Kevin Myers is not happy with militant feminists

polkadots1900

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-like-any-other-ideology-imposed-regardless-of-reality-malignant-feminism-caused-misery-and-chaos-2380402.html

Forty years on, this week, from the publication of Germaine Greers's 'The Female Eunuch' and you can take your pick of the headlines that tell you of TFE's consequences for women, or indeed, lack of them. "Stringfellows lap dancer was women's rights officer" is one deeply enjoyable example: "Padded bras for girls, 9, on the shelves at Asda" provides a different vision, one of a dis-infantalised and sexualised childhood-hell.

As a good little lefty and sympathiser of feminism, I once tried to read TFE: I found it trite, undergraduate bilge. My few proto-feminist braincells withered and died shortly afterwards when I was told by a young woman-television producer from Foxrock: "Being a female in Ireland is like being a black in Soweto."

Feminism is, of course, like socialism or Christianity -- an ideological piece of string that is as long as you want it to be. Most of what we might call the Benign Feminist agenda was already being implemented across Europe before TFE was published. Ireland, of course, was not yet in the EEC and barely in the 20th Century. Legal equality for women here was not really achieved by any political agitations of the Irish feminist movement, which seemed largely content to get headlines and celebrity for a couple of individuals. The famous condom train of 1971 was not followed up on by any further or riskier actions. Both the Labour Party and the trade union movement were, quite scandalously, opposed to equality of pay: it was finally imposed by the EEC Commissioner, Paddy Hillery.

So the BF agenda offers an irresistible moral and political case. It does not propose the dogmatic egalitarianism of Malignant Feminism, and nor does it conduct its debates in the depraved dialect of MF: a combination of aggressive victimhood, ad hominem abuse and selective fact-finding all enunciated in the nasty, unending jeer that became the characteristic of TFE-speak.

TFE-speak enabled Malignant Feminists to make wicked generalisations about men which would not be legally tolerated if they were made about ethnic minorities. The most common is this evil lie: "The most important thing for women to understand is how much men really do hate and despise us."

And whenever this malignant falsehood is uttered, most men present in radio and television studios to defend their sex have merely shifted uncomfortably in their seats because to refute such toxic fantasies with the mockery and ridicule that it deserves would, of itself, be seen as sexist and bullying. Yet the ancient truth is that unless you stand up to the bully, the bully will keep hitting you: and so this vile mantra has been repeated ceaselessly by the great she-bear of malignant feminism, Germaine Greer, and her Pooh-Bear followers.

MF ideologues employ another very simple technique when responding to what little criticism they get from male critics. This is to destroy a man's argument by quoting back his words at him, but saying that he had "harrumphed" them. Not even the most commonplace and self-evidently correct observation survives this treatment. Try it: "I'm Irish," he harrumphed. "It's raining," he harrumphed. (MF shrieks of gleeful disdain).

So, all an MF has to do to turn any man into a buffoon at the clubroom fender is to deploy the self-destruct verb. No wisdom survives this -- not even the words of the great she-bear herself, from her own TFE: "Whenever you see nail varnish, lipstick, brassieres and high heels, the Eunuch has set up her camp," he harrumphed.

Well, as it happens, the Eunuch has set up her camp, complete with bra, lipstick and thong, in both the feminist campus and the child's nursery. In 2005 Nadine Quashie was a paid-up full-time operative of the feminist thought-police on Thames Valley University campus -- "I was women's sabbatical officer, representing women and women's wellbeing in the university and their rights and making sure they were not underprivileged or anything like that." In 2007, she was dancing naked, all but for a g-string, on men's laps in Stringfellows in London.

Meanwhile, supermarkets sell 28AA padded bras to nine-year old children; and Tesco, God help us, has even been selling a little girl's pole-dancing kit in its toys-and-games department.

Moreover, the victimhood culture that was in large part created by TFE now means it is illegal for a state-financed medical school which charges no fees to ask applicants -- who are going to occupy a precious place, at the exclusion of someone else -- if they intend to continue practising should they become mothers. It means that armies have to deploy female soldiers even though the moment they go into the front-line a huge number will promptly get pregnant and, by law, must then be transferred to safer, rear-echelon duties. It means that women merchant bankers who take two years off to have a baby, and who don't get promoted in their absence, will often then sue, citing that dreary cliche "the glass ceiling".

