Double Standards

iptba

Count Duckula wrote: »

Perhaps this was blown a little out of proportion, but people are deliberately choosing to misrepresent the facts to further their own anti-feminist agenda.

Perhaps the original case doesn't tell us much about feminism. But I think some of the justifications for sexist jokes or whatever about men that are followed are interesting e.g. some quotes in the Sunday Times article, the quote in this post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70402650&postcount=130 , etc: Feminist analysis of society is assumed to be correct (men have it easy/women have it hard) and is used to justify a double standard i.e. comments that women make about men should not necessarily be held to the same level as we live in a partriarchal society/similar. We hear so often that there should be more equality; but then when it suits, special/unequal treatment is justified it appears.

As long as unequal treatment is seen as acceptable, there will be continuing to be those critical of feminism. If people have particular aims for the movement they aspire to, they should probably challenge those "who let the side down" more, in my opinion.

parker kent

Why are people using the word feminist as is there is one uniform version of feminism? There are about as many variations of feminism as there are variations of bread!

Fittle

Donovan Brief Beech wrote: »

This I have to say the following is sexist tripe of the highest order. I don't have a direct link but I have quoted it from here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64708492&postcount=62



I would love to try and organise a meeting where only men of the Oireachtas could attend and see what would happen. :rolleyes:

I've been trying to find this link but it seems to be disabled - I'm keen to figure when the senator said that...can anyone show me a link that works?

The Corinthian

Fittle wrote: »

I've been trying to find this link but it seems to be disabled - I'm keen to figure when the senator said that...can anyone show me a link that works?

20 May 2008, page 817.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't think I know any women who like that style of 'feminism'. In fact most would not consider it feminism since feminism strives for equality, not preferential treatment.

Yeah . . . sure.

If that were really the case they wouldn't call it feminism. it would be egalitarianism. Feminism sounds like what . . Female/feminine etc it is therefore inherently anti-egalitarianism - that's the reason they ignore equality issues and just focus on women's rights.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yeah . . . sure.

If that were really the case they wouldn't call it feminism. it would be egalitarianism. Feminism sounds like what . . Female/feminine etc it is therefore inherently anti-egalitarianism - that's the reason they ignore equality issues and just focus on women's rights.

They fight for the equality of women, I don't see feminism as incompatible with working towards an egalitarian society. Organisations that work for the rights of immigrants "ignore" the rights of Irish citizens. By your logic, these and many, many other human rights organisations are by their very definition, not interested in equality.

The Corinthian

Macha wrote: »

They fight for the equality of women, I don't see feminism as incompatible with working towards an egalitarian society.

The confusion where it comes to Feminism is, other than the sheer range of Feminist ideologies, an apparent contradiction in it's aims. It's generally described as aiming at "establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women", which is all well and good, until you ask yourself, how can you really represent both balance and only one side in that balance?

The answer is that you can when the side you're representing is at a disadvantage in terms of equality - in such a situation, there is a happy overlap of objectives between both equality and the side you're representing.

The problem with this is what happens when you achieve or approach equality - and bare in mind that equality is not a simple linear, one issue scale, but a tapestry of overlapping rights and responsibilities. This means that in some areas your side may actually have greater rights than the other, which means that the overlap between equality and the side you're representing breaks down and you are suddenly faced with a situation whereby you must choose between equality and the side you're representing.

And in this regard Feminism ultimately chooses the latter. All Feminism. Every single branch and subset. Some will actively oppose or dismiss concessions. Some will accept some limited (and often largely cosmetic) concessions. Most remain silent on such inequalities and instead seek to have any inequalities, perceived or real, affecting their side addressed, thus drowning out the grievances of the other side.

Bottom line is they will represent their group first and foremost before equality. And that means that actively or passively, when that choice has to be made equality will suffer.

So Feminism has done a lot of good and continues to do so, in countries where the imbalance of rights between the genders persists, to the detriment of women. However, in the West, where that gap has closed to the point where the gap between the genders appears now to benefit women on balance, it has become ironically incompatible with working towards an egalitarian society - a cancer in the cause of equality.

