flexi-time. if she's good enough at her job most employers will accomodate her decision to have children. if she's not good enough, then she was never going to get that promotion anyway, so what're you complaining about?

My over-arching point here is that your just stringing together sensational strings and references into a completely incoherent argument, the main thrust of which seems to be that you think women should, in many instances, get an automatic free pass simply because they're women. You also don't seem to want women to have to take responsibility for anything they do.

Again, you are absolutely NOT a feminist if this is what you think, and by what you're posting it very much IS what you think.

Macha

AngryBadger wrote: »

In my view putting it like that stops people from being/becoming victims. I have to be honest and say that your whole argument seems based on the assertion that women are physically weaker than men. Which is irrelevant because it assumes that the core of any good defense is physical strength. Which is complete bunk.

I'm about 6ft, I can bench press twice my own weight, and I have martial arts training. By your reckoning I should be practically invulnerable. This my shock you but I am not, in fact, invulnerable. If a group of guys decided to attack me ultimately they'd succeeding in pummelling me. My solution would be to run away. And I'd do it without feeling emasculated in the way that your kind of reasoning dictates i should feel.

I'm suggesting women should make better chocies and attempt to be more responsible for themselves because I feel that if a person (male/female) chooses to be as aware as they can be, and make chocies accordingly that protect themselves as best is possible, then that person is doing the utmost within their power to take care of themselves. These kinds of people don't tend to be victims.

It's odd that the person who claims to be pro-feminism seems to view all women as victims-in-waiting, because whatever your intent that's actually the message you're putting across here.

You're right that physical violence isn't the crux of the issue with domestic violence against women, particularly because there is a very large psychological side to domestic violence. Many women could run away but stay because they are cowed into it. A person need a lot of strength and support to leave an abusive relationship. I'm afraid that support doesn't exist to the extent that it should in Ireland.

On your other point about women making the right choices: while this is good advice to women (and men) ie, don't walk down a dark alley, with your wallet hanging out your backpocket, I think it is important to stress that victims are in no way responsible for any violence perpetrated against them. Indeed, the abuser's ability to make the victim feel that the situation is somehow their fault is key in perpetuating the abuse (ie, I hit you because you made me angry, etc.)

AngryBadger wrote: »

We agree that securing a rape conviction is extremely difficult, and a source of on-going frustration for both of us. Surely you accept that women making FALSE allegations of rape are only making it even more difficult to secure convictions in actualy rape cases? ....

The system is not perfect, but to be blunt, it's mainly not perfect because most people (men AND women) refuse to even attempt to co-operate with the system that does exist. If a woman allows herself to get intoa situation where she's completely intoxicated, and is assaulted, then unfortunately it's her word against the accused.

I'd genuinely like to hear what better system you might propose?

Well first of all we need to get rid prevailing attitudes:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1310738,00.html#
When you consider that some (all?) rape cases are tried by jury, this survey is truly frightening.

But it isn't just about changing the attitudes of the public. How can judges allow suspended sentences to be handed down to convicted rapists, as we saw so recently. Even when a sentence is handed down, too often it is pathetically short. A potential rape plaintiff may think: what is the point?

Next, the government isn't providing enough services for victims of sexual violence: http://www.rcni.ie/RCNIDeeplyDisappointed.htm

Take this as an example: "A shocking footnote to the rape workers' report is the fact that one victim, who was raped after two men dragged her into a car, was forced to make a 10-hour return journey from Donegal to Dublin for examination because sexual assault treatment services were not available in either Letterkenny, Sligo or Ballina."

Source:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/despair-of-rape-victims-1256317.html

Finally as AJ pointed out, there are issues with shame and stigma that prevent victims from reporting crimes (not saying it's men's fault!!)

http://www.oneinfour.org/about/irishstatistics/

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

On your other point about women making the right choices: while this is good advice to women (and men) ie, don't walk down a dark alley, with your wallet hanging out your backpocket, I think it is important to stress that victims are in no way responsible for any violence perpetrated against them. Indeed, the abuser's ability to make the victim feel that the situation is somehow their fault is key in perpetuating the abuse (ie, I hit you because you made me angry, etc.)

While I agree with some of this, it's not that black and white. Random acts of violence take the responsibility away from the victim, but there is a hell of a grey area. A grey area where the excuse is all too often it was someone elses responsibility. As Angrybadger points out all of us as adults have a responsibility of care to ourselves first and foremost. When that's not enough and shít happens to us regardless of that society and the law should take over.