Like any ideology, imposed regardless of reality, Malignant Feminism has caused misery, chaos and confusion, in which the law -- sensing the wind, as lawyers usually do -- has invariably taken the MF's side. Forty years of TFE is long enough: Time the Farce was Ended.

kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

Snakeblood

I'd rather be a feminist than K. Myers.

DOC09UNAM

polkadots1900 wrote: »

"Being a female in Ireland is like being a black in Soweto."

Wow, beggars belief the things stupid people come out with.

nice1franko

He's a professional troll. Don't read his articles - never mind perpetuate them on the net or by word of mouth. Their sole purpose is to get peoples backs up.

dlofnep

Irrelevant troll expresses sadness about said topic in controversial manner.

Links234

I don't like Kevin Myers but he's right about one thing, Germaine Greer is one hateful and nasty piece of work.

Millicent

Kevin Myers can kiss this feminist's ass. :pac:

Biggins

Links234 wrote: »

I don't like Kevin Myers but he's right about one thing, Germaine Greer is one hateful and nasty piece of work.

He should know, it takes one to know one sometimes.

Agricola

Kevin Myers is not happy with militant feminists in general

Fixed your thread title!

Nodin

I don't know enough about Greer offhand to slag her off, though I confess I've read a few of her articles....nothing in them struck me as particularily "out there" or man hating, for whatever thats worth. I'm all too familiar with Colonel Myarse however.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Pity Myers has this reputation as he often makes very valid points. I think its a very good article.

erogonamalu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3C_wLCZ18M

Cheap Thrills!

Fcuks snakes! That article is just a mish-mash rehash of what was written in the (British) Times news review section last week......!!!!

What a bottom feeder!

Millicent

polkadots1900 wrote: »

As a good little lefty and sympathiser of feminism,

Hahahaha! Myers is a lefty like I'm a member of the Westboro church!

polkadots1900 wrote: »

My few proto-feminist braincells withered and died shortly afterwards when I was told by a young woman-television producer from Foxrock: "Being a female in Ireland is like being a black in Soweto."

So you met one apparent idiot and you've been swayed into thinking all feminists are like that? Good journalism skills there, Kevin. Feminists never complain about stereotypes so you really showed them with this. Good job!

polkadots1900 wrote: »

The most common is this evil lie: "The most important thing for women to understand is how much men really do hate and despise us."

I want to stress that I have taken many feminist electives throughout college and I have never heard a classmate say this. Anyone who did would have been derided and scorned, as they should be.

polkadots1900 wrote: »

Well, as it happens, the Eunuch has set up her camp, complete with bra, lipstick and thong, in both the feminist campus and the child's nursery. In 2005 Nadine Quashie was a paid-up full-time operative of the feminist thought-police on Thames Valley University campus -- "I was women's sabbatical officer, representing women and women's wellbeing in the university and their rights and making sure they were not underprivileged or anything like that." In 2007, she was dancing naked, all but for a g-string, on men's laps in Stringfellows in London.

Some would agree that lap-dancing is something of a feminist move, as they are empowering themselves. I think that reasoning is bullsh1t (check out Female Chauvinist Pigs, for examples), but besides that, shouldn't a woman who is working to make sure women aren't exploited have some knowledge of potential pitfalls? Doesn't her experience make her more of an authority?

polkadots1900 wrote: »

Meanwhile, supermarkets sell 28AA padded bras to nine-year old children; and Tesco, God help us, has even been selling a little girl's pole-dancing kit in its toys-and-games department.

And that's the fault of feminism? So, supermarkets are exploiting little girls for a feminist agenda, not because that is the way the market lies? Good to know, Kevin. Thanks.

polkadots1900 wrote: »

Moreover, the victimhood culture that was in large part created by TFE now means it is illegal for a state-financed medical school which charges no fees to ask applicants -- who are going to occupy a precious place, at the exclusion of someone else -- if they intend to continue practising should they become mothers. It means that armies have to deploy female soldiers even though the moment they go into the front-line a huge number will promptly get pregnant and, by law, must then be transferred to safer, rear-echelon duties. It means that women merchant bankers who take two years off to have a baby, and who don't get promoted in their absence, will often then sue, citing that dreary cliche "the glass ceiling".
kmyers@independent.ie

- Kevin Myers

Oh yawn. This whole section is the literary equivalent to "rabble, rabble, rabble." Myers talks sh1te. Why should medical students have to declare if they are going to stop practicing if they become mothers? Is this not the same journalist who would happily decry the lack of mothers in the home? And generalise much? Seriously, even for a troll job, this is lazy.

