Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

hardbackwriter

PrincessLola wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Once again my main point is being ignored.

What is the main goal of feminism, gender equality or to increase the rights of women?

Has anyone ever come across a feminist pissed off that women have better conditions than men?

I get it that you're afraid women's rights = oppression of men, you see any kind of movement to try and help women as being anti-man.

To answer your point, the main goal of feminism is hinted at in its very name: feminism, its for the progression of women so that they are given an equal standing to men. It came about in the late 19th century when women decided to stand up and fight for their right to vote/ own property/ have careers/ run businesses/ not be under the control of their husbands/ just be seen as equals. So yes, it was born out of a need to address the inequal standing of women in society. Its main focus was women, i this a bad thing? No.
Black equality groups focus on black people
Fathers' rights groups focus on fathers
Not every social movement has to be related to you.

To answer Dudess, I agree with you, but you'd be surprised what some individuals think. You see people complaining that poor little boys are doing badly in school with only female teachers who they can't relate to. Yet girls are expected to just deal with the fact that most world leaders/doctors/characters in tv shows & movies are male. :rolleyes:

and feminists wonder at the charge of a them and us attitude, your post is adversarial in the extreme including a derisory attitude towards small boys , divisive much

Seachmall

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Logistically it was possible to ask men whose jobs did not require them to be out at night to stay indoors then focus on those whose jobs did. That never seemed to occur to the police. Checkpoints could have been put in place to monitor movements - after all, they had 5 years.

I'd suspect checkpoints very much occured to the police however there's the problem of man power and financing them. Did they even have the legal ability to do a stop and search back then? And given the scope of the operation over such a long period their suspects list would have been thousands long if they took names of anyone who didn't need to be outside.

Advising women not to go out costs no money, no man power, no wasting of police time and quite possibly saved lives.

These are the facts:
- A man was raping women after dark.
- Police advised women, for their own safety, to stay in after dark.

That is absolutely a logical thing to do. How you get "chauvinistic subliminal messages" from that is beyond me.

The King of Moo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

where do you see a need for change within the GAA, they acted with an open mind towards rugby in Croke park , the queen of England to visit Croker last year during her state visit , where else do you think they need to change

In making changes to the kind of society it fostered that Midlandsmissus described, where men who don't play are ostracised and some players act in a very sexist manner. While the change might need to come from the players themselves rather the organisation, don't you think that these things are bad and it would be better if they were changed?

I don't know why you mentioned Croke Park and the Queen's visit: I said earlier that I acknowledge the G.A.A does a lot of good, even on a grassroots level of providing a healthy pasttime in areas where there's not much else to do.

But as I already said, just because an organisation does some good doesn't mean it and the culture it might foster should be exempt from criticism and change.

Why don't you stop talking about the good the G.A.A does as no-one's disagreeing with that?
Why don't you address the culture Midlandsmissus talked about?

hardbackwriter

krudler wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

have you ever seen a GAA star without a cracker on his arm , most women like men who engage in playing sport , the GAA has been an almost overwhelming force for good in this country and is the bedrock of rural Ireland , btw , I say that as someone who prefers soccer

its also parochial bigoted small town Ireland at its worst, but thats a whole other debate

liking GAA makes you a bigot? , what a horrid attitude , snobby , mean spirited and ignorant

foxyboxer

hardbackwriter wrote: »

where do you see a need for change within the GAA, they acted with an open mind towards rugby in Croke park , the queen of England to visit Croker last year during her state visit , where else do you think they need to change

Of the top of my head it would be the attitude to the referee.
Watching Prime Time last week and it was suggested that a total respect for the referee and their officials as well as their decisions would be an ideal scenario.

I'm not a rugby fan but seeing 17 stone behemoths apologise to a referee is indeed a sight to behold and the losing side applauding the victors from the field of play is unfortunately a sight we may never after say an inter county championship match.

PrincessLola

hardbackwriter wrote: »

and feminists wonder at the charge of a them and us attitude, your post is adversarial in the extreme including a derisory attitude towards small boys , divisive much

No it does not. You are unfairly putting words in my mouth. I wouldn't see any problem with small girls being taught by a male teacher (I had a male teacher for most of my time in primary school). So why would I see boys having a female teacher as a problem?