The Highwayman

Butterbox wrote: »

It is not the same when women are sexist against men and so men should have thicker skins. The fact of the matter is that women only have equality for as long as men allow them too, and so they are right to be more defensive.

total bullsh1t

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

The confusion where it comes to Feminism is, other than the sheer range of Feminist ideologies, an apparent contradiction in it's aims. It's generally described as aiming at "establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women", which is all well and good, until you ask yourself, how can you really represent both balance and only one side in that balance?

As I said in my previous post, according to this logic every organisation seeking rights for a specific sub-set of society would be subject to the same criticism.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And in this regard Feminism ultimately chooses the latter. All Feminism. Every single branch and subset. Some will actively oppose or dismiss concessions. Some will accept some limited (and often largely cosmetic) concessions. Most remain silent on such inequalities and instead seek to have any inequalities, perceived or real, affecting their side addressed, thus drowning out the grievances of the other side.

Bottom line is they will represent their group first and foremost before equality. And that means that actively or passively, when that choice has to be made equality will suffer.

I simply don't agree that all feminism is like this. I've stated on this forum before that I am a radical feminist and as such identify inequality and discrimination on both genders. It's been hashed and rehashed: men mocked for taking on "feminine" attributes and suffering greatly when it comes to matters of the family and children. I wholeheartedly support efforts to improve the rights of unmarried fathers, and indeed fathers in general. So according to your post how can I also be a feminist?

Feminism isn't like a religion where you sign on the dotted line and agree to everything that every other self-described feminist mights think. I just identified myself as a radical feminist but then I'm not really into a "radical overthrow" of society - more I think we're inching slowly in the right direction in terms of simply not judging each other according to gender. People like Germaine Greer do not "own" feminism and cannot claim to speak for others. It's just too nebulous a movement for you to dismiss the whole thing outright and the fact that you try to do so is baffling.

Edit: I also agree that there are far more pressing issue in Irish society, poverty, environmental justice etc. Being a feminist doesn't necessarily mean I think it's the most important issue out there.

metrovelvet

^ To be fair, it is understandable that anyone would do this due to the most vocal poster girls of feminism since the 1960s, Greer,Friedan, Steinem [who btwcame out and broadcasted that women needed abortions more than they needed breast cancer screening], etc. And to be blunt, I wish these women would shut up and stop trying to represent me because I don't believe or want half the crap they spout. And I wish other women, people, whatever, would stop calling themselves feminists and changing the world around and saying they are doing it for me and on my behalf when I did not elect them to do this especially since they have sold women up the river and a lot of other people too.

While a few good things came out of it a huge price was paid for it and Im not sure that price balances things out and Im specifically talking about 1960s and beyond.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macha wrote: »

They fight for the equality of women, I don't see feminism as incompatible with working towards an egalitarian society. Organisations that work for the rights of immigrants "ignore" the rights of Irish citizens. By your logic, these and many, many other human rights organisations are by their very definition, not interested in equality.

TC answered that very well so I will just add that those human rights groups you mention are all working for rights of people who are actively discriminated against in some form

I simply don't agree that all feminism is like this. I've stated on this forum before that I am a radical feminist and as such identify inequality and discrimination on both genders. It's been hashed and rehashed: men mocked for taking on "feminine" attributes and suffering greatly when it comes to matters of the family and children. I wholeheartedly support efforts to improve the rights of unmarried fathers, and indeed fathers in general. So according to your post how can I also be a feminist?

Feminism isn't like a religion where you sign on the dotted line and agree to everything that every other self-described feminist mights think. I just identified myself as a radical feminist but then I'm not really into a "radical overthrow" of society - more I think we're inching slowly in the right direction in terms of simply not judging each other according to gender. People like Germaine Greer do not "own" feminism and cannot claim to speak for others. It's just too nebulous a movement for you to dismiss the whole thing outright and the fact that you try to do so is baffling.

What you're describing here is very noble and I reckon we probably have identical ideology.

So I have to wonder - don't you think ''radical feminist'' is a rather unusual name to describe your position?

Why not call yourself a radical egalitarian? For me feminist would be a good word for someone campaigning for womens rights and equality in Africa/Middle East etc but wouldn't you consider that in societies where women have equal/more rights than men it sounds at best inappropriate

Zascar

metrovelvet

^ Because radical feminism seeks to destroy the patriarchy which keeps both women and non dominant men suppressed. They see men as victims of patriarchy too.

