Gender Bias in The Media

rumour

Having been force fed a week long gender bias debate championed by the Irish Times all because the second in comand of the second party got the ministerial post with the second largest budget, I was resigned to accept the debate as a load of media hype to generate sales.

Then to my surprise I find out about a real gender issue this week that will impact on our society.
Male unemployment 68%
Female Unemployment 32%

Digging a little further in these figures I find that male employment rate is 63.1%. One in three Irish men has nothing to do. Now I expected some commentary on this massive social issue. Nothing from the Irish media.

The only mention was in the Irish Times:

Men account for the vast majority of unemployed at over 200,000. However, the rate of increase of unemployment for women was nearly three times that of their male colleagues at 21.9 per cent compared to 7.6 per cent.

It seems to me from reading this, the important figure I should be watching is the female figure.

I find this quite extrodinary. Does anyone else agree?

Liam Byrne

There has always been a bias; I remember reading an article about a woman convicted of murder and it started off "The petite blonde mother or two wept bitterly as she was convicted...."

Not exactly a sentence I'd use to refer to a convicted murderer!

rumour

If we are fed this kind of distortion, how can we go about addressing real problems.

It is simply astounding to reflect that 1 in every 3 Irish men has nothing to do. States where the men do nothing are invariably impoverished.

This does not bode well. Expect to see mass emigration on a scale not witnessed for generations.

The media have no comment on this issue....nothing.

Instead we get fed the hystrionics of a bunch of whinging women crying about jobs for the boys (Where??) and worrying about whether the job was sexy or not.

Bloody hell when the men start leaving then they'll have something to whinge about.

gurramok

Its not in the link but male unemployment is at 17% while female unemployment is at around 10%. That is not good for our society, lots of men with nothing to do and some of them will react in a negative way.

cavedave

rumour

Then to my surprise I find out about a real gender issue this week that will impact on our society.
Male unemployment 68%
Female Unemployment 32%

*edit
so over 2/3 of those who are unemployed are men. That is really high

While we are on inequality lifespan would seem to be the major one for men

Ireland 73.64, 79.32

Having over 5 years less life is a huge inequality

rumour

cavedave wrote: »

*edit
so over 2/3 of those who are unemployed are men. That is really high

While we are on inequality lifespan would seem to be the major one for men


Having over 5 years less life is a huge inequality

I guess we won't find it reported that the state provides a health service which anecdotally is female dominated which in turn allocates enmorous funding to female specific health problems while virtually ignoring male specific probelms.(Breast cancer v prostrate cancer)

The usual reporting in the media always finishes with the cavaet that of course it's men's life style choices that cause them to die younger.

matrim

cavedave wrote: »

*edit
so over 2/3 of those who are unemployed are men. That is really high

AFAIK, it's 2/3 of those on unemployment benefit which is different from those unemployed (i.e not working).

I think there is a large portion of women who are "home makers", and because of this aren't on JSA \ JSB so aren't counted in any unemployment figures.

Coillte_Bhoy

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There has always been a bias; I remember reading an article about a woman convicted of murder and it started off "The petite blonde mother or two wept bitterly as she was convicted...."

Not exactly a sentence I'd use to refer to a convicted murderer!

No you didnt and link please if you did...

goose2005

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

No you didnt and link please if you did...

Why do you think the Amanda Knox case got so much media coverage? Because pretty girls don't kill people.

Nodin

...well women in general are less likely to kill, tbh. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, producing statistics on the "pretty" ones would be somewhat difficult.

seamus

rumour wrote: »

Digging a little further in these figures I find that male employment rate is 63.1%. One in three Irish men has nothing to do. Now I expected some commentary on this massive social issue. Nothing from the Irish media.

Whoah, whoah, whoah. Where did you get that from?

In 2010 there were 1.7 million males over 15 in the state.

Of that figure, about 500,000 were not available for employment due to being students, retired, house-husbands, etc. These are not men "doing nothing". Well, maybe some of the retired guys are.

That leaves 1.2 million employable males. 36.9% of this figure would be 442,000, which is 75% higher than the total unemployment rate.

In reality, at 200,000 or so, the male unemployment rate is closer to 17%.

Your point is valid - there are twice as many unemployed males as females, which is a big problem.

But please validate your figures before using them to make a point.

Liam Byrne

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

No you didnt and link please if you did...

Excuse me? I remember reading it, and since it was about 12 years ago it's unlikely there's a link, however I'll check it out and if I can find it I'll definitely post it in order to prove to you that I don't lie.

Liam Byrne

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

No you didnt and link please if you did...