I'm not trying to purpotrate the them vs us, I am just explaining where feminism is coming from, its historical backround.

hardbackwriter

The King of Moo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

where do you see a need for change within the GAA, they acted with an open mind towards rugby in Croke park , the queen of England to visit Croker last year during her state visit , where else do you think they need to change

In making changes to the kind of society it fostered that Midlandsmissus described, where men who don't play are ostracised and some players act in a very sexist manner. While the change might need to come from the players themselves rather the organisation, don't you think that these things are bad and it would be better if they were changed?

I don't know why you mentioned Croke Park and the Queen's visit: I said earlier that I acknowledge the G.A.A does a lot of good, even on a grassroots level of providing a healthy pasttime in areas where there's not much else to do.

But as I already said, just because an organisation does some good doesn't mean it and the culture it might foster should be exempt from criticism and change.

Why don't you stop talking about the good the G.A.A does as no-one's disagreeing with that?
Why don't you address the culture Midlandsmissus talked about?

I don't believe that men who don't play GAA in rural Ireland are ostracised , I don't play it and I'm not , as for sexist behaviour amongst GAA players , that's a new one on me , I'm aware of sexism in the army etc but not hurling

Bannasidhe

Seachmall wrote: »

I'd suspect checkpoints very much occured to the police however there's the problem of man power and financing them. Did they even have the legal ability to do a stop and search back then? And given the scope of the operation over such a long period their suspects list would have been thousands long if they took names of anyone who didn't need to be outside.

Advising women not to go out costs no money, no man power, no wasting of police time and quite possibly saved lives.

These are the facts:
- A man was raping women after dark.
- Police advised women, for their own safety, to stay in after dark.

That is absolutely a logical thing to do. How you get "chauvinistic subliminal messages" from that is beyond me.

I have explained this several times already and not going to do so again.
As I said we can agree to disagree.

The King of Moo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I don't believe that men who don't play GAA in rural Ireland are ostracised , I don't play it and I'm not , as for sexist behaviour amongst GAA players , that's a new one on me , I'm aware of sexism in the army etc but not hurling

Fair enough.

I'm no expert on the G.A.A but I can see how the culture she described might occur in a small town.

Even though I'm an unrepentant townie, I've seen the preferential treatment G.A.A stars get firsthand, so I can see how players could get big egos and consider themselves better than others and able to treat women how they want.

I can't say how widespread a phenomenon it is, however.

hardbackwriter

foxyboxer wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

where do you see a need for change within the GAA, they acted with an open mind towards rugby in Croke park , the queen of England to visit Croker last year during her state visit , where else do you think they need to change

Of the top of my head it would be the attitude to the referee.
Watching Prime Time last week and it was suggested that a total respect for the referee and their officials as well as their decisions would be an ideal scenario.

I'm not a rugby fan but seeing 17 stone behemoths apologise to a referee is indeed a sight to behold and the losing side applauding the victors from the field of play is unfortunately a sight we may never after say an inter county championship match.

rugby is not as earthy as GAA, thier is no tradition of clapping the winning team in most sports , so what , what difference does it really make

krudler

hardbackwriter wrote: »

liking GAA makes you a bigot? , what a horrid attitude , snobby , mean spirited and ignorant

Yeah thats exactly what I said

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If one starts a movement where the core goal is to stop the abuse of all animals but ignores abuse to all animals except gorillas then they are hypocrites.

Is the ISPCA campaign hypocritical for not focusing on the mistreatment of Irish human beings, who after all, are Irish animals?

B0jangles

This is hopeless - for any discussion to have any hope whatsoever of achieving anything, there has to be willingness on both sides to listen to the arguments put forward and when called for, to admit the validity of various points put forward by the opposite side.

I'm seeing a lot of careful phrasing, evidence-supported structured argument being put forward by the pro-feminism side and a lot of outright dismissal, deflection and totally unsupported statements being presented as fact by those who are determined to paint feminists in a distinctly unfavourable light.

