Why is sexism such a difficult topic?

Scanlas The 2nd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If the African Americans claimed equality of race to be the priority for them yet never campaigned for whites if there were numerous cases of discrimination against whites then eyebrows may have been raised that equality was the priority for them. As far as I'm aware it wasn't the case that whites were discriminated against. It is the case that men are discriminated against. Some say then why not let the men campaign for men's rights. That's fine. But if you claim equality is your priority which according to my sources it is under feminist principles then you would expect feminists to campaign for men's rights if it means bringing about equality between the sexes which is supposedly their primary goal.

I believe in the right of people to campaign for any demographic they want, be it only women, only men or only kangaroos. But why claim equality is the prime goal.

As far as I can tell people who call themselves feminists seek to improve women's rights for which there is nothing wrong. But when that is done in te name of "equality" when it's only one sided it's bound to make some people raise an eyebrow.

It was the case that people like Malcolm X constantly referred to 'white devils' and described interracial marriages as an example of African-Americans hating their own kind. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=539

The Nation of Islam advocated complete separation of the races and the creation of a 'Black' only nation - no Whites allowed. They were also vocally Anti-Semitic.

shows American Nazi Party Commander George Lincoln Rockwell (center) at a Nation of Islam (NOI)
rally, Uline Arena, Washington, DC, June 25, 1961.

Of it was the case that black rights activist claimed equality of race as the primary goal yet completely ignored instances like above then they too were hypocrites. I wouldn't expect them to campaign for white as much as blacks as the difference in rights was so big but if they never had a word to say about the likes your example then they are hypocryts.

Duggy747

I think it's the idea of feminism that people have in their minds as angry lesbians burning bras and spitting acid at anything with a penis.

The militant, angry ones which are the minority are the ones who are heard the most, funnily enough, because they come out with the daftest of things.

I guess you could apply that to any group, too, which in turn trivialises whatever the agenda happens to be in the general public minds.

pissblast

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I admit, in my modern western society I don't see many womens issues but I do see issues with men being discriminated against every day from low grade ("You didn't cook that, did you? You're a guy!") through mid-grade (women only club, men only club not allowed) to high grade (unqualified and inexperienced woman being hired over experienced and qualified male becasue the hiring manager was female and part of the women only club).

So, for me, egalitarianism is the way forward. Gender quotas and the like are just big steps backwards

I agree with some of your post in that women say and do things towards men that if it were the other way around would be defined as sexism but for some reason it is not? Is that because us men are more thick skinned than women?

Gender balance in the work is a big plus for me as my job is orientated around sensitive issues that require both male and female perspectives but I can understand that the requirement for gender balance can and is been abused as the better person is NOT always hired.

--Kaiser--

Millicent wrote: »

But just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can acknowledge and condemn sexism against men. Why is it impossible for the other side to return the favour?

Give me examples of ways women are still discriminated against and ways that you propose to change it. I'm not just going to take you at your word. As I see it the pendulum has started swinging the other way, which is what I see as the main problem people have with feminism

Lady Chuckles

TheZohan wrote: »

The poll had 35 female respondents at the time, yes a small enough number but out of that number only 25% would propose to their boyfriend, surely you can see that it gives an indication that not all women want to be equal when it comes to everything?

I don't quite understand the point still
It's sexist for a man to propose? Or is it sexist for a woman to say that she'd prefer it if her boyfriend proposed to her?

So if I'm such a woman who'd like to be proposed to, I don't really want equality?

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

It also doesn't help that they're the most vocal and a liberal feminist wont turn around and tell a militant one to shut up for fear of being branded as not standing behind the cause.

Just be glad you weren't present during the many, many heated debates I have had with militant feminists/lesbian separatists since I was first lectured by a group of them aged 16 back in the early 80s. Some of them would make AH look like Bluepeter.
If you think extremist views are not immediately and loudly challenged you are very much mistaken.

Ickle Magoo

TheZohan wrote: »

Why enter into a debate with me if you're going to start flaming straight away? Can you not post in a manner that would encourage debate? Seriously...

Flaming? So now pointing out the obvious is flaming?

TheZohan wrote: »

The poll had 35 female respondents at the time, yes a small enough number but out of that number only 25% would propose to their boyfriend, surely you can see that it gives an indication that not all women want to be equal when it comes to everything?

It's an indication of a minute number of personal preferences regarding a voluntary and archaic ritual - it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that just because you can find one, twenty-six or however many women who dare not to fall into some hive-mind on a subject that further discussion from others who disagree is unwarranted, unnecessary or hypocritical.

On this site there are many opposing political, humanitarian and spiritual view-points from both genders - I'm not sure why sexism - a topic equally based on both personal experience and personal opinion - can be dismissed as soon as an opposing view from the same gender is found. There are men who think it's men's job to pay for everything, to ask women to marry them and so on - does that automatically void every other man's opinion who doesn't agree?

smash

bluewolf wrote: »

That has nothing to do with equality. It's preference.

Same thing can be said about militant feminist views on advertising etc. But don't ever say to them that because you'll be branded a sexist or you'll be told that you're telling them what to think. :rolleyes:

TheZohanS

bluewolf wrote: »

That has nothing to do with equality. It's preference. As in, we now have an equal choice about it and now we can express which we individually like. Because we can have preferences now.
Just like women who want to be stay at home mothers aren't being discriminated about w.r.t. married women in the workplace. Because they have the choice.