Excuse me? I remember reading it, and since it was about 12 years ago it's unlikely there's a link, however I'll check it out and if I can find it I'll definitely post it in order to prove to you that I don't lie.

irishh_bob

among the arch feminist, liberal PC brigades ( who dominate our media ) causes and concerns , thier exists a heirarchy of victimhood

at the top of the list are women , minoritys , gays , tinkers , muslims , etc , white males are the bottom of the ladder

white males are seen as not having any form of opressor or not having anything interesting to contribute to what ireland ( in thier eyes ) should be , they are treated with something just short of disdain by this lot

Wolfe Tone

It could be because so many lads where builders?

hatrickpatrick

Didn't you know? Inequality is only bad when it puts women at a disadvantage.

When was the last time you heard a feminist campaigning for "equality" by calling out some of the double standards which go in favour of women?

I want equality as much as anyone. All human beings should be treated as equal under the law. However, I literally can't stand this sort of "Equality where we benefit, status quo where we don't" brand of campaigning. If you want equality, it has to be EVERYTHING. Not just the parts which benefit you.

Macha

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Didn't you know? Inequality is only bad when it puts women at a disadvantage.

When was the last time you heard a feminist campaigning for "equality" by calling out some of the double standards which go in favour of women?

I want equality as much as anyone. All human beings should be treated as equal under the law. However, I literally can't stand this sort of "Equality where we benefit, status quo where we don't" brand of campaigning. If you want equality, it has to be EVERYTHING. Not just the parts which benefit you.

What nonsense.

There are plenty of women who identify themselves as feminists and want equality for men. The idea that feminists are somehow "men-haters" is an old, tired one.

In relation to media bias, there are plenty of gender stereotypes bandied around on both sides. I wonder how all the men on here would feel if the media were regularly as full of half-naked men as they are of women?

James Jones

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Didn't you know? Inequality is only bad when it puts women at a disadvantage.

When was the last time you heard a feminist campaigning for "equality" by calling out some of the double standards which go in favour of women?

I want equality as much as anyone. All human beings should be treated as equal under the law. However, I literally can't stand this sort of "Equality where we benefit, status quo where we don't" brand of campaigning. If you want equality, it has to be EVERYTHING. Not just the parts which benefit you.

Equality is a gender issue for one gender only. Check out The Gender Equality Division of the Dept. of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs

Macha wrote: »

What nonsense.

There are plenty of women who identify themselves as feminists and want equality for men.

Reference please.

Macha wrote: »

The idea that feminists are somehow "men-haters" is an old, tired one.

I can't see where hatrickpatrick actually said or even implied this. However, there ARE feminists who claim to want equality for men but actually perpetrate myths to undermine reality. Carol Coulter, for instance, claims that there is no bias in the Family Law courts by claiming that, following separation or divorce, mothers get custody and fathers pay maintenance simply because mothers are generally the carers and fathers the earners, despite the fact that childcare is the 2nd biggest expense of most families after the mortgage, indicating that most mothers work. This rubbish was also put forward by Josepha Madigan HERE when she claimed that " most wives in this country have taken on the role of primary carer of the children of the marriage, allowing the fathers to go out and earn an income to support the family".

Macha

James Jones wrote: »

Reference please.

Don't be silly. I'm not going to give you an academic reference. Go and read some modern feminist blogs.

James Jones wrote: »

I can't see where hatrickpatrick actually said or even implied this. However, there ARE feminists who claim to want equality for men but actually perpetrate myths to undermine reality. Carol Coulter, for instance, claims that there is no bias in the Family Law courts by claiming that, following separation or divorce, mothers get custody and fathers pay maintenance simply because mothers are generally the carers and fathers the earners, despite the fact that childcare is the 2nd biggest expense of most families after the mortgage, indicating that most mothers work. This rubbish was also put forward by Josepha Madigan HERE when she claimed that " most wives in this country have taken on the role of primary carer of the children of the marriage, allowing the fathers to go out and earn an income to support the family".

Actually by his hypothetical question in relation to feminists, he was very much insinuating that there are no feminists that care about true equality.

I don't really see what your problem is with Josepha Madigan's statement - it is very much the case that more women than men have assumed the role of primary carer of children in the marriage. When the description of reality is now the equivalent of misandry, I really worry.

James Jones

Macha wrote: »

Don't be silly. I'm not going to give you an academic reference. Go and read some modern feminist blogs.

I’m not being silly but you are by patronising me. I didn’t ask for an “academic” reference, just any old reference will do. I have no intention of following your instruction to read some modern feminist blogs when you could simply create a link to “women who identify themselves as feminists and want equality for men”, if they actually do exist. I believe they don’t.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When was the last time you heard a feminist campaigning for "equality" by calling out some of the double standards which go in favour of women?

Macha wrote: »

Actually by his hypothetical question in relation to feminists, he was very much insinuating that there are no feminists that care about true equality.

You failed to answer his question. Are there any feminists who care about true equality?

Macha wrote: »

I don't really see what your problem is with Josepha Madigan's statement - it is very much the case that more women than men have assumed the role of primary carer of children in the marriage.