How many self-identified feminists here have agreed here that fathers get a shoddy deal when it comes to custody, every. single. time. it is brought up?

How many of those who identify as being opposed to the concept of feminism in modern Ireland have admitted the validity of pretty anything said by the feminists without the qualifier that men have it just as bad?

hardbackwriter

The King of Moo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I don't believe that men who don't play GAA in rural Ireland are ostracised , I don't play it and I'm not , as for sexist behaviour amongst GAA players , that's a new one on me , I'm aware of sexism in the army etc but not hurling

Fair enough.

I'm no expert on the G.A.A but I can see how the culture she described might occur in a small town.

Even though I'm an unrepentant townie, I've seen the preferential treatment G.A.A stars get firsthand, so I can see how players could get big egos and consider themselves better than others and able to treat women how they want.

I can't say how widespread a phenomenon it is, however.

sport stars being idolised is a global phenomenon , most see sport as a terrific influence on kids , as for sports stars getting a big ego , what's so terrible about that

Scanlas The 2nd

PrincessLola wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Once again my main point is being ignored.

What is the main goal of feminism, gender equality or to increase the rights of women?

Has anyone ever come across a feminist pissed off that women have better conditions than men?

I get it that you're afraid women's rights = oppression of men, you see any kind of movement to try and help women as being anti-:

I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion here and then you come along and make stuff up out of thin air.

When did I ever say women's rights equals oppression for men.

When did I say a movement to help wOmen is anti man.

Look for a quote. You won't find it.

I'm all for any demographic to improve their circumstances.

If a billionaire committee is formed to improve their circumstance I've no problem with it, if acrobats decide to campaign for better rights I'm all for that. No one is responsible for campaigning for the rights of others.

But claiming gender equality is your goal whilst ignoring scenarios where one gender is treated worse than the other is hypocritical.

If I say making pop corn is my passion and priority in life but don't bother making popcorn that makes me a hypocrite.

later12

B0jangles wrote: »

How many self-identified feminists here have agreed here that fathers get a shoddy deal when it comes to custody, every. single. time. it is brought up?

Many. That has been repeated again and again.

It has also been repeated that this has no more to do with feminism than womens' pay has to do with fathers' rights.

There is a deep and tenacious misunderstanding that feminism is about equal rights from the point of view of both sexes: which is about as silly as suggesting that the father's rights movements should focus on the lack of mothers' rights in some instances.

All campaigns have to have a basic focus. The feminist campaign, while part of the overall egalitarian based ideal, focuses upon the lot of women.

Bannasidhe

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If one starts a movement where the core goal is to stop the abuse of all animals but ignores abuse to all animals except gorillas then they are hypocrites.

I was linked definitions of feminism and it states that femininism is primarily concerned with equality for women. How can movement concerned about equality for women be content to do nothing in cases where women are treated better than men. That violates the core principle of feminism. And I've heard and read feminist frequently refer to the importance of gender equality but I never hear or see any actions taken to create equality where it means increasing men's rights or reducing women's unfair advantage.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."[3]

As you can see from the definition the pursuit of equality for women is the goal, it doesn't say the goal is to increase women's rights.

You continue to ask the same questions and in this thread, and the 'thread' thread you were answered time and time again by a variety of posters. You have been shown links where well know feminists have publicly spoken out on topics relating to legal discrimination against men. Every single person, female and male, who identifies as feminist on this thread had stated without reservation that they believe there are laws which discriminate against men and that this is wrong and needs to be changed as a matter of urgency. I believe it was Sharrow who wrote about attempting to set up support/campaign groups for unmarried fathers to advoate for their rights. You have chosen to ignore all of this.

I feel at this point that you have no interest whatsoever in hearing any replies but prefer to trot out the same old strawman argument over and over.

Others may have the patience to continue but I personally have come to the conclusion that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you have decided on your position and therefore there is no point attempting to debate with you.

The King of Moo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

sport stars being idolised is a global phenomenon , most see sport as a terrific influence on kids , as for sports stars getting a big ego , what's so terrible about that

Situations like the one Midlandsmissus described where men think they can do what they want, treat women poorly, look down on other non sports-playing men and get preferential treatment.