As you point out you shouldn't walk down dark alleyways with your wallet hanging out of you pocket. In that case you are partly responsible for whatever may befall you by your own stupidity or naivety. Just like if you ran out onto a busy motorway and got run over. Is it the drivers fault or responsibility? Yes and no. He should have been driving with enough care to avoid you or hit the brakes. Fine, but the person running onto the road in the first place has to bear some responsibility for the outcome.

Taking the example of getting rat arsed to the point of delirium where you pass out on some guys bed is equally stupid. Common sense should be at play here.

Make no mistake, if the guy in that example made untoward advances or raped the women, yes he is responsible for that action and at fault for being a nasty piece of work and should be pilloried and prosecuted for it. I'd string by the goolies from the nearest flagpole tbh, but I'm sorry she has to take some responsibility for being stupid enough to put herself in such a position in the first place. She shouldn't beat herself up about too much as in the end someone else did go beyond the pale, but she should see where her irresponsible actions facilitated that and change accordingly. I actually know a woman who was sexually assaulted in just such a scenario. on two separate occasions with two different guys a year apart. In both cases the guy was at fault, clearly. In the first instance she could argue naivety, in the second case she had to take a lot more responsibility or admit to herself that's she's as daft as a box o lights. If a dog bites you once shame on the dog. Twice? shame on you as well.

In an ideal world the guy wouldn't have done anything and for the most part most guys wouldn't, but it's not an ideal fairy tale la la land out there so putting the responsibility onto everyone but you is naive and all too common these days on every level. You're a gobshíte because your parents didn't love you enough, you're agressive because you didn't get enough hugs, you're fat because mcdonalds fed you crap etc etc. The blame culture, warnings on everything etc.

Sometimes just sometimes you have to take part responsibility for putting yourself in harms way. Because to do otherwise is basically saying you are stupid, ignorant or weak and need help, because you can't take at least some responsibility for your own actions and the outcome of such actions. That's basically how you treat children. That dog wont hunt.

AngelinaJolie

AngryBadger wrote: »

I'm aghast at how determined you are to actually remove pwoer from women while arguing that there needs to be more progress. I also don't understand how you refuse to actually support any of your arguments.

Before I deconstruct your latest offering I'd like to ask, what do you think would be the best course of action to eliminate sexism in Ireland?



I'm not disputing that some men do bad thigns to women. I am disputing that this automatically warrants accusations of sexism. You've yet to present anything that makes me thing otherwise.



Ok, now it sounds to me like you're implying that ALL men are in some way responsible for sexism? There's no way in hell you'll ever get me to accept that.



In my view putting it like that stops people from being/becoming victims. I have to be honest and say that your whole argument seems based on the assertion that women are physically weaker than men. Which is irrelevant because it assumes that the core of any good defense is physical strength. Which is complete bunk.

I'm about 6ft, I can bench press twice my own weight, and I have martial arts training. By your reckoning I should be practically invulnerable. This my shock you but I am not, in fact, invulnerable. If a group of guys decided to attack me ultimately they'd succeeding in pummelling me. My solution would be to run away. And I'd do it without feeling emasculated in the way that your kind of reasoning dictates i should feel.

I'm suggesting women should make better chocies and attempt to be more responsible for themselves because I feel that if a person (male/female) chooses to be as aware as they can be, and make chocies accordingly that protect themselves as best is possible, then that person is doing the utmost within their power to take care of themselves. These kinds of people don't tend to be victims.

It's odd that the person who claims to be pro-feminism seems to view all women as victims-in-waiting, because whatever your intent that's actually the message you're putting across here.



I never said all situations were the same, this whole paragraph is totally irrelevant to the discussiona t hand.



In fact those situations DO occur.



Where are you getting this garbage from? I NEVER said/suggested/implied that ANYTHING justified the current difficulty in securing a rape conviction. but since you've decided to throw that accusation at me to let's turn it aorund.

We agree that securing a rape conviction is extremely difficult, and a source of on-going frustration for both of us. Surely you accept that women making FALSE allegations of rape are only making it even more difficult to secure convictions in actualy rape cases? But you completely fail to note that. interesting, once again this is coming from you the self-proclaimed "pro-feminist".

You've agreed that these "murky" situations occur, but if (as you seem to be asserting with every psot you make) "men" are such devils, who willt ake advantage of drunken women, would it not make sense for women to drink less? In that instance they'd have more control over what was happening, they'd be in a better position to decide "I'm not comfortable with this guy, so I'm leaving before he tries to get me alone somewhere". But I'm going to gamble that you'll respond with somethign along the lines of "Why should women have to manage their drinking when men are the wrong-doers?", to which I say you're the one asserting that all women are victims-in-waiting, and you're basically arguing that the vast majority of men are sexism, so they obviously can't expect men to take a hand in their protection, which only leaves the option of fending for themselves, and limiting yoru drink/drug consumption seems like a simple way to do that.