You left out the important bit: "most wives in this country have taken on the role of primary carer of the children of the marriage,
allowing the fathers to go out and earn an income to support the family". This is simply not true but is a fallacy perpetuated by certain feminists to defend the gender bias of secret the family law courts.

James Jones wrote: »

Equality is a gender issue for one gender only. Check out The Gender Equality Division of the Dept. of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs

Did you check it out?

metrovelvet

^ What is the gender bias of the law courts? Are you talking about custody settlements?

Honestly, I dont think the 'Family" has ever been on the feminist agenda. To even talk about family to some feminist and they ask you if you are wearing a white sheet [ref:KKK] under your skirt.

I gave up on feminism when a professor in college told the girls that wearing a skirt was internalised oppression as was practising heterosexuality.

Send in the clowns. And the Belgian banoffi pie terrorists.

herya

one word: construction.

James Jones

metrovelvet wrote: »

What is the gender bias of the law courts? Are you talking about custody settlements?

Custody AND maintenance.
Dr Anne Egan, who observed 158 cases in the District and Circuit Family Courts for the purpose of a PhD, found that after divorce “all children continued to live with their mother, with fathers having joint custody”.

Dr. Evelyn Mahon, on page 55 of her report, indicated that 100% of maintenance cases went against fathers, regardless of whether it was the father who sought a reduction in the maintenance he was paying or the mother who sought an increase.

metrovelvet

James Jones wrote: »

Custody AND maintenance.
Dr Anne Egan, who observed 158 cases in the District and Circuit Family Courts for the purpose of a PhD, found that after divorce “all children continued to live with their mother, with fathers having joint custody”.

Dr. Evelyn Mahon, on page 55 of her report, indicated that 100% of maintenance cases went against fathers, regardless of whether it was the father who sought a reduction in the maintenance he was paying or the mother who sought an increase.

That doesnt tell us much. It doesn't tell us if the fathers were suing for full custody or 50/50 custody either. It doesnt tell us if the parents made an agreement and the courts simply formalised it.

It also doesnt tell us what proportionality there is of split homes that settle in court and what settle out of court.

That ALL father have joint custody doesnt do much to put forth a case of gender inequality. Fathers sometimes start new families or move away or may just not want more than every other weekend.

Re Maintenance: How can you judge this as gender inequality? Kids cost money. Of course maintenance cases go against fathers, they are the non custodials. You dont think they should pay to the upkeep of their kids?

The feminists are not interested in family. They are pro choice, pro divorce, so why do you expect them to deal with this? Im quite happy to keep them out of it.

They did nothing for me either as a single parent doing it all on my own. Thats not fair either right? Im simply expected to do it. But I dont want Gloria Steinem fighting my battles, and neither should you.

James Jones

I don’t want any feminist fighting my battles. I’m simply agreeing with an earlier post that feminists do not seek equality, but only look for equality for women.
Of course kids cost money but if the custody was shared then the parents would share the costs. Instead, true joint custody is rarely granted. Instead, we have an Alice in Wonderland play on words where joint custody does not actually mean joint custody. As Humpty Dumpty says “When I Use a Word, It Means Just What I Choose It to mean”.

“all children continued to live with their mother, with fathers having joint custody” so the children live with the mother but the media put forward the notion that everything is equal because fathers get a meaningless form of joint custody.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Re Maintenance: How can you judge this as gender inequality? Kids cost money. Of course maintenance cases go against fathers, they are the non custodials. You dont think they should pay to the upkeep of their kids?

If fathers had true joint custody, they would look after their children 50% of the time and pay for their upkeep while the children were with them, as would mothers. Why do you think it acceptable that all maintenance cases go against fathers? These are not original applications, which are obviously made against the non-custodial parent, regardless of gender but are appeals where mothers sought to receive more or fathers sought a reduction. In every case that was not adjourned, the father lost yet the media failed to highlight this.

metrovelvet

James Jones wrote: »

I don’t want any feminist fighting my battles. I’m simply agreeing with an earlier post that feminists do not seek equality, but only look for equality for women.
Of course kids cost money but if the custody was shared then the parents would share the costs. Instead, true joint custody is rarely granted. Instead, we have an Alice in Wonderland play on words where joint custody does not actually mean joint custody. As Humpty Dumpty says “When I Use a Word, It Means Just What I Choose It to mean”.

“all children continued to live with their mother, with fathers having joint custody” so the children live with the mother but the media put forward the notion that everything is equal because fathers get a meaningless form of joint custody.

If fathers had true joint custody, they would look after their children 50% of the time and pay for their upkeep while the children were with them, as would mothers. Why do you think it acceptable that all maintenance cases go against fathers? These are not original applications, which are obviously made against the non-custodial parent, regardless of gender but are appeals where mothers sought to receive more or fathers sought a reduction. In every case that was not adjourned, the father lost yet the media failed to highlight this.