JohnathanM

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pity Myers has this reputation as he often makes very valid points. I think its a very good article.

Agreed. The argument is essentially that feminism has become more polemic than considered opinion, geared toward discrimination more than equality and has in pushing a notion of empowerment actually led to an increased sexualisation of women now bordering on paedophilia. Pretty spot on.

Millicent

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Pity Myers has this reputation as he often makes very valid points. I think its a very good article.

Care to expand, out of curiosity? I found it to be lazy and sloppy.

orourkeda

Boooooooooring

Ulysses Gaze

Typical Myers.

An interesting topic to discuss and yet he somehow manages to screw it up with his bile and ranting.

Funnily enough, there was a good article in the Times during the week about the rise of young Feminists and feminist groups in Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1012/1224280865598.html

Millicent

JohnathanM wrote: »

Agreed. The argument is essentially that feminism has become more polemic than considered opinion, geared toward discrimination more than equality and has in pushing a notion of empowerment actually led to an increased sexualisation of women now bordering on paedophilia. Pretty spot on.

True feminism is not polemic and takes care to consider all viewpoints. And you're blaming feminism for paedophilia? The inappropriate sexualisation of children? I would argue that a lack of feminist thought in the last couple of decades has led to that. Self-identifying feminists are much lower in numbers these days -- I don't think they're the ones buying thongs for 9 year olds.

JohnathanM

Millicent wrote: »

And you're blaming feminism for paedophilia? The inappropriate sexualisation of children?

No to the first. I didn't come even close to that. The idea of equality extends to behaviour, and that'll be sexual to. Nothing wrong with that, but this becomes a highly visible marker to represent this freedom (albeit a distortion of feminism), eaten up by people looking to make cash and so finds its way to mainstream media which is in turn aped by little girls. That's how it strikes me anyway.

Millicent

JohnathanM wrote: »

No to the first. I didn't come even close to that. The idea of equality extends to behaviour, and that'll be sexual to. Nothing wrong with that, but this becomes a highly visible marker to represent this freedom (albeit a distortion of feminism), eaten up by people looking to make cash and so finds its way to mainstream media which is in turn aped by little girls. That's how it strikes me anyway.

Ah, fair enough. I don't necessarily disagree. There were some unfortunate consequences to the sexual revolution -- STDs, sexualisation of kids -- but the answer is not less feminist thought, it's more. There is nothing wrong with sexual awareness in girls (it's better than them thinking they won't get pregnant by having sex standing up, or the culture of "slut shaming" that come with rape cases etc.) but feminism cannot be blamed for the actions of corporations and capitalist opportunists. That is exactly what feminism should rail against.

polkadots1900

some young women seem to dislike hardcore feminism, which seems to annoy some feminists... I dunno?

Links234

Nodin wrote: »

I don't know enough about Greer offhand to slag her off, though I confess I've read a few of her articles....nothing in them struck me as particularily "out there" or man hating, for whatever thats worth. I'm all too familiar with Colonel Myarse however.

Greer has been spewing nothing short of hate speech about transgender women for some time now, and along with the likes of Janice Raymond, has fostered a severe amount of hatred towards trans people in the feminism movement that we still see today. Her opinions of transsexuals are like Goebbels opinion of the Jews. she is a vile, hate filled woman, and has personally gone out of her way to try and make the lives of quite a few women a misery.

I still hold my head up and call myself a feminist proudly though, in spite of people like Greer.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Funnily enough, there was a good article in the Times during the week about the rise of young Feminists and feminist groups in Ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2010/1012/1224280865598.html

see, that's a great article, up until this point:

“There’s lots of talk about not wanting to offend women, or about women being free to choose what they want to choose. I’m not comfortable with that. I think our choices prop up the patriarchy. I’m more and more coming around to the idea that feminism is quite simply about smashing the patriarchy. Look at the pro-prostitution lobby. We need to start being honest with ourselves: smashing the patriarchy is more important than defending someone’s right to sell sex.”