And just look at the English premiership to see the bad side of sportsmen with big egos.

Now I'm not saying that the situation she described happens in every small Irish town, but I've no reason to think she's lying, and logic tells me that such situations could easily arise.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But claiming gender equality is your goal

Womens' rights and the improvement of their position is the explicit goal of feminism.
Gender equality is one of its implicit goals.

Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Who has said that in the 600 odd posts that have been written on the matter over the past 3 days?

Scanlas The 2nd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If one starts a movement where the core goal is to stop the abuse of all animals but ignores abuse to all animals except gorillas then they are hypocrites.

I was linked definitions of feminism and it states that femininism is primarily concerned with equality for women. How can movement concerned about equality for women be content to do nothing in cases where women are treated better than men. That violates the core principle of feminism. And I've heard and read feminist frequently refer to the importance of gender equality but I never hear or see any actions taken to create equality where it means increasing men's rights or reducing women's unfair advantage.

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is a "person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism."[3]

As you can see from the definition the pursuit of equality for women is the goal, it doesn't say the goal is to increase women's rights.

You continue to ask the same questions and in this thread, and the 'thread' thread you were answered time and time again by a variety of posters. You have been shown links where well know feminists have publicly spoken out on topics relating to legal discrimination against men. Every single person, female and male, who identifies as feminist on this thread had stated without reservation that they believe there are laws which discriminate against men and that this is wrong and needs to be changed as a matter of urgency. I believe it was Sharrow who wrote about attempting to set up support/campaign groups for unmarried fathers to advoate for their rights. You have chosen to ignore all of this.

I feel at this point that you have no interest whatsoever in hearing any replies but prefer to trot out the same old strawman argument over and over.

Others may have the patience to continue but I personally have come to the conclusion that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you have decided on your position and therefore there is no point attempting to debate with you.

Stating you believe discrimination against men is wrong is great, and maybe these people saying that are true feminists concerned with equality of women. But on the whole worldwide I would thought there would be the occasional campaign for men since theyclaim equality for wOmen is so important.

I'm more than willing to change my opinion that most "feminist" are hypocrites. An actual feminist is not a hypocryt because they act in congruence with their principals.

You pointed out my that my definition of feminism is wrong, I replied with a wiki quote of feminism. The ball is now in your court to show my reasoning is flawed.

TheZohanS

later12 wrote: »

Is the ISPCA campaign hypocritical for not focusing on the mistreatment of Irish human beings, who after all, are Irish animals?

Nice strawman.

flanders1979

Just heading down to the plastic surgeons to get fitted with a prosthetic pair of tits so when my wife gives birth I can feed the child too. God forbid there would would be any differences in male and female roles. We can't be having that.
Its the least I can do considering I made her roof half the garage last week.

hardbackwriter

The King of Moo wrote: »

hardbackwriter wrote: »

sport stars being idolised is a global phenomenon , most see sport as a terrific influence on kids , as for sports stars getting a big ego , what's so terrible about that

Situations like the one Midlandsmissus described where men think they can do what they want, treat women poorly, look down on other non sports-playing men and get preferential treatment.

And just look at the English premiership to see the bad side of sportsmen with big egos.

Now I'm not saying that the situation she described happens in every small Irish town, but I've no reason to think she's lying, and logic tells me that such situations could easily arise.

I wasn't that a big ego went hand I hand with mistreating women, Bono has a big ego , never heard anyone say he mistreats women


As for thinking third better than other sports stars , what makes you think that's the case , sports stars tend to like lots of other sports, I'm sure Brian o Driscoll has a lot of respect for shay given and vice versa

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

You pointed out my that my definition of feminism is wrong, I replied with a wiki quote of feminism. The ball is now in your court to show my reasoning is flawed.

I presume Bannasidhe means the reference your provided doesn't comply with her interpretation of the term.

Put 10 people of any persuasion, or aligned to any campaign, into a locked room together, and within minutes you will hear disagreement.

Feminism, no more than any movement, is not a homogenous bloc of people. It is a collection of people whose views and concerns on the treatment of women and girls largely align or overlap.