I dont claim to be King Solomon nor do I want to be. What are you suggesting legally enforced 50/50 custody? What if each of the parents only want 30/30 each? Then the state take the child for the other 40? Dont you think thats a little parent centred?

How come my name HAS to go on the birth cert but a fathers doesnt eh? How is that for equality.

I have my fingers in two countries family law pies. And the one thing they have in common, is everything is designed so the kids don't become the wards of the state.

Chuchoter

These figures are slightly misleading, you need a breakdown of age categories for it to mean anything. The rate for young men is going to be enormous because of the level of people who left school to go into construction and are now screwed. The same level of women did not do this en masse. To give you a break down of the job losses 2007-200

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2010/03/30/its-not-raining-men-ireland-at-risk-of-becoming-the-opposite-of-china/

The reason there are so many men unemployed is not by right of their sex, but by right of the fact they were in an industry that crumbled.

James Jones

The original post was

rumour wrote: »

Gender Bias in The Media
Having been force fed a week long gender bias debate championed by the Irish Times all because the second in comand of the second party got the ministerial post with the second largest budget, I was resigned to accept the debate as a load of media hype to generate sales.

Then to my surprise I find out about a real gender issue this week that will impact on our society.
Male unemployment 68%
Female Unemployment 32%

so I think your post

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont claim to be King Solomon nor do I want to be. What are you suggesting legally enforced 50/50 custody? What if each of the parents only want 30/30 each? Then the state take the child for the other 40? Dont you think thats a little parent centred?

How come my name HAS to go on the birth cert but a fathers doesnt eh? How is that for equality.

I have my fingers in two countries family law pies. And the one thing they have in common, is everything is designed so the kids don't become the wards of the state.

is going slightly off topic but I do believe that the default position following a relationship breakdown would be that both parents take an equal role in caring for their children. If either parent decided they don't want to, then they should have to pay the other for taking on the extra responsibility.

Macha

James Jones wrote: »

I’m not being silly but you are by patronising me. I didn’t ask for an “academic” reference, just any old reference will do. I have no intention of following your instruction to read some modern feminist blogs when you could simply create a link to “women who identify themselves as feminists and want equality for men”, if they actually do exist. I believe they don’t.

Well I do apologise for patronising you but I find the premise so utterly ridiculous that is difficult to take seriously. You genuinely believe that someone who self-identifies as a feminist is by definition completely impossible of wanting equality for men? That these women consider the men in their lives to be inferior to them? It's just absurd.

You can go read a feminist blog that has been up and running for years such as feministing.org or even the new Irish one, theantiroom.wordpress.com. Or you could even read Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html

James Jones wrote: »

You left out the important bit: "most wives in this country have taken on the role of primary carer of the children of the marriage,
allowing the fathers to go out and earn an income to support the family". This is simply not true but is a fallacy perpetuated by certain feminists to defend the gender bias of secret the family law courts.

Did you check it out?

What is wrong with that sentence? There are plenty of men in this country who work and have worked long hours and built up their careers while the woman stays at home. Indeed, women were expected to leave the civil service when they got married up until the 1970s, as it was assumed they were taking a man's job. Things are changing now and there are more stay-at-home fathers but you can't really be suggesting that there are more stay-at-home fathers than mothers?

Edit: From the latest CSO report in 2010 on men and women in Ireland: "Men are more likely to be in the labour force and the vast majority of those looking after home/family are women."

Chuchoter

James Jones wrote: »

I’m not being silly but you are by patronising me. I didn’t ask for an “academic” reference, just any old reference will do. I have no intention of following your instruction to read some modern feminist blogs when you could simply create a link to “women who identify themselves as feminists and want equality for men”, if they actually do exist. I believe they don’t.

Thats an interesting way to make a point. "All feminists are men haters, the odd few mightn't be, but I don't think they exist. I don't need to have actual evidence for my claim, or have read any feminist literature at all, I've just decided this'

I'm going to make all my arguments like that from now on. My first point, you are an octopus. I do not need evidence, I just decided.

James Jones

Macha wrote: »

You genuinely believe that someone who self-identifies as a feminist is by definition completely impossible of wanting equality for men? That these women consider the men in their lives to be inferior to them? It's just absurd.

I didn't actually say that.

Macha wrote: »

You can go read a feminist blog that has been up and running for years such as feministing.org or even the new Irish one, theantiroom.wordpress.com. Or you could even read Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/nicholasdkristof/index.html

Can you just quote from any of these because I have no intention of wading through them to find something that I do not think exists.

Macha wrote: »

What is wrong with that sentence? There are plenty of men in this country who work and have worked long hours and built up their careers while the woman stays at home. Indeed, women were expected to leave the civil service when they got married up until the 1970s, as it was assumed they were taking a man's job. Things are changing now and there are more stay-at-home fathers but you can't really be suggesting that there are more stay-at-home fathers than mothers?

I didn't suggest that. It is a fact that more mothers are now working which is why childcare has become such an issue.

