Feminism

CDfm

strobe wrote: »

I would have said that was fairly obvious. Men are bigger, faster and stronger and therefore would obviously be better at catching and killing a monkey or goat than women (going back to pre-technology days here).

*tip toes away on account of having a girlfriend who does the diy stuff and would be better at monkey or goat killing than me * :pac:

slowburner

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Can you give me an example of an inherrently female or male trait? I'm not sure what you mean.

Now the ball's rolling

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Can you give me an example of an inherrently female or male trait? I'm not sure what you mean.

slowburner wrote: »

Now the ball's rolling

The simple questions are normally the best ones.

Killing someone. Most people can't do it and have to be trained to if they join the army.

Some people say that because of biological differences in puberty that the school system suits girls more than boys.

Isn't there also that thing about if enough people believe a concept (true or false) that it gains its own momentum. A bit like Crick & Co's DNA theory and not really accounting for proteins and their significance but being the best available explanation at the time.

Feynmann said that a lot of social sciences were pseudo science and could not be proven.

Is that the sort of thing you mean Lee ?

LeeHoffmann

no?? I didn't say any of that. I'm very confused now

digme

Count Duckula wrote: »

What's the attitude towards it from a male perspective? A still-relevant movement that has a hell of a lot to fight for yet? Or is it now largely the domain of man-haters or those looking for superiority not equality?

Do the men of tGC consider themselves feminists, egalitarians, or neither? Are you interested in men's rights, and if so is the successful acquisition of those rights inextricably tied to the feminist movement and its goals?

I'd be interested to read the discussion from a decidedly male perspective.

that's an easy one.Feminism is only reserved for western women.Forget African women who are nearly all raped at some stage of their ****ty lives.
Feminism is for rich white women usually.

Forest Fire

I think women get a fair deal in western society. Men can't have babies and that's what puts us in an advantage in the workplace.
In the homeplace though, women are at a serious advantage. If either you or they play around(or just doesn't please their partner generally) or fall out of love, and it leads to serious acrimony and divorce, the judge will always side with the mother and give them most of the custody..if not full, no matter what. This has men treading on egg-shells around the house which adds to undue stress at home.

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

no?? I didn't say any of that. I'm very confused now

You and me both.

Its all your fault for asking simple direct questions

Edit. I was trying to work out what something inherently male or female might be. The popular image is that men are more violent than women.

So is that socialised or biological or is there a clear answer ?

Some studies suggest that women are more agressive or that its about equal

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

LeeHoffmann

I was in a Development tutorial in college the other day when the gender question came up of why there are more male CEO's/managers etc than female. One of the students in my class (mature, female) answered in a very nonchalant way "men are innately more motivated and ambitious". The weirder thing was nobody challenged this assertion - not even the tutor! My jaw dropped and I felt obliged to wade in again
Anyway, it seemed to me that this point of view is common - or at least, not controversial.

What do you think CDFM? How would you answer that? We would have to agree on a definition of violent first to answer I suppose, but the debate isn't about violence - just about whether there are inherrently male/female traits. If that means innately gendered, I'd say no. If it means 'displayed more by one particular gender in western society at this current time', then I'd say pick your words more carefully. If it means something else, then I've got to wait to find out what that 'else' might be

I'd have no problem accepting that men and women can be equally as aggressive as each other. That's what my experience would have told me

CDfm

I dont know the answer but I will make a stab at it.

Your colleague was way out.

Peer group recognition is very important to people. My girlfriend says women dress for other women.

For well over a century 1850's + Women have dominated Hospital Administration, Nursing & Teaching in one form or another. Nuns are women.

Look at this one who gave Florence Nightengale a run for her money.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72249069&postcount=13

The Mercy Nuns went Global with a significant presence in Europe, North America and Africa. What did Nightengale do ?

You also had many women in business and trades , shops, dressmakers , midwifes, farming & poultry & egg production. These go back forever.

Barbershops died out, hairdressers flourished. Mens outfitters vs boutiques. Who owns them ?

Professional charities, interest groups -who runs them ?

They all can't be anomalies.

Now I am not dismissing any theory but I imagine that class and comcentration of wealth in a small number of families etc stiffled things.

Time is also a criteria as it takes a generation or 2 for change to filter thru.

I think your colleague is way off beam.

This is far from a thought out answer but there are lots of examples.