My deep suspicion of these movements is about what replaces the old system they want to destroy, like Animal Farm, Castro, etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ Because radical feminism seeks to destroy the patriarchy which keeps both women and non dominant men suppressed. They see men as victims of patriarchy too.

My deep suspicion of these movements is about what replaces the old system they want to destroy, like Animal Farm, Castro, etc.

Radical egalitarianism still sounds a lot better for that. Can't really see non-dominant(and I would be one) men putting themselves out there as ''radical feminists'' to be honest.

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Radical egalitarianism still sounds a lot better for that. Can't really see non-dominant(and I would be one) men putting themselves out there as ''radical feminists'' to be honest.

It cant be egalitarian because they don't consider race and class in their ideologies. Its a white middle class movement.

Bottle_of_Smoke

metrovelvet wrote: »

It cant be egalitarian because they don't consider race and class in their ideologies. Its a white middle class movement.

I don't believe that to be true but if it is then that is very stupid of them

metrovelvet

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't believe that to be true but if it is then that is very stupid of them

They might consider it as mitigating factors but they see the struggle as a male domanince one at the fundament of all power struggles. But generally speaking talking about equality even if it does include issues like paternity leave, does nothing for the black woman in harlem raising 3 kids on her own in poverty or for the travelling community.

I do not support egalitarianism because I think it means dumbing down everyone to the lowest possible standard and rejecting any possibility of the exceptional individual.

No one wants to face up to status as something people want to hold onto and we will never treat the leader of a country or a movie start for example equal to how we treat Joe Blogs.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

TC answered that very well so I will just add that those human rights groups you mention are all working for rights of people who are actively discriminated against in some form

So you actually think that women aren't discriminated against at all in this country? Wow. I think both men and women are actively discriminated against.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

So I have to wonder - don't you think ''radical feminist'' is a rather unusual name to describe your position?

Why not call yourself a radical egalitarian? For me feminist would be a good word for someone campaigning for womens rights and equality in Africa/Middle East etc but wouldn't you consider that in societies where women have equal/more rights than men it sounds at best inappropriate

Er..I don't think women have more rights than men so I wouldn't agree with that. I think men and women are discriminated against in different ways. I'm not keeping counters on either side.

Re the label: mm maybe, I don't really keep up with exactly what all the various labels mean but when I say radical I don't mean lunatic fringe, I mean radical as in the Latin meaning "root", meaning that the root cause of gender discrimination is society's stereotypes of gender that come from the patriarchy (oops, that word just slipped out ).

Meh, we're getting into semantics. I'm proud of a lot of what the feminist movement has achieved. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that comes out of Germaine Greer's mouth. I know what it means to me and I'm happy to identify myself as such. Other people seem to want to slam the whole movement, which seems quite simplistic to me. I don't see being a feminist as incompatible with being in favour with the rights of unmarried men, for example, and I will continue to call myself a feminist.

The Corinthian

Macha wrote: »

As I said in my previous post, according to this logic every organisation seeking rights for a specific sub-set of society would be subject to the same criticism.

And indeed that criticism would be warranted. Are trade unions about equal or 'just' rights? And if so, how does one explain Dublin Bus?

I simply don't agree that all feminism is like this. I've stated on this forum before that I am a radical feminist and as such identify inequality and discrimination on both genders.

It's all very well to claim to identify inequality and discrimination on both genders, but what does that really mean? The reality is that feminist groups across the board will balk at any measure that results in a loss of rights for women, even when those rights are anti-egalitarian. Feminists today will often argue in favour of gender quotas in politics, but what do you think happens when someone suggests gender quotas in child custody?

Indeed, when you talk about improving "efforts to improve the rights of unmarried fathers" what do you mean? How far will you go? How much of women's rights are you willing to sacrifice to the end of equality?

If your suggestions for reform shy away from that or remain cosmetic platitudes, then really we can't take your protestations very seriously.

Macha wrote: »

Er..I don't think women have more rights than men so I wouldn't agree with that.