Macha wrote: »

From the latest CSO report in 2010 on men and women in Ireland: "Men are more likely to be in the labour force and the vast majority of those looking after home/family are women."

Men are more likely (51% or more)
The vast majority (51% or more)
Have a look at OECD Database which shoes that over 50% of mothers are employed.

crayolastereo wrote: »

Thats an interesting way to make a point. "All feminists are men haters, the odd few mightn't be, but I don't think they exist. I don't need to have actual evidence for my claim, or have read any feminist literature at all, I've just decided this'

But that's not what I said. I just asked for a reference to something that Macha said but has yet to provide it.

Can either of you provide a link to any feminist who seeks equality for both genders rather than equality for women only?

Chuchoter

Its your claim, not mine, but I'll give you one or two anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/02/men_stereotypes
http://www.ontheissuesmagazine.com/2009summer/cafe2/article/70
http://radicalmasculinity.blogspot.com/

Also, you use the word equality. How can these evil feminists search for equality, while also trying to improve their own lives to be even better than mens? Frankly I kind of find it ridiculous when men talk about how feminists don't fight for them. As straight men, you belong to one of the most privileged groups going, aside from custody there are few issues to be dealt with. Every group dealing with some sort of movement fights for itself, its like asking why are LGBT groups not fighting for travelers as well

Macha

James Jones wrote: »

I didn't actually say that.

Please explain your position to me then because from your previous post it seemed clear that you think no feminist is in favour of male equality.

James Jones wrote: »

Can you just quote from any of these because I have no intention of wading through them to find something that I do not think exists.

Here is just one example, the reporting of new research showing more men suffer from post-natal depression than previous thought:

http://feministing.com/2011/03/18/new-study-finds-that-men-suffer-postpartum-depression-too/

James Jones wrote: »

I didn't suggest that. It is a fact that more mothers are now working which is why childcare has become such an issue.

Well then what is your issue with the original statement? The other factor in why childcare is an issue is that men are more and more expected to take on their share.

James Jones wrote: »

Men are more likely (51% or more)
The vast majority (51% or more)
Have a look at OECD Database which shoes that over 50% of mothers are employed.

Here is the data from the CSO:

Over half a million women in 2010 were looking after home/family compared with only 7,500 men.

metrovelvet

crayolastereo wrote: »

Its your claim, not mine, but I'll give you one or two anyway

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZn_lJoN6PI

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2008/02/men_stereotypes

Also, you use the word equality. How can these evil feminists search for equality, while also trying to improve their own lives to be even better than mens? Frankly I kind of find it ridiculous when men talk about how feminists don't fight for them. As straight men, you belong to one of the most privileged groups going, aside from custody there are few issues to be dealt with. Every group dealing with some sort of movement fights for itself, its like asking why are LGBT groups not fighting for travelers as well

I guess they want their dry cleaning and haircuts to be as expensive as mine are.

Maybe they want the right to have a ceasarian too.

How about the right to age and be judged for ageing the way women are.

How about the right to stop reproducing at around 40.

How about the right to get post natal depression.

What about the right to be interrupted constantly.

The right to get two years of no sleep [violation of Geneva convention on human rights btw] because of no paternal obligations.

I'll come up with some more unequal rights later. To be continued...


*@macha- there is also studies showing more women suffer from pnd than previously thought, as well as psts and post natal psychosis.

Godge

Why is there nobody shouting about the inequality in the education system?

Girls do far better than boys at both Junior and Leaving Cert but the glib answer is that girls are more mature and work harder. However, there is little research to back this up.

If it was the other way round, we would be hearing calls for the exams to be changed to better measure the equal skills of the girls. Where is the group calling for reform of the Leaving Cert to ensure that the performance of boys is equally recognised and treated fairly.

fly_agaric

crayolastereo wrote: »

Its your claim, not mine, but I'll give you one or two anyway

Those are examples of feminists looking to enlist men as allies for their traditional causes (e.g. evils of "gendered" toy advertising - did she address the morality of allowing this sort of advertising aimed at young children full stop in that video? - was too bored after 1st few seconds to watch it all!!).

Bottle_of_Smoke

Macha wrote: »

Please explain your position to me then because from your previous post it seemed clear that you think no feminist is in favour of male equality.


Here is just one example, the reporting of new research showing more men suffer from post-natal depression than previous thought:

http://feministing.com/2011/03/18/new-study-finds-that-men-suffer-postpartum-depression-too/


Well then what is your issue with the original statement? The other factor in why childcare is an issue is that men are more and more expected to take on their share.


Here is the data from the CSO:

Feminist is just a stupid word to describe someone who wants equality for all in a society where there isn't massive inequality. Sure men fare better in some areas and women in others but overall Ireland is not biased heavily either way.