"smashing the patriarchy" is fantasy, and I would say that rights of sex workers are far more important in the here and now than that.

being against prostitution in principle is all well and good, but if you're admonishing and ostracizing women for prostitution, how the hell is that going to help women who are forced into it through circumstance, or even those who are forced into it by gangs? you're only making it harder for them. it's pretty bad in some countries.

with legalized prostitution comes rights and protections, but now many young women who are unfortunate enough to have to make a living that way are treated like criminals by the authorities, and then treated like pariahs by women like the one I've quoted. how does that help the most vulnerable women out there? that's only creating more victims, that's disenfranchising these women who are already underprivileged and doing something horrible out of necessity, they can be abused horribly because of it.

I think rights and protections for the more vulnerable women out there is 100 times more important than some pipe-dream about "smashing the patriarchy"

Bottle_of_Smoke

Millicent wrote: »

Care to expand, out of curiosity? I found it to be lazy and sloppy.

I agree with his sentiments that men and industry are blamed for things they have no control over.

Take for example what he said about female merchant bankers demanding promotions even though they took time out to have a baby. The reality is that if a man took the same time out he wouldnt be promoted either

I also agree with this statement 'TFE-speak enabled Malignant Feminists to make wicked generalisations about men which would not be legally tolerated if they were made about ethnic minorities. '

First came across this when I was 10/11. Had an argument with my mum about fathers rights after divorces as I had watched something about fathers not getting to see their kids.

Her response was ''well often the man leaves after the child is born''

Even then this response annoyed me, despite being the usual reaction from anyone who agreed the mother should have complete control.

It is ridiculous because the men who want to see their kids obviously haven't left, and furthermore it is a horrible generalisation. Based on the lack of visible support for father's rights from feminist groups I fully believe this kind of thinking is alive and well in feminist groups.

This kind of rhetoric is allowed towards men when it rightly wouldn't be allowed toward ethnic or religious minorities.

The only place I've seen reasonable feminism prevail is amongst left wing and Irish republican circles. Though it generally wouldn't even need to be described as feminism as it more about equality for everyone. Unfortunately the feminists who seem to have a public platform are generally middle class centrists who simply want to have additional rights for themselves.

fonecrusher1

Threads like this draw attention to the guy. Thats the problem.

Mike Myres said such n such - loads of replys mocking him - yawn...

DeVore

I find militant feminists to be out to improve only their lot. For me that puts them in the same pile as unions, lobbyists and male chauvinists.

I strongly support groups which are for equal rights for all, not equal rights for some. You'll never balance a system by adding more inequality.

DeV.

Millicent

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I agree with his sentiments that men and industry are blamed for things they have no control over.

Take for example what he said about female merchant bankers demanding promotions even though they took time out to have a baby. The reality is that if a man took the same time out he wouldnt be promoted either

I also agree with this statement 'TFE-speak enabled Malignant Feminists to make wicked generalisations about men which would not be legally tolerated if they were made about ethnic minorities. '

First came across this when I was 10/11. Had an argument with my mum about fathers rights after divorces as I had watched something about fathers not getting to see their kids.

Her response was ''well often the man leaves after the child is born''

Even then this response annoyed me, despite being the usual reaction from anyone who agreed the mother should have complete control.

It is ridiculous because the men who want to see their kids obviously haven't left, and furthermore it is a horrible generalisation. Based on the lack of visible support for father's rights from feminist groups I fully believe this kind of thinking is alive and well in feminist groups.

This kind of rhetoric is allowed towards men when it rightly wouldn't be allowed toward ethnic or religious minorities.

The only place I've seen reasonable feminism prevail is amongst left wing and Irish republican circles. Though it generally wouldn't even need to be described as feminism as it more about equality for everyone. Unfortunately the feminists who seem to have a public platform are generally middle class centrists who simply want to have additional rights for themselves.