LeeHoffmann

What is it you think she's wrong about? That men are more motivated and ambitious, or that either gender is more motivated etc?

What is your answer to this?:

The popular image is that men are more violent than women.
So is that socialised or biological or is there a clear answer ?

CDfm

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

What is it you think she's wrong about? That men are more motivated and ambitious, or that either gender is more motivated etc?

I don't know precisely.

But I have a feeling that peer group and class/elite is more significant.

Like, how many CEO's are there ? What schools did they attend.

Garret Fitzgerald , Charles Haughey & George Colley all attended UCD at the same time. Enda Kenny inherited his Dail Seat from his father as did Colley & Fitzgerald.

So elites are important.

How many children of solicitors become solicitors and inherit their practices. Accountants the same.

What is your answer to this?:

The popular image is that men are more violent than women.
So is that socialised or biological or is there a clear answer ?

I do not know.

We know that DV can run in families and we know that personality disorders can run in families too.

We also know that people operate differently as part of a group than individually.

But what we can say is that when it occurs when are the perpetrators equally or in slightly higher numbers.

I reckon that attributing everything to gender is simplistic.

Postulating a theory or model is ok but as Feynman said -doubting is good.

slowburner

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I guess you wouldn't agree with the theory of hegemonic masculinity though!

Come back Johnnymcg! You were going to tell us all about the hegemonic masculinity that you broadly subscribe to

slowburner

The scope in any debate here for misunderstanding is enormous. Especially so when we consider the two terms which feminism is seen to aspire to, namely - equality, and equal opportunity.
Equal opportunity is a self explanatory term. 'Equality' is ambiguous. Does aspiring to equality mean that if there was burglar in the house - the woman should deal with it?
Does aspiring to equality mean that there should be no such thing as 'a man's job' or a 'woman's job'?
Surely biology dictates that there are roles to which men and women are better suited? For the life of me, I can't see how that could be controversial or offensive to anyone.

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

You were going to tell us all about the hegemonic masculinity that you broadly subscribe to

Well I read a bit on it and while I dont know enough about it I can see how it may be worthy of some consideration.

slowburner

I (mis)read a bit on it too.
My understanding of the theory is that it proposes that men are encouraged by society to dominate other men. Included in the demonstration of this dominance, is the subordination of women. To be perceived as dominant, a man should emphasise characteristics such as aggression, ambition, ruthlessness etc.
Or am I completely misunderstanding it?

CDfm

I don't know.

There is a huge difference between scientific theory which is a tested hypothesis which can be measured and challenged .

A Sociological Theory is different because it tries to understand something intangible. So it may not be measureable.

I have a woman doctor and I dont feel embarressed talking to her about my nuts. I wouldnt have the same rapport with her male colleague. Now how can you quantify that. Maybe I didn't play enough sport while young.

Is it her bedside manner or is it me ?

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

I don't know.

There is a huge difference between scientific theory which is a tested hypothesis which can be measured and challenged .

A Sociological Theory is different because it tries to understand something intangible. So it may not be measureable.

I have a woman doctor and I dont feel embarressed talking to her about my nuts. I wouldnt have the same rapport with her male colleague. Now how can you quantify that. Maybe I didn't play enough sport while young.

Is it her bedside manner or is it me ?

Surely Sociology is a science?
Psychology had the same difficulties in its early days with measurability. I suppose that the testing of a theory in Sociology, could be done/is done scientifically too.

I fully empathise with your rapport with your doctor. But maybe her male colleague is just a ******ks :eek: - how do you quantify that, when testing the theory of hegemonic masculinity!

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

Surely Sociology is a science?
Psychology had the same difficulties in its early days with measurability. I suppose that the testing of a theory in Sociology, could be done/is done scientifically too.

I don't think so and thats why I posted the Feynman video's. I have an economics degree and some parts of economics really work and is very precise. Others test the water.

When you dont know something though you make assumptions.

"Real science" explains like the Law of Gravity is or atomic bombs -do this and you get an explosion.

"Social Sciences" observe and " seek to explain" which is different.


Some stuff is simple and just obvious.Now employment law and practice made huge differences. My mum is a retired teacher and for lots of her professional life was paid at lower rates and passed over for promotion by her male colleagues as thats how it worked.

But try to explain the football or the ambience of a match when guys are playing probably cant be done.