So yeah when I hear someone identify as feminist of course i'm gonna be suspicious about their agenda.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Feminist is just a stupid word to describe someone who wants equality for all in a society where there isn't massive inequality. Sure men fare better in some areas and women in others but overall Ireland is not biased heavily either way.

So yeah when I hear someone identify as feminist of course i'm gonna be suspicious about their agenda.

Now you're getting into semantics.

I'm a feminist. I don't hate the men in my life. I don't hate men I don't know. I don't blame men for every ill that befalls a woman. I think men get a pretty raw deal in this country and elsewhere in some areas. I'm not interested in a debate about who has it worse or better in this country, I'm more interested in challenging gender roles and stereotypes that are damaging to both genders. I don't see any conflict in the above and I think the default stance that one should be suspicious of anyone who uses the word feminist is a choice that is not based on any real concrete evidence.

irishh_bob

Macha wrote: »

Now you're getting into semantics.

I'm a feminist. I don't hate the men in my life. I don't hate men I don't know. I don't blame men for every ill that befalls a woman. I think men get a pretty raw deal in this country and elsewhere in some areas. I'm not interested in a debate about who has it worse or better in this country, I'm more interested in challenging gender roles and stereotypes that are damaging to both genders. I don't see any conflict in the above and I think the default stance that one should be suspicious of anyone who uses the word feminist is a choice that is not based on any real concrete evidence.

the bit where you said your interested in challenging gender roles is the part which worrys a lot of people , tradition is seen as a bad thing to liberals - feminsists , not all but some feminists believe that both men and women need to be remoulded into sexless bots which make the genders indistinguishable from each other , this to me is a grave threat and one which must be met head on , men and women are inherintly different and thats one of the things which makes life so great , i hope i never see the day when boys are taught that mucking about on the football field or being manly is a bad thing or that girls are taught that wanting to be a home maker makes on a failure as a person

metrovelvet

irishh_bob wrote: »

the bit where you said your interested in challenging gender roles is the part which worrys a lot of people , tradition is seen as a bad thing to liberals - feminsists , not all but some feminists believe that both men and women need to be remoulded into sexless bots which make the genders indistinguishable from each other , this to me is a grave threat and one which must be met head on , men and women are inherintly different and thats one of the things which makes life so great , i hope i never see the day when boys are taught that mucking about on the football field or being manly is a bad thing or that girls are taught that wanting to be a home maker makes on a failure as a person

Feminists have landed themselves into an ideological knot with this one because they cant reconcile this erasure of gender identity with their leftist multi culturalism which thinks we shouldn't judge women for wearing cloths to cover their faces or heads or follow very traditional laws. I have seen no feminists fight to make sure sharia law does not influence US or UK courts either, when it comes to protecting women. So really? What exactly is it feminists do anymore? Are there any bras left to burn? What an ironically self destructive symbol. What is a shackle and what is support?

At the same time if I posted on the TGC that my three year old son son wants a handbag and for me to paint his toenails, they would be the first ones to say 'nooo....!!! Dont let him!!!' whereas I suspect TLL wouldnt care.

Macha

irishh_bob wrote: »

the bit where you said your interested in challenging gender roles is the part which worrys a lot of people , tradition is seen as a bad thing to liberals - feminsists , not all but some feminists believe that both men and women need to be remoulded into sexless bots which make the genders indistinguishable from each other , this to me is a grave threat and one which must be met head on , men and women are inherintly different and thats one of the things which makes life so great , i hope i never see the day when boys are taught that mucking about on the football field or being manly is a bad thing or that girls are taught that wanting to be a home maker makes on a failure as a person

Why should challenging gender roles worry a lot of people - or do you mean it worries you? And why do you think this would involve simply inverting current gender stereotypes and result in sexless bots? Bizarre

seamus

Macha wrote: »

Why should challenging gender roles worry a lot of people - or do you mean it worries you? And why do you think this would involve simply inverting current gender stereotypes and result in sexless bots? Bizarre

No, it would worry a fair amount of people. The common belief is that somene who challenges gender stereotypes is someone whose aim is to feminise men and masculinise women.
Macho men and girly girls come in for a lot of criticism from such "challenging" groups, which is a completely unfair thing to do.

They should instead be portraying the idea that freedom of expression is all that's important. If someone's idea of being themself is being a macho man, acting like a dick and being buffed, then that's his perogative. Likewise if a woman buys pink clothes and doesn't leave the house without beautifying herself, she's not a "slave" or damaging the feminst movement; instead she's being free to express herself and how she feels.

This is the problem with those who claim to be challenging gender stereotypes; they often appear to be trying to force people to not conform to stereotypes when in reality that goes against most peoples' natures. We all maintain a degree of stereotypical behaviour in our personalities, otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes.

Macha

seamus wrote: »

No, it would worry a fair amount of people. The common belief is that somene who challenges gender stereotypes is someone whose aim is to feminise men and masculinise women.
Macho men and girly girls come in for a lot of criticism from such "challenging" groups, which is a completely unfair thing to do.