Cite any law, or legal case example, that discriminates against women in Ireland on the basis of gender.

metrovelvet

I think we have equal rights but I still think we have second status. And that's a whole other ball game.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macha wrote: »

So you actually think that women aren't discriminated against at all in this country? Wow. I think both men and women are actively discriminated against.


Er..I don't think women have more rights than men so I wouldn't agree with that. I think men and women are discriminated against in different ways. I'm not keeping counters on either side.

If you look at divorce/child custody rights there is no example of women being discriminated against in such a blatant manner. Another example is the law whereby male teenagers are criminals for having sex but females are immune.

Re the label: mm maybe, I don't really keep up with exactly what all the various labels mean but when I say radical I don't mean lunatic fringe, I mean radical as in the Latin meaning "root", meaning that the root cause of gender discrimination is society's stereotypes of gender that come from the patriarchy (oops, that word just slipped out ).

I have no issues with the radical part as should have been clear when I said why not use ''radical egalitarian''. I would happily call myself that.

My issue is the feminist part. I don't understand how you can't see the issues that word invokes in a society where women aren't getting a raw deal.

Meh, we're getting into semantics. I'm proud of a lot of what the feminist movement has achieved. That doesn't mean I agree with everything that comes out of Germaine Greer's mouth. I know what it means to me and I'm happy to identify myself as such. Other people seem to want to slam the whole movement, which seems quite simplistic to me. I don't see being a feminist as incompatible with being in favour with the rights of unmarried men, for example, and I will continue to call myself a feminist.

Well you'll do yourself and your movement nothing but hindrance if you decide what it means to you is fine regardless of how it is perceived.

Reminds me of the silliness of Sinn Fein condemning militant republicans whilst selling this t-shirt on their website.

http://www.sinnfeinbookshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=303

Macha

The Corinthian wrote: »

And indeed that criticism would be warranted. Are trade unions about equal or 'just' rights? And if so, how does one explain Dublin Bus?

Feminism is not a trade union.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's all very well to claim to identify inequality and discrimination on both genders, but what does that really mean? The reality is that feminist groups across the board will balk at any measure that results in a loss of rights for women, even when those rights are anti-egalitarian. Feminists today will often argue in favour of gender quotas in politics, but what do you think happens when someone suggests gender quotas in child custody?

More tarring everyone with the same brush.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, when you talk about improving "efforts to improve the rights of unmarried fathers" what do you mean? How far will you go? How much of women's rights are you willing to sacrifice to the end of equality?

Unlike you, I don't see rights as a pendulum between the genders. It is sad that you choose to view it that way. I support full rights and responsibilities for unmarried fathers with equal legal status to a married parent.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If your suggestions for reform shy away from that or remain cosmetic platitudes, then really we can't take your protestations very seriously.

WHo is "we"? Or are you talking for more than just yourself?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Cite any law, or legal case example, that discriminates against women in Ireland on the basis of gender.

I would consider article 41 of the constitution as discriminatory against women. I also think the definition of the family needs to change. I think the abortion laws in Ireland are another example of discrimination against women, although I think any abortion law would have to give proper status to the father of the unborn. Much of the gender discrimination in Ireland is cultural, not legal.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

If you look at divorce/child custody rights there is no example of women being discriminated against in such a blatant manner. Another example is the law whereby male teenagers are criminals for having sex but females are immune.

I agree it is discriminatory. But the family law was implemented with a perceived benefit to men. And who passed all of these law? Women? Nope. It was male politicians who looked down on the family and children as women's work.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I have no issues with the radical part as should have been clear when I said why not use ''radical egalitarian''. I would happily call myself that.

My issue is the feminist part. I don't understand how you can't see the issues that word invokes in a society where women aren't getting a raw deal.

Because I can label myself as I wish, quite simply! And to be honest, when I speak with people off boards, I never hear any level of the negativity toward the word feminism as I do in this forum. The negative connotations that the word has for some people is not going to determine how I use that word for myself.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well you'll do yourself and your movement nothing but hindrance if you decide what it means to you is fine regardless of how it is perceived.