Or that pro-wrestling works as entertainment with guys but with women it just isn't credible. Or would you want to know.

Some methodology "theories" have not been without controversy with the medical community -like areas of false memory/abuse

http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7130/488?cited-by=yes&legid=bmj;316/7130/488

So the lack of scientific method makes them makey upey .

Like psychology gets described by practioners as an emerging science and its diagnostics as not precise and they are peer reviewed etc. So we have to be careful.(clumsily worded).The difference being psychologists accept that their field is emerging and needs caution.

I fully empathise with your rapport with your doctor. But maybe her male colleague is just a ******ks :eek: - how do you quantify that, when testing the theory of hegemonic masculinity!

No , he is a nice guy and a very good doctor and I can't quantify it I just get on with her better. I believe I get better treatment from her. So its grand.

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

I don't think so and thats why I posted the Feynman video's. I have an economics degree and some parts of economics really work and is very precise. Others test the water.

No , he is a nice guy and a very good doctor and I can't quantify it I just get on with her better. I believe I get better treatment from her. So its grand.

That's good to know. It's important to be comfortable with your doctor.:)

- from the Oxford English Dictionary

Science (is)
4. A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated* by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain....
*colligate: to bring (isolated facts) together by an explanation or hypothesis.

I think this definition would imply that sociology is a science.

irishh_bob

digme wrote: »

that's an easy one.Feminism is only reserved for western women.Forget African women who are nearly all raped at some stage of their ****ty lives.
Feminism is for rich white women usually.

for rich liberals , heard john brutons wife on with matt cooper the other day , she was highlighting the plight of young men in ireland during in 2011 and how she belives the rescession is effecting men much more than women , she went on to state that she was never comfortable with the idea of being told how to think and therefore had problems with the whole feminist culture , personally , i think many women who call themselves feminists do so along the same lines as calling themselves liberal on gay rights or other issues , it sounds good

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

Science (is)
4. A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated* by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truths within its own domain....
*colligate: to bring (isolated facts) together by an explanation or hypothesis.

I think this definition would imply that sociology is a science.

I think when we talk about science like physics or chemistry we get facts. A theory in the physical sciences describes an event that can be reproduced and tested.

Scientists often talk of Occams Razor called after a friar William of Occam. He would have said you cannot prove scientifically the existence of God even though he was very devout -he split up the scientific from the philosophical and built on the work of the greek philosophers -great lads for abstract concepts.

Here is a link and I once spent a weekend on line in A&A going thru it

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm

So we should not fall into the trap of mixing up the philosophical with the scientific.

So something like sociology is descriptive as opposed to being scientific fact because physical science has a different standard of proof.

IMO -you dont want to confuse possible explanations with scientific proof.


Edit
In Scottish Law you have Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven-which is we do not have enough evidence to convict. There are no black or whites.

When I see stuff about treatment of women in the middle east I go fcek terrible but if someone says its the responsibility of all men I go "whoa there".

exe.pat

Stheno wrote: »

With the exception of article 41 of the constitution, None of what you have posted above are protected by extra rights, laws or protections for women, or if I am wrong can you point me directly to them? Are you aware that there are at least 7000 men who are sahd's now in Ireland?



Parental leave rights apply equally to men and women, the societal norm/culture may apply it more liberally to women, or men may feel constrained by that societal norm/culture, but there is nothing stopping them from availing of it under law.

You made a point earlier also that women have extra rights under family law, there is a cultural/societal norm here where women with children tend to fare far far better in custodial decisions relating to children, however in the cases of couples with no children the law is absolutely gender neutral, has provision for the payment of spousal maintenance, and women do find themselves paying it.

I think if you are going to post saying that women have more rights/protection/laws in their favour then you really need to distinguish those from societal/cultural norms.

Here you go, women will no longer have to work as hard as men to get into politics and it remains to be seen what caliber of genderist bigots hand picked from the political feminist community will make up the 30% and what special privileges and laws for women and totalitarian "equality" system they will seek to put in place after that.

Gender quotas in Irish gov. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0528/gender.html

slowburner

CDfm wrote: »

I think when we talk about science like physics or chemistry we get facts. A theory in the physical sciences describes an event that can be reproduced and tested.

Scientists often talk of Occams Razor called after a friar William of Occam. He would have said you cannot prove scientifically the existence of God even though he was very devout -he split up the scientific from the philosophical and built on the work of the greek philosophers -great lads for abstract concepts.