Or maybe I'm just crazy.




This shows your complete lack of understanding of how the jsutice system needs to work. You have to have an assumption of innocence, you also have to have proof, irrefutable proof that ties the accused to the crime. Granted you can get convictions on circumstantial evidence, btu then you run the risk of appeals and sentence shrinkage.

The system is not perfect, but to be blunt, it's mainly not perfect because most people (men AND women) refuse to even attempt to co-operate with the system that does exist. If a woman allows herself to get intoa situation where she's completely intoxicated, and is assaulted, then unfortunately it's her word against the accused.

I'd genuinely like to hear what better system you might propose?

T

I don't believe you. By your own admission women "think" it's their own fault. Are you now going to try and convince me that men have telepathic abilities they use to subvert all womens free will so they can get away with rape?

I have the utmost respect for women who come forward to see that rapists are brought to justice. I can't imagine the difficulty they go through, or the kind of courage that act takes. In aprticular the case you mentioned where a deaf woman was raped, the rapist got away with it, and she went public to make sure he got convicted. That took brass, and we could use a lot more of that brass in the world.

As far as I'm concerned if a woman decides not to bring a case forward, that's her choice and no-one elses. If she's strong enough to bring the case then more power to her, if she's not, then that's her call too, and no-one can fault her for that. But it's not my job as a man to make her bring a case. Certainly not because you seem to think that in some way I, and other men, are responsible for attitudes which discourage women from such actions.

There's no way you can convince me that I, as a man, am somehow implicitly responsible for the fact that some women decide not to bring rape cases to court.



How can you not see it "that way"??? Whether it's sexism or not, that description of abusive male partners is 100 % accurate. Seriously, you might as well tell me you believe the world is flat, or NASA really did fake the moon landing. Jeebus!



Wow...I...really, i jsut want to shake you at this stage.

You corrected me for making sweeping generalisations earlier, and now you're doing the same thing yourself. Certainly there are men for whom what you're saying is true, but not all men who are abusive. Some people are just evil, some people jsut want control over ANYONE, male/female/confused.
The issue is far too complicated for me to allow your madly uninformed, wildly speculative statements, which is why i keep coming back to this thread.



I don't agree. Primarily because I've seen plenty of instances which women claimed were "sexist" but were in fact just average, non-sexist guys reacting badly to women behaving like planks.

I've heard plenty of women talk about how women don't get positions of power because they're not willing to do the same thigns as men. A common one is they won't work the same hours, using the excuse that they have kids. Or that they're not willing to be as mercenary as men are.

Neither of these holds any water.

I know plenty of guys who will never reach positions of power because they aren't mercenary enough, ro won't go that extra mile for one reason or other. Do you feel they're being discriminated against as well?

If you want something you go for it. If you encounter obstacles, you find a way to overcome them. if you're not willing to do these two things, then I'm sorry, but get off the stage and give someone ewho is willing a chance.

If a woman wants to be a stay-at-home mother, (for example, and that's a completely valid life-choice), then best of luck to her. i can completely understand her motivations, and I respect that she wants to have time to be more involved with her kids.

However i don't think that by dint of the fact that she's having kids she should automatically be given two promotions, and complete flexi-time. if she's good enough at her job most employers will accomodate her decision to have children. if she's not good enough, then she was never going to get that promotion anyway, so what're you complaining about?

My over-arching point here is that your just stringing together sensational strings and references into a completely incoherent argument, the main thrust of which seems to be that you think women should, in many instances, get an automatic free pass simply because they're women. You also don't seem to want women to have to take responsibility for anything they do.

Again, you are absolutely NOT a feminist if this is what you think, and by what you're posting it very much IS what you think.

I can't continue this debate as it's taking too much time and I need to get some work done (I am part of the 'long hours' cultere:)). But i'll say this sexism in Ireland will never truly be eliminated but I believe if there were more women in government, more women in business, more women in position of authority and if men took more responsibility in the home, looking after children and so on, it would go a long way to achieving a sexist-free world. There needs to be a huge focus on childcare as well and family-friendly work environments. In an ideal world, I'd like it if the punishment for sexual violence or any other kind of violence against women was life in prison. Because we are physically weaker and not many of us know self-defense techiques (maybe it should be compulsory for girls at school) but as you pointed out there are too many grey areas, so it won't happen.