Reminds me of the silliness of Sinn Fein condemning militant republicans whilst selling this t-shirt on their website.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not "my" movement, it is not "anybody's" movement. Feminists do not have a "Pope", there is no figurehead or bible or leaders. It can mean different things to different people and you do yourself nothing but hindrance by trying to box it off and dismiss it based on your personal perceptions of what it means, including, no less, comparing feminism to Sinn Fein and the IRA. Good god.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macha wrote: »

I agree it is discriminatory. But the family law was implemented with a perceived benefit to men. And who passed all of these law? Women? Nope. It was male politicians who looked down on the family and children as women's work.

Yeah men from centuries ago. That doesn't mean men of today should suffer. Which it appears you are suggesting bringing it up in that context.

Because I can label myself as I wish, quite simply! And to be honest, when I speak with people off boards, I never hear any level of the negativity toward the word feminism as I do in this forum. The negative connotations that the word has for some people is not going to determine how I use that word for myself.

As I said you'll get nowhere with that attitude. Very few men are going to seriously describe themselves as feminists. Though surely men should be welcome in feminist groups if they're simply about gender equality

This is exactly what I'm talking about. It is not "my" movement, it is not "anybody's" movement. Feminists do not have a "Pope", there is no figurehead or bible or leaders. It can mean different things to different people and you do yourself nothing but hindrance by trying to box it off and dismiss it based on your personal perceptions of what it means

This is the usual get-out card. If its that diverse why even have a word for it

, including, no less, comparing feminism to Sinn Fein and the IRA. Good god.

I think there's a similar thinking with the use of the word. Though obviously would never equate their methods.

I think people insist on using the word feminism because it was a worthy cause. A cause which succeeded in giving women equality. now there's now cause but people still want to feel like there is.

So with Sinn Fein there's no need for a militant wing but they still cling to it in name because they want to be associated with what they consider soldiers fighting oppression

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yeah men from centuries ago. That doesn't mean men of today should suffer. Which it appears you are suggesting bringing it up in that context.

Well not "centuries" ago, not by a long shot. And it is quite obvious that I do not think that men of today should suffer. But the undertone to this discussion seems to be that it's women's fault that men are discriminated against today. And indeed in terms of cultural discrimination women are most definitely as guilty as men. But in terms of legal discrimination, including the law that you refer to above, that is men that voted in those laws.

And there are plenty of men in Dail Eireann who are in a position to amend those laws but..nothing. I work in the environmental sector and if I want a law changed, I have to get up off my ass, do some research and campaign on it. That's how things change in a democracy. And that's why I have so much respect for the men who campaign for unmarried fathers' rights.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

As I said you'll get nowhere with that attitude. Very few men are going to seriously describe themselves as feminists. Though surely men should be welcome in feminist groups if they're simply about gender equality

Funnily enough, I have quite a few male friends that are happy to identify themselves as feminists, including my boyfriend.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

This is the usual get-out card. If its that diverse why even have a word for it

What are you talking about when you refer to a "get-out card"? Feminism is a complex, nebulous movement and those who exploit it for their own ends or abuse it or talk nonsense in the name of it should be rebutted or ignored (Joan Burton pulling the sexist card on VB = case in point) but you can simply not dismiss the entire movement as you seem to want to do. There's no point complaining to me about the diversity of feminism. Look up any "-ism", even look up human rights and you'll quickly find it isn't anywhere as simple as it appears.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think there's a similar thinking with the use of the word. Though obviously would never equate their methods.

I think people insist on using the word feminism because it was a worthy cause. A cause which succeeded in giving women equality. now there's now cause but people still want to feel like there is.

So with Sinn Fein there's no need for a militant wing but they still cling to it in name because they want to be associated with what they consider soldiers fighting oppression

As I wrote in my post in response to The Corinthian, there are still quite a few glaring legal changes that need to be addressed - for both sides. Cultural equality is definitely going to take a big longer, for all sides.

I'd drop the Sinn Fein analogy - I don't really think it's valid or appropriate.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macha wrote: »

Well not "centuries" ago, not by a long shot. And it is quite obvious that I do not think that men of today should suffer. But the undertone to this discussion seems to be that it's women's fault that men are discriminated against today. And indeed in terms of cultural discrimination women are most definitely as guilty as men. But in terms of legal discrimination, including the law that you refer to above, that is men that voted in those laws.