I have to say, I haven't actually read The Female Eunuch, so I can't comment on whether it made wicked generalisations or not. As with any movement though, there are mouthpieces who make the rest look bad. This is the same for any ideology or cultural movement, so it's not fair to judge all feminists under that banner. The majority of feminists I know personally are rational, even measured, considered and very intelligent. Those ones who would make generalisations are shot down -- I've seen it time and time again. Proper feminists are concerned with fairness, not demonisation, and would not stand for it in others. I know I wouldn't either.

And tbh, I'm not comfortable commenting on these cases he refers to. He hasn't cited any one particularly, so without knowing details -- how long was her leave, what hours did she put in, how competent was she above others -- it's impossible to comment. It's a straw man argument and, even for Myers, it's lazy.

As to the father's rights thing, you can check my posts in other threads to see that I wholeheartedly disagree with your mother. As someone with divorced parents, and as a feminist, I cannot reconcile this idea that one parent is somehow inherently "better" because of their gender. This, as I have argued before, is a consequence of the same patriarchal reasoning that Myers is using here.

In his example, women are serious students or potential mothers -- not either or. This viewpoint does little to respect the role of a parent, and indeed reinforces the concept that mother=home, father= ? The place of the man in the home should be respected and catered for. First step to that is changing the wording of the constitution, but that's a whole other argument for another day!

brianthebard

Millicent wrote: »

So you met one apparent idiot and you've been swayed into thinking all feminists are like that? Good journalism skills there, Kevin. Feminists never complain about stereotypes so you really showed them with this. Good job!

I think he's been taking tips from AO'R here, quoting unnamed 'sources' when they want to make a point which in unsupportable.

HavingCrack

NEWSFLASH: Kevin Myers is not happy :eek::eek::eek:

flanno_7hi

Snakeblood wrote: »

I'd rather be a feminist than K. Myers.

I'd rather be Mary Harney's soap than K. Myers...what a west brit cúnt

Millicent

DeVore wrote: »

I find militant feminists to be out to improve only their lot.
DeV.

Just to comment on this DeVore -- not all militant feminists are of the same branch or school of feminist thought, so cannot be grouped by the strength of their belief.* I agree though. There are, unfortunately, some selfish women drawn to these groups. Same as some corrupt people drawn to politics or blowhards to union activity. It does not negate the arguments or discussion of the entire ideology.

*I know you weren't implying that, by the way. I just see "militant feminism" used to decry all feminism and wanted to point out that that attitude is flawed.

fonecrusher1

As far as im concerned he was good in the Waynes World films but apart from that he's been in some rubbish comedies.

Buceph

I think militant feminism is a bad word, as the people it's used to describe generally just write angry blogs where any opinion contrary to their own is seen as a sign of the "patriarchy."


I think the real litmus test for where the whackos start is when you deal with rape and sexual assualt (although domestic violence could be equally used.) People who believe all sex is rape, only women are the victims are the sexual assualt, and that the founding principles of the rule of law should be abandoned.

brianthebard

Buceph wrote: »

I think the real litmus test for where the whackos start is when you deal with rape and sexual assualt (although domestic violence could be equally used.) People who believe all sex is rape, only women are the victims are the sexual assualt, and that the founding principles of the rule of law should be abandoned.

Who are these people, have you got any names?

Nevyn

Links234 wrote: »

Greer has been spewing nothing short of hate speech about transgender women for some time now, and along with the likes of Janice Raymond, has fostered a severe amount of hatred towards trans people in the feminism movement that we still see today. Her opinions of transsexuals are like Goebbels opinion of the Jews. she is a vile, hate filled woman, and has personally gone out of her way to try and make the lives of quite a few women a misery.

I still hold my head up and call myself a feminist proudly though, in spite of people like Greer.

Links?

I am aware of the natural born womyn argument in the USA and I understand where both sides are coming from but still think the exclusion which happens to be moronic.

Millicent

Buceph wrote: »

I think militant feminism is a bad word, as the people it's used to describe generally just write angry blogs where any opinion contrary to their own is seen as a sign of the "patriarchy."


I think the real litmus test for where the whackos start is when you deal with rape and sexual assualt (although domestic violence could be equally used.) People who believe all sex is rape, only women are the victims are the sexual assualt, and that the founding principles of the rule of law should be abandoned.

I agree. Unfortunately, there are nut jobs under any ideology. It irks me when, for feminism, it's held up as a way to disregard all feminist thought.