Here is a link and I once spent a weekend on line in A&A going thru it

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa051600a.htm

So we should not fall into the trap of mixing up the philosophical with the scientific.

So something like sociology is descriptive as opposed to being scientific fact because physical science has a different standard of proof.

IMO -you dont want to confuse possible explanations with scientific proof.


Edit
In Scottish Law you have Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven-which is we do not have enough evidence to convict. There are no black or whites.

When I see stuff about treatment of women in the middle east I go fcek terrible but if someone says its the responsibility of all men I go "whoa there".

From distant memory, I seem to recall that Occam's Razor refers to the principle in science and thought, that the simplest solution - if it is the correct one - should not be added to, or deliberately made more complex.

I don't think you can distinguish between the application of rational thought to science and to more abstract disciplines like Philosophy or Sociology. The difference lies in the material nature of the subject. There is no difference in the rigour of the analytical method.

Heck, we're getting so far off topic, we're going to need 4 x 4s

Klingon Hamlet

Masculism and feminism oppose one another. Humanism brings everyone together equally.

slowburner

I always thought that's what sex was for.

CDfm

exe.pat wrote: »

Here you go, women will no longer have to work as hard as men to get into politics and it remains to be seen what caliber of genderist bigots hand picked from the political feminist community will make up the 30% and what special privileges and laws for women and totalitarian "equality" system they will seek to put in place after that.

Gender quotas in Irish gov. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0528/gender.html

Jeez - a political party will find it very easy to do something it is doing already and make a virtue out of it.

They will pick candidates from their own members and politicians families as that is how it works.

As for "feminist" policies , I think issues need to be discussed openly.

CDfm

Klingon Hamlet wrote: »

Masculism and feminism oppose one another. Humanism brings everyone together equally.

slowburner wrote: »

I always thought that's what sex was for.

Stheno

exe.pat wrote: »

Here you go, women will no longer have to work as hard as men to get into politics and it remains to be seen what caliber of genderist bigots hand picked from the political feminist community will make up the 30% and what special privileges and laws for women and totalitarian "equality" system they will seek to put in place after that.

Gender quotas in Irish gov. http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0528/gender.html

I really really do not agree with quotas of any kind, I fail to see what having a quota for female politicians will do to encourage candidates. Instead I see it as forcing parties to choose on the basis of gender, and I'd wonder if it's not contrary to our equality laws?

E.g. Joe Soap is with the party for years and ini terms of service and tenure as a councillor, is next so to speak to stand for the party in a General election.

Then Joe gets told that Mary Jane is getting the candidate ship as the party must abide by minimum quotas. Mary Jane only joined the party six months ago, has no experience of local or nationial politics, but that darned quota law means she gets the slot.

Why??? What value does that add to anything other than to discourage men to participate?

CDfm

slowburner wrote: »

From distant memory, I seem to recall that Occam's Razor refers to the principle in science and thought, that the simplest solution - if it is the correct one - should not be added to, or deliberately made more complex.

Yes - Occam dealt in theology and logic.

With feminism "theories" are postulated without this rigour.

I always like to see the ideology behind them.

I don't think you can distinguish between the application of rational thought to science and to more abstract disciplines like Philosophy or Sociology. The difference lies in the material nature of the subject. There is no difference in the rigour of the analytical method.

There should not be .

There are lots of theories in feminism and there have been some controvercial offshoots such as the pop psychology book " Courage to Heal" - I innocently started a thread on the "backlash"

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056045740

Central to it was false memory/accusations and the medical communities dismissal of the book/movement/method.

Heck, we're getting so far off topic, we're going to need 4 x 4s

Its ok -we are men and we are talking and looking at the OP we can go on forever.

TNA vs WWE - I loved the Awesome Kong -she was a social worker IRL !!!

CDfm

I heard about this Australian writer Leslie Cannold from a woman I know and only recently looked her up. From a quick look she also talks about how men think and feel and not in a moany moany unempowered way but with a bit of ethics thrown in.

http://cannold.com/research

http://cannold.com/static/files/assets/aa358dd8/rethinking-the-moral-crime-of-paternity-fraud.pdf

I try to think of others peoples rights when considering my own.

She is worth a gawk.

We dont have such discourse in Ireland