And there are plenty of men in Dail Eireann who are in a position to amend those laws but..nothing. I work in the environmental sector and if I want a law changed, I have to get up off my ass, do some research and campaign on it. That's how things change in a democracy. And that's why I have so much respect for the men who campaign for unmarried fathers' rights.

Centuries ago I was talking about the British legal system which our system is largely based upon. Anyway I certainly don't blame women for all this. Men are equally to blame. And yes the men who don't try and change things are to blame but that doesn't make it men in general's fault.

Funnily enough, I have quite a few male friends that are happy to identify themselves as feminists, including my boyfriend.

They're probably scared of you:pac:

What are you talking about when you refer to a "get-out card"? Feminism is a complex, nebulous movement and those who exploit it for their own ends or abuse it or talk nonsense in the name of it should be rebutted or ignored (Joan Burton pulling the sexist card on VB = case in point) but you can simply not dismiss the entire movement as you seem to want to do. There's no point complaining to me about the diversity of feminism. Look up any "-ism", even look up human rights and you'll quickly find it isn't anywhere as simple as it appears.

Well one minute people claim to be a feminist as if this has at least some sort of standardised meaning. Then if you criticise an aspect of it it changes to meaning vastly different things.

I don't want to dismiss the entire movement If you look at my first post in this end of the thread I was simply criticising the notion that feminism is simply about equality.

For most feminists it would appear that is not the case - they simply want to protect and enhance the rights of women. That's fair enough imo and the word feminist seems appropriate for those people

Therefore I think the people calling themselves feminists who genuinely are about real equality are making a huge mistake calling themselves feminists as the word egalitarian is far more suitable.

As I wrote in my post in response to The Corinthian, there are still quite a few glaring legal changes that need to be addressed - for both sides. Cultural equality is definitely going to take a big longer, for all sides.

I'd drop the Sinn Fein analogy - I don't really think it's valid or appropriate.

Well I think it would come far sooner if men and women came together to do it under a banner which doesn't sound like its all about women. Thats what I don't get - why do people want to cling to such an inherently divisive sounding term. Thats why I think the Sinn Fein IRA analogy is valid but actually you're probably right it is probably inappropriate

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Centuries ago I was talking about the British legal system which our system is largely based upon. Anyway I certainly don't blame women for all this. Men are equally to blame. And yes the men who don't try and change things are to blame but that doesn't make it men in general's fault.

Ah you're right, no it isn't, much of this is a hang over from past generations.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

They're probably scared of you:pac:

What? Why, how dare *splutter* *gasp* :pac:

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well one minute people claim to be a feminist as if this has at least some sort of standardised meaning. Then if you criticise an aspect of it it changes to meaning vastly different things.

Well for me it means being in favour of women having equal rights to men.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I don't want to dismiss the entire movement If you look at my first post in this end of the thread I was simply criticising the notion that feminism is simply about equality.

Ah OK, fair enough.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

For most feminists it would appear that is not the case - they simply want to protect and enhance the rights of women. That's fair enough imo and the word feminist seems appropriate for those people

It has been hijacked by various people for their own means. For example, Germaine Greer makes her living out of columns that sometimes I think are intentionally inflamatory. I don't know if you've ever heard of the book "Half The Sky". It's about sufferings of women around the world and how they are part of the solution to poverty etc. Great book. Germaine came out whinging about how it ignored Western women. I wonder how any sane person can have that sort of opinion.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Therefore I think the people calling themselves feminists who genuinely are about real equality are making a huge mistake calling themselves feminists as the word egalitarian is far more suitable.

I know what you're getting at but I don't only call myself a feminist and I have never met anyone who referred to themselves an "egalitarian", even friends of mine who work in human rights.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Well I think it would come far sooner if men and women came together to do it under a banner which doesn't sound like its all about women. Thats what I don't get - why do people want to cling to such an inherently divisive sounding term. Thats why I think the Sinn Fein IRA analogy is valid but actually you're probably right it is probably inappropriate

Well, you may be onto something there. For sure, I prefer when people talk about "gender inequality" than "womens' studies".