PeterIanStaker

Myers and his opinions belong in the 19th century, he's probably wondering why the constabulary haven't hauled the sufragettes off to Pentonville Prison:rolleyes:. The man's a professional sh*t stirrer.

Millicent

brianthebard wrote: »

Who are these people, have you got any names?

In fairness to Buceph, I've met a couple of women like this. It's more a case of an idiot looking for anything to hitch their mental wagon to, rather an inherent fault in the ideology.

Buceph

brianthebard wrote: »

Who are these people, have you got any names?

Google for "Penny Arcade" "Rape" and "Feminism" and you'll find plenty of discussion on it.

brianthebard

Millicent wrote: »

It's more a case of an idiot looking for anything to hitch their mental wagon to, rather an inherent fault in the ideology.

Of course, but those people shouldn't be conflated with feminism or ideology, or healthy mental life for that matter. A lot of people on this thread are creating strawmen of what they think feminism or feminists are but with very little evidence, so I'm interested to see how much experience Buceph has of those people he described, that's all.

brianthebard

Buceph wrote: »

Google for "Penny Arcade" "Rape" and "Feminism" and you'll find plenty of discussion on it.

That's not really a proper answer but point proven nonetheless.

Links234

Thaedydal wrote: »

Links?

I am aware of the natural born womyn argument in the USA and I understand where both sides are coming from but still think the exclusion which happens to be moronic.

just google "Germaine Greer transphobia" and you'll find plenty

quoting an excerpt from her book the whole woman on wikipedia, she displays her astonishing ignorance of transgender women, while taking every opportunity to attack them:

No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight.

she is oblivious to actual transgender women, because anyone who knows even the tiniest bit about transsexuality knows of Lili Elbe who was one of the first women to get sex reassignment surgery, which was experimental at the time, and included transplanting uterus and ovaries...
she hates what she knows nothing about.

The Agogo

Damn you rock 'em Sock 'ems! Can't we all just get along?

Buceph

brianthebard wrote: »

That's not really a proper answer but point proven nonetheless.

It's not a proper answer? It was a stupidly aggresive question. I know you're active in feminist circles, at the very least just on boards, so I know you've come across the people I talk about. It's this attitude that pervades the whacko-feminist groups (note I won't use militant feminist, because they have a historical importance it would be wrong to deny.) Any opinion that doesn't fall 100% in line with the prevailing attitude in certain feminist groups is seen as pure evil. There's no ground ceded that people could have equally pro-equality stances, while not holding the same exact opinion. And the presumption that any criticism, even if specifically directed at the extreme's of feminism is an ignorant position. It's a denial of what is doing most damage to feminism. That's why I told you to google for the Penny Arcade situation, because that will actually show anyone interested the extremism that you already know exists. Me listing off the names of people you don't know, from conversations you weren't a party to would have been pointless. But that's the very thing you were fishing for, because you could just dismiss that as me being the typical anti-feminist bigot.

Now I do understand why you said that, this is After Hours, and I wouldn't be surprised to find an ill-educated, reactionary diatribe posted. But to dismiss everyone who has an opinion that contains some criticism of the very wide situation that is feminism is to belittle the thing you claim to stand for. It's George Bush's "You're either with us or against us." And that's not fair to the cause you stand for, and it's not fair to anyone who might have an interest in that cause.

Biggins

I haven't read all the previous posts but having read Myers posts sometimes and seen the rubbish he often spouts, I can totally understand why many are staying away from buying the newspaper he's working for.

...Thats all.

Links234

Biggins wrote: »

I haven't read all the previous posts but having read Myers posts sometimes and seen the rubbish he often spouts, I can totally understand why many are staying away from buying the newspaper he's working for.

...Thats all.

he posts here?

Biggins

Links234 wrote: »

he posts here?

Postings in his newspaper silly-billy.
Me and my bad wording again...

Links234

Biggins wrote: »

Postings in his newspaper silly-billy.
Me and my bad wording again...

it seems like he would post here though, I think he'd get a lot of enjoyment out of a thread like this

Min

I'm all for feminism and equality for women...lets have gender quotas and stick them down mines too!!!