They should instead be portraying the idea that freedom of expression is all that's important. If someone's idea of being themself is being a macho man, acting like a dick and being buffed, then that's his perogative. Likewise if a woman buys pink clothes and doesn't leave the house without beautifying herself, she's not a "slave" or damaging the feminst movement; instead she's being free to express herself and how she feels.

This is the problem with those who claim to be challenging gender stereotypes; they often appear to be trying to force people to not conform to stereotypes when in reality that goes against most peoples' natures. We all maintain a degree of stereotypical behaviour in our personalities, otherwise they wouldn't be stereotypes.

Well I don't agree with your concept of challenging stereotypes as it would appear to involve simply replacing the old stereotypes with new ones. Hardly the point.

Who are all these worried people? To be honest, I see more people trying to fight against stereotypes - fathers fighting for recognition as parents in law courts, women trying to get Article 41.2 taken out of the constitution, etc.

Sleepy

Anyone here have kids? Ever seen Peppa Pig?

Mammy Pig is the height of sensibility.
Daddy Pig is a fat, arrogant, buffoon to be dismissed as "silly daddy" in most episodes.

Welcome to the over-correction side of gender balancing. Feminists have acheived legal equality (arguably superiority), now all they're left lobbying for is society to change to cushion women from the consequencs of personal choices.

If there's a group out there that promotes genuine equality: i.e. complete removal of gender, race, age and sexuality from all legislation and implementation of that legislation in public services, I'd love to be part of it. I've never come across such a movement though, only lobbying groups for individual groups (e.g. women's rights, men's rights, LGBT rights, Age Action etc.).

Macha

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone here have kids? Ever seen Peppa Pig?

Mammy Pig is the height of sensibility.
Daddy Pig is a fat, arrogant, buffoon to be dismissed as "silly daddy" in most episodes.

Welcome to the over-correction side of gender balancing. Feminists have acheived legal equality (arguably superiority), now all they're left lobbying for is society to change to cushion women from the consequencs of personal choices.

This is completely untrue. The portrayal of men as incompetent fathers is simply the continuation of the old stereotypes that women are the best parents and men aren't. This isn't "over-correction" - this is just men realising that gender stereotypes have negative impacts for them as well.

Sleepy wrote: »

If there's a group out there that promotes genuine equality: i.e. complete removal of gender, race, age and sexuality from all legislation and implementation of that legislation in public services, I'd love to be part of it. I've never come across such a movement though, only lobbying groups for individual groups (e.g. women's rights, men's rights, LGBT rights, Age Action etc.).

As someone who works for a not-for-profit, the idea that a campaigning group could aim to cover every single equality issue is completely unreasonable. The level of resources and funds available to not-for-profits mean they have to target their resources. It's that simple.

seamus

Macha wrote: »

Who are all these worried people?

The public at large. Ask around

It's a PR issue, it's not about agreeing with my concept of challenging stereotypes. Whatever you think the concept of "challenging stereotypes" is, it's something which has become attached to feminist groups primarily, who now have a negative public image.
Men feel that modern feminist groups are misandrist ball-crushers, and women feel that they're masculine totalitarian zealots.

In short, the public feels that they're just another anti-equality interest group. Feminism, by history and definition aims to improve the conditions for women only. Now that we're approaching the zenith of equality in most western countries - i.e. there are no headline issues where women have less rights than men, the movement suffers a backlash because despite most feminist groups working towards an equal rights basis, they're still attached to the "feminist" word which has always meant "women only".

And most men and most women are not in support of "women only" rights.

You and Sleepy are both right to a certain degree - the "bumbling father" stereotype has been around for a long long time, but only stands out now because it's in stark contrast to how such a negative stereotype in women would be jumped on immediately by feminist groups. Yet, it persists and is not challenged by feminists, which only serves to enforce the idea that feminists have no interests in equality.

metrovelvet

Sleepy wrote: »

Anyone here have kids? Ever seen Peppa Pig?

Mammy Pig is the height of sensibility.
Daddy Pig is a fat, arrogant, buffoon to be dismissed as "silly daddy" in most episodes.

Welcome to the over-correction side of gender balancing. Feminists have acheived legal equality (arguably superiority), now all they're left lobbying for is society to change to cushion women from the consequencs of personal choices.

If there's a group out there that promotes genuine equality: i.e. complete removal of gender, race, age and sexuality from all legislation and implementation of that legislation in public services, I'd love to be part of it. I've never come across such a movement though, only lobbying groups for individual groups (e.g. women's rights, men's rights, LGBT rights, Age Action etc.).

I agree with this. There is a white male role model deficiency.

At the same time a lot of men find changing nappies emasculating. A lot of men still refuse to do it.

But if you look at older tv shows the dad is often the figure smoking a pipe and hiding behind a newspaper.