Reku

Not going to get back into this but just going to state that Angelina is in fact proving her own point

But i'll say this sexism in Ireland will never truly be eliminated

through her zeal in seeming to try to put all of societies faults at the feet of men.
MMM.... juicy irony...:D

Macha

Wibbs wrote: »

While I agree with some of this, it's not that black and white. Random acts of violence take the responsibility away from the victim, but there is a hell of a grey area. A grey area where the excuse is all too often it was someone elses responsibility. As Angrybadger points out all of us as adults have a responsibility of care to ourselves first and foremost. When that's not enough and shít happens to us regardless of that society and the law should take over.

As you point out you shouldn't walk down dark alleyways with your wallet hanging out of you pocket. In that case you are partly responsible for whatever may befall you by your own stupidity or naivety. Just like if you ran out onto a busy motorway and got run over. Is it the drivers fault or responsibility? Yes and no. He should have been driving with enough care to avoid you or hit the brakes. Fine, but the person running onto the road in the first place has to bear some responsibility for the outcome.

Taking the example of getting rat arsed to the point of delirium where you pass out on some guys bed is equally stupid. Common sense should be at play here.

Make no mistake, if the guy in that example made untoward advances or raped the women, yes he is responsible for that action and at fault for being a nasty piece of work and should be pilloried and prosecuted for it. I'd string by the goolies from the nearest flagpole tbh, but I'm sorry she has to take some responsibility for being stupid enough to put herself in such a position in the first place. She shouldn't beat herself up about too much as in the end someone else did go beyond the pale, but she should see where her irresponsible actions facilitated that and change accordingly. I actually know a woman who was sexually assaulted in just such a scenario. on two separate occasions with two different guys a year apart. In both cases the guy was at fault, clearly. In the first instance she could argue naivety, in the second case she had to take a lot more responsibility or admit to herself that's she's as daft as a box o lights. If a dog bites you once shame on the dog. Twice? shame on you as well.

In an ideal world the guy wouldn't have done anything and for the most part most guys wouldn't, but it's not an ideal fairy tale la la land out there so putting the responsibility onto everyone but you is naive and all too common these days on every level. You're a gobshíte because your parents didn't love you enough, you're agressive because you didn't get enough hugs, you're fat because mcdonalds fed you crap etc etc. The blame culture, warnings on everything etc.

Sometimes just sometimes you have to take part responsibility for putting yourself in harms way. Because to do otherwise is basically saying you are stupid, ignorant or weak and need help, because you can't take at least some responsibility for your own actions and the outcome of such actions. That's basically how you treat children. That dog wont hunt.

Look I agree with you on a practical level. It is very important to make people aware of situations that may jeopardise their safety. I think everyone should go on a self-defense course (krav maga ftw!).

On a legal level, I worry about the attitude that the victim must take some part of the responsibility. I don't want this thread to veer off into rape issues but legally, I would be very very much against saying that a rape victim is in any way responsible.

I have to disagree with your 'motorway' analogy. I don't think it compares well. The driver is unable to stop from crashing into the person. I would say it is fully within the responsibilities of the rapist to stop him/herself from harming another person - hence we have laws against it and we send them to jail. I don't think a motorist would be jailed for hitting someone who ran out onto the motoroway.

Davidius

I know how to end this argument once and for all!








:rolleyes:

dreamingoak

AngryBadger wrote: »

Why would you

A) Get involved with someone like that? (and for the record someone hitting furniture doesn't qualify as domestic violence)

Actually hitting the furniture does qualify as domestic violence. I've been through the courts with it, and it's called 'putting in fear'. The judge gave me a safety order.

Wibbs

taconnol wrote: »

Look I agree with you on a practical level. It is very important to make people aware of situations that may jeopardise their safety. I think everyone should go on a self-defense course (krav maga ftw!).

On a legal level, I worry about the attitude that the victim must take some part of the responsibility. I don't want this thread to veer off into rape issues but legally, I would be very very much against saying that a rape victim is in any way responsible.

I have to disagree with your 'motorway' analogy. I don't think it compares well. The driver is unable to stop from crashing into the person. I would say it is fully within the responsibilities of the rapist to stop him/herself from harming another person - hence we have laws against it and we send them to jail. I don't think a motorist would be jailed for hitting someone who ran out onto the motoroway.

No I agree with you. Legally I would also be against branding the victim as being responsible. We should be prosecuting the perpetrator not the victim. It's an abhorent crime. Even if the victim was acting utterly stupid to a crazy degree, the law must protect the weak and or victim. No argument there.

I do think on some level in some cases personal responsibiity should be addressed after the legal has taken it's course. It's a tricky one as I know women often blame themselves when there was absolutely no blame on their part. I knew of one woman who blamed herself for years and it was the "standard" stranger jumping from bushes rape case. She had nothing to blame herself for. Nothing. And that bastard got away with it. Blood boiling time. It's a hard call indeed.