Bottle_of_Smoke

Millicent wrote: »

I have to say, I haven't actually read The Female Eunuch, so I can't comment on whether it made wicked generalisations or not. As with any movement though, there are mouthpieces who make the rest look bad. This is the same for any ideology or cultural movement, so it's not fair to judge all feminists under that banner. The majority of feminists I know personally are rational, even measured, considered and very intelligent. Those ones who would make generalisations are shot down -- I've seen it time and time again. Proper feminists are concerned with fairness, not demonisation, and would not stand for it in others. I know I wouldn't either.

First off I didn't intend for any of that to be pointed toward you as an individual. I'm talking about publicly visible groups. You say it is a few mouthpieces but these mouthpieces don't get condemned by other feminists.

And tbh, I'm not comfortable commenting on these cases he refers to. He hasn't cited any one particularly, so without knowing details -- how long was her leave, what hours did she put in, how competent was she above others -- it's impossible to comment. It's a straw man argument and, even for Myers, it's lazy.

The banker thing was a big deal during the boom years in the UK. There were cases where women sued. Sometimes they were right as they had been treated awfully purely due to their gender but other cases were just taking the piss.

As to the father's rights thing, you can check my posts in other threads to see that I wholeheartedly disagree with your mother. As someone with divorced parents, and as a feminist, I cannot reconcile this idea that one parent is somehow inherently "better" because of their gender. This, as I have argued before, is a consequence of the same patriarchal reasoning that Myers is using here.

I'm not going to check your posts as I wasn't making any accusastion that you were of this opinion. I was outlining why I think this opinion is widely accepted

In his example, women are serious students or potential mothers -- not either or. This viewpoint does little to respect the role of a parent, and indeed reinforces the concept that mother=home, father= ? The place of the man in the home should be respected and catered for. First step to that is changing the wording of the constitution, but that's a whole other argument for another day!

Listen I didn't mean anything in that post to be directed at you. I'm talking about visible public groups.

If feminists really wanted equality in the workplace they would fight for equal paternity leave for men as this would have the result that there would be no advantage to employers hiring/promoting men over women.

But no they rarely support that. Why? My opinion is they feel that women should have the right to be the primary carer of their child as well as get a high flying career.

The reality is no-one, male or female, is entitled to that. You're either one or the other - your choice.

brianthebard

Buceph wrote: »

It's not a proper answer? It was a stupidly aggresive question.

How was it stupidly aggressive? It was a simple question that deserved to be asked based on the way this thread has gone. Myers started by quoting unknown feminists and since then everyone has complained about certain feminists, but nobody says who they are.

I know you're active in feminist circles, at the very least just on boards, so I know you've come across the people I talk about.

Not really tbh. I have an active interest I guess but that's the most I could say.

It's this attitude that pervades the whacko-feminist groups (note I won't use militant feminist, because they have a historical importance it would be wrong to deny.)

Its good that you see the historical importance of militant feminism because I think a good few on this thread have missed that point.

Any opinion that doesn't fall 100% in line with the prevailing attitude in certain feminist groups is seen as pure evil. There's no ground ceded that people could have equally pro-equality stances, while not holding the same exact opinion. And the presumption that any criticism, even if specifically directed at the extreme's of feminism is an ignorant position. It's a denial of what is doing most damage to feminism.

But the point is who is doing this? It may be someone down the road or a friend or something, but there is a serious difference between people who have driven feminist ideology, like Greer (since she's the immediate example) and someone in say a class with me who has a chip on their shoulder and a hideously deformed opinion of feminism. The two are not on an equal footing is the point I was getting at, but I simply can't tell who people are talking about because no one is using examples.

But that's the very thing you were fishing for, because you could just dismiss that as me being the typical anti-feminist bigot.

I don't want to call you a bigot I just want to know who's making these arguments.

But to dismiss everyone who has an opinion that contains some criticism of the very wide situation that is feminism is to belittle the thing you claim to stand for. It's George Bush's "You're either with us or against us." And that's not fair to the cause you stand for, and it's not fair to anyone who might have an interest in that cause.

I haven't claimed to stand for anything tbh, and I haven't dismissed everyone's opinion yet. But I would seriously question if people on this thread making sweeping statements about militant feminism (not you, in general) would be able to name five high ranking or well known militant feminists.