Bah, I don't think our opinions are that far apart. *Sits back and waits for The Corinthian to come back and tear posts to shreds*

Buceph

I have a problem with the term radicalism. Someone said that they use the term stemming from the original Latin, insofar as they address the root of the problem. But that's not what the word's usage has brought it to mean. Radical means a total overthrow of the mechanisms currently in place, and for 90% of the time that has mean total replacement of political and legislative functions. Marxism was radicalism, the French Revolution was radicalism, it's an extremely strong word. Even the likes of John Hume campaigning against something that seems far worse in comparison to the current situation for women wouldn't be counted as a radicalist.

Radical is an extremely strong word, and if you're going to use it, I think you need to have an idea of what mechanisms are currently incorrect and what they're going to be replaced with. One of the few ideas that I saw that I would agree is radical was the removal of the presumption of innocence when it comes to rape laws. And that scares the bejaysus out of me.

strobe

metrovelvet wrote: »

No one wants to face up to status as something people want to hold onto and we will never treat the leader of a country or a movie start for example equal to how we treat Joe Blogs.

Speak for yourself.

donfers

strobe wrote: »

The point is why exactly would they hold a meeting and actively exclude men from attending and why did they just presume this would be acceptable. Is it "they clearly wouldn't have anything of value to add they don't even have vaginas", is it "why would men care about women in prison", is it "if we let the men come they might take over the meeting with their big strong man presence". What exactly is having a couple of penises in the room going to disrupt? Why would men not be interested in the topic? Why would they not have a valuable viewpoint to add? Is it because the report itself is inherently sexist, that the Baroness and Ivana know this is the case and they just want to slash the risk that someone might point this out and embarrass everyone by screaming "hey hey, there is an elephant in the corner!" That's the only explanation I can think of. If anyone has a better theory I'd be happy to hear it.

yup, it's yet another example of certain bloody-minded and short-sighted factions within feminism thinking they are being empowered and doing it for the girls when the reality is they are only accentuating the notion of woman as weak, powerless and in need of privileged treatment, on top of all that they ape the sexist behaviour that they have built their careers on speaking out against by not only not having the courage to debate the issue with men (again accentuating their own feelings of insecurity) they also decide to completely and unilaterally and without any justification and most notably of all, without any media scrutiny exclude men from the meeting

any feminist who genuinely believes in equality will no doubt be appalled and embarrassed by this nutjob petty-minded stunt that ultimately does a hell of a lot more damage to Bacik's cause than any possible beneficial legislation for women she hopes to win support for by organising this meeting


I admire her work ethic and passion for her cause and willingness to really fight for her beliefs and stand in the spotlight defending the issues that matter to her but the way she is going about it is insane

genuine equality is not about special treatment, it's not about engineering legislation to force less-qualified or less talented people into jobs on the basis of their gender, it's about people having the opportunity to choose whatever road they want to go down and taking responsibility for all the good and bad stuff that comes their way on that road rather than being celebrated or demonised or rewarded purely because less of their gender have chosen to travel that road so don't be so uick to pat the female solider or househusband on the back because THAT IS SEXIST, so if lots of women choose to be housewives they are not betraying any cause, so if there is a large majority of men in the decision-making positions in business and politics it is not necessarily because women are being held back, so if a male refereee is being called a stupid fat bald bastard every Saturday then don't bitch and moan if a woman referee is called similar because that's not sexist, that's true equality and if our ship hits the iceberg and I push you out of the way as I rush to the lifeboat then it's because I share the political ideals that you have been lecturing me on for the last four hours since I held the door open for you, about how you don't want to be treated differently from men etc., so let us all look forward to the days of true equality rather than the push towards priviliged and one-sided equality we see today which could well be based on recriminations for the sins of the fathers of bygone eras. Any philosophy which seeks to hold men to account today for the actions of men in a different era not only poisons the debate, it also perpetuates the inequality...two wrongs never make a right, they only cause more wrongs, thankfully that element is indeed just an element within the feminist cause and many of the issues the less radical side are fighting are not from a one-eyed or mean-spirited perspective and are instead valid causes of concern for both men and women, the narrower our focus for concern is, the less humane we are