There is always a gap too between official equality and the reality. Black Americans have had equal rights for yonks now, but there will still be discriminations that you cant wipe away with a few changes in the law.

Sleepy

Macha wrote: »

This is completely untrue. The portrayal of men as incompetent fathers is simply the continuation of the old stereotypes that women are the best parents and men aren't. This isn't "over-correction" - this is just men realising that gender stereotypes have negative impacts for them as well.

It seems an "over-correction" in my eyes that men, as a group, are seemingly prepared to let such bias slide out of a misplaced sense of guilt for the actions of their predecessors...

As someone who works for a not-for-profit, the idea that a campaigning group could aim to cover every single equality issue is completely unreasonable. The level of resources and funds available to not-for-profits mean they have to target their resources. It's that simple.

I disagree, it's actually more simple than that. Ensuring that the law sees all humans as having equal rights and responsibilities is a pretty straight-forward aim and one that's unlikely to meet much opposition (other than from vested interests who would instantly be exposing themselves as vested by arguing against any proposals made).

Now, assuming such a group would gain a following from the egalitarian-minded members of the current lobbying bodies (e.g. those feminists who believe in equality rather than superiority of the female), it should subsume most of them, attracting their funding and support instead of leaving fractious groups squabbling over shares of the pie.

Add administrative efficiencies that such a "super NGO" would benefit from (single marketing and advertising department, single payroll and IT departments, single CEO etc. etc. etc.) and it'd be a far more efficient use of resources than our current mono-issue groups which are often at loggerheads with one another.

metrovelvet

I wish people would stop asking for the feminists to solve this. They are an academic ivory towered group who have done enough damage as it is. Leave them out of it.

Yes it's great we have the vote. Thank you.

Macha

Sleepy wrote: »

It seems an "over-correction" in my eyes that men, as a group, are seemingly prepared to let such bias slide out of a misplaced sense of guilt for the actions of their predecessors...

Well that is unfortunate. I think it terrible that men today would feel guilt for the society they were born into. I always make it very clear that I am not about blame but solutions. And as I've posted in other place on here, women are just as good as enforcing rigid gender roles as men.

Sleepy wrote: »

I disagree, it's actually more simple than that. Ensuring that the law sees all humans as having equal rights and responsibilities is a pretty straight-forward aim and one that's unlikely to meet much opposition (other than from vested interests who would instantly be exposing themselves as vested by arguing against any proposals made).

Now, assuming such a group would gain a following from the egalitarian-minded members of the current lobbying bodies (e.g. those feminists who believe in equality rather than superiority of the female), it should subsume most of them, attracting their funding and support instead of leaving fractious groups squabbling over shares of the pie.

Add administrative efficiencies that such a "super NGO" would benefit from (single marketing and advertising department, single payroll and IT departments, single CEO etc. etc. etc.) and it'd be a far more efficient use of resources than our current mono-issue groups which are often at loggerheads with one another.

Well, I'm with you on the more efficient use of resources but equality is a massive, massive issue and I just don't think one super-NGO could do it.

There are still legal issues in Ireland, such as family law, the fact that a female rapist can only be sentenced to 7 years, the constitution's recognition of a woman's place int he home etc. But in the West, we're not talking about the law so much any more but about cultural norms and attitudes.

I just don't hold with the idea that because someone is working towards equality for one section of society, that one things that section is superior. To me, there is no logic. And I see your proposed solution as unworkable, unfortunately.

Edit: metrovelvet, I happened to do one module on feminism in college - the lecturer was awful and everyone disliked her intensely. I have no other academic connections to feminism but consider myself one. Why do you label feminism as an academic ivory tower? Most of the feminism I see today is in grass-roots blogs and in books like Half The Sky.

Sleepy

metrovelvet wrote: »

I agree with this. There is a white male role model deficiency.

At the same time a lot of men find changing nappies emasculating. A lot of men still refuse to do it.

But if you look at older tv shows the dad is often the figure smoking a pipe and hiding behind a newspaper.

There is always a gap too between official equality and the reality. Black Americans have had equal rights for yonks now, but there will still be discriminations that you cant wipe away with a few changes in the law.

My take on this is that we can't wave any kind of wand, legislative or otherwise which will change things dramatically in the short term. In fact, I believe a lot of the current feminist groups arguments about gender-gaps in pay, representation, levels of women at CEO level etc. are actually more rooted in their impatience for society to catch up with the legislation than indications of any real gender balance.

Our constitution and legislation is the bedrock upon which society develops. Enshrining equality of all, with no loopholes or get out clauses for particular groups, puts changes in motion which in time will lead to that society evolving. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to think that the level of time required for such things to bear fruit is extensive: perhaps even a generation. Our Celtic Tiger economy was largely rooted in political decisions which had taken place 15 years previously.

The best I think we can hope for is to set the framework in place for the futue to be better than the present.