Scanlas The 2nd

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But claiming gender equality is your goal

Womens' rights and the improvement of their position is the explicit goal of feminism.
Gender equality is one of its implicit goals.

Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Who has said that in the 600 odd posts that have been written on the matter over the past 3 days?

I think it was later10 or Millicent who posted the link to the meaning of feminism.

If the primary goal of feminism is in actual fact to increase women's rights only then I don't believe people who call themselves feminists are hypocrites.

I asked for a definition of feminism and I was given one stating feminism
Is about the pursuit and establishment of equality for women. If that is true then most feminist worldwide IMO are hypocrites.

hardbackwriter

flanders1979 wrote: »

Just heading down to the plastic surgeons to get fitted with a prosthetic pair of tits so when my wife gives birth I can feed the child too. God forbid there would would be any differences in male and female roles. We can't be having that.
Its the least I can do considering I made her roof half the garage last week.

You sound like Tom dunne from newstalk

Seachmall

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have explained this several times already and not going to do so again.

You haven't explained anything. All your explanations thus far started with the presupposition the decision was sexist and built on from there while noticeably lacking any attempt at objectivity.

You seem to have jumped on a bandwagon so far out of touch with reality it's practically hitched to the Magic School Bus and, to be quite honest, it devalues any genuine concerns brought up here over sexism by mere association which is why I've a problem with it.

later12

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I think it was later10 or Millicent who posted the link to the meaning of feminism.

I didn't. I gave my understanding of the term feminism in the OP of the last thread, and later corrected myself, saying I suggested something which was logically unsound. I then clarified the meaning I attach to feminism as the promotion of the condition of women as part of, but not the main instigator behind, an overall egalitarian ideal

Apart from that corrected interpretation, I haven't seen one other person suggest that feminism is about the equal rights of both sexes. Yet you persist in demanding that we all think so.

So why are you ignoring the position of everyone I have seen writing on this matter, and their interpretation of feminism as a specific concern with womens' rights & position, as part of the overall egalitarian movement?

The King of Moo

hardbackwriter wrote: »

I wasn't that a big ego went hand I hand with mistreating women, Bono has a big ego , never heard anyone say he mistreats women


As for thinking third better than other sports stars , what makes you think that's the case , sports stars tend to like lots of other sports, I'm sure Brian o Driscoll has a lot of respect for shay given and vice versa

First of all, Bono is so high-profile he couldn't afford to be seen to hate women, even if he did. He also hasn't emerged from such a highly-charged all-male macho environment as the local G.A.A club changing room, so you can't compare him directly to a small-town G.A.A star.

Second, I didn't mean sports stars looking down on stars of other sports; I meant sports stars looking down on other people in general. (as to players within the same sport: have a word with Messrs Suarez and Evra about respect)

What you're doing is arguing in an all-or-nothing way again. I'm not saying all G.A.A stars are chauvinistic pigs. I can't know that.
But I can see how a situation like the one Midlandsmissus described might arise, so even if it's not representative of every small Irish town, I've no reason to disbelieve her.

Even if most G.A.A players are angels, can you not see how such a situation as she described might arise?


Disclaimer:

*acknowledging the above will not require you to acknowledge that every single sportsperson acts in such a way*

Scanlas The 2nd

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

later12 wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But claiming gender equality is your goal

Womens' rights and the improvement of their position is the explicit goal of feminism.
Gender equality is one of its implicit goals.

Who here has said that the explicit goal of feminism is the promotion of gender equality without reference to sex?

Who has said that in the 600 odd posts that have been written on the matter over the past 3 days?

I think it was later10 or Millicent who posted the link to the meaning of feminism.

If the primary goal of feminism is in actual fact to increase women's rights only then I don't believe people who call themselves feminists are hypocrites.

I asked for a definition of feminism and I was given one stating feminism
Is about the pursuit and establishment of equality for women. If that is true then most feminist worldwide IMO are hypocrites.

I've asked people here several times what is most important under feminist principles, gender equality or the increase of female rights. I don't think I got one straight answer. One person said I "was trying to back them in a corner". I was trying to have a reasonable discussion coming from the same page. Why has no one answered that the increase of female rights is the most important goal of that is the case?