Women now have an equal opportunity to get elected to the Dail yet they choose not to and now the Gender Quota legislation has been brought whereby a certain % of nominees have to be women. It's supported by most womens groups (yes I know all women don't support it), where's the equality in that? It's preference, isn't it?

coffee_cake

TheZohan wrote: »

Women now have an equal opportunity to get elected to the Dail yet they choose not to and now the Gender Quota legislation has been brought whereby a certain % of nominees have to be women. It's supported by most womens groups (yes I know all women don't support it), where's the equality in that? It's preference, isn't it?

I oppose the quota as well tbh, and it's not equal.
It's not a comparison to your proposal poll however unless there is a plan to introduce a gender-proposal-quota.
Once again, I emphasise we're not a hivemind. It works the same in reverse: some sexist guys doesn't mean all sexist guys. It doesn't mean none, either.

once again this is falling under my "my problems are worse than yours" point and possibly my "some women want different things, therefore all feminists are hypocrites"

There may well be discrimination against men too. But it doesn't mean there isn't any against women in the first place.

--Kaiser--

TheZohan wrote: »

Women now have an equal opportunity to get elected to the Dail yet they choose not to and now the Gender Quota legislation has been brought whereby a certain % of nominees have to be women. It's supported by most womens groups (yes I know all women don't support it), where's the equality in that? It's preference, isn't it?

I didn't know this had actually been brought in, this is both highly sexist and incredibly undemocratic. I'm a little outraged in fact.

So, what do the feminists in this thread think of this bill?

pissblast

TheZohan wrote: »

Women now have an equal opportunity to get elected to the Dail yet they choose not to and now the Gender Quota legislation has been brought whereby a certain % of nominees have to be women. It's supported by most womens groups (yes I know all women don't support it), where's the equality in that? It's preference, isn't it?

who says that women choose not to get elected maybe they havent done enough to get the votes?

Bipolar Joe

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

I don't quite understand the point still
It's sexist for a man to propose? Or is it sexist for a woman to say that she'd prefer it if her boyfriend proposed to her?

So if I'm such a woman who'd like to be proposed to, I don't really want equality?

Zohan is making a good point in a bad way, I think. It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

or something.

Seachmall

smash wrote: »

It also doesn't help that they're the most vocal and a liberal feminist wont turn around and tell a militant one to shut up for fear of being branded as not standing behind the cause.

They do all the time.

It's the equivalent of someone opposed to Israel's use of force telling a neo-nazi to shut up because they're degrading their position.*

They also hold many opposing views (e.g. with regards to prostitution) and debate them constantly.

Essentially "Feminism" is too broad an umbrella term to be of much use.



*Hehe, comparing feminists to nazis and getting away with it

Feeona

Duggy747 wrote: »

I think it's the idea of feminism that people have in their minds as angry lesbians burning bras and spitting acid at anything with a penis.

I replied to a thread the other day which had an article about the 'culture of rape' in Ireland. I explicitly stated that the article was sh*te, and went on to say (over a few posts) that all men shouldn't be tarred with the same brush.

Unfortunately, I mentioned the 'f' word and said there's nothing wrong with it. This comment was used to beat my opinion with. I deleted all my posts in that thread (except for the last one) because I don't really see the point of standing up for something when your support is going to be dismissed as being nonsensical.

It really opened my eyes to the baseless dislike some people have of feminists.

token101

hondasam wrote: »

''posters here who refuse to accept'' ''someone who refuses to believe''

Your words say this is what I think and anyone that does not agree is wrong.
Sorry millicent this is how I see it.

+1

pissblast

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I didn't know this had actually been brought in, this is both highly sexist and incredibly undemocratic. I'm a little outraged in fact.

So, what do the feminists in this thread think of this bill?

Why outraged?? Women were excluded from such institutions for years if not centuries. if left unchecked the norm would be the same would it not?

--Kaiser--

pissblast wrote: »

Why outraged?? Women were excluded from such institutions for years if not centuries. if left unchecked the norm would be the same would it not?

Utter nonsense. Women can both run for office and have the right to vote

TheZohanS

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I didn't know this had actually been brought in, this is both highly sexist and incredibly undemocratic. I'm a little outraged in fact.

So, what do the feminists in this thread think of this bill?

NEW LEGISLATION WHICH encourages political parties to run at least 30 per cent candidates of either gender has been welcomed by women’s groups.
The new bill is aimed at increasing the number of women in the Dáil.
Under the planned legislation, parties will have their funding halved if they fail to run at least 30 per cent candidates of either gender in general elections.

Source.

Bipolar Joe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Flaming? So now pointing out the obvious is flaming?



It's an indication of a minute number of personal preferences regarding a voluntary and archaic ritual - it's absolutely ludicrous to suggest that just because you can find one, twenty-six or however many women who dare not to fall into some hive-mind on a subject that further discussion from others who disagree is unwarranted, unnecessary or hypocritical.

On this site there are many opposing political, humanitarian and spiritual view-points from both genders - I'm not sure why sexism - a topic equally based on both personal experience and personal opinion - can be dismissed as soon as an opposing view from the same gender is found. There are men who think it's men's job to pay for everything, to ask women to marry them and so on - does that automatically void every other man's opinion who doesn't agree?

The way you posted was needlessly harsh and angry right off the bat and I'm positive you know it.

opinion guy

TheZohan wrote: »

Women now have an equal opportunity to get elected to the Dail yet they choose not to and now the Gender Quota legislation has been brought whereby a certain % of nominees have to be women. It's supported by most womens groups (yes I know all women don't support it), where's the equality in that? It's preference, isn't it?

No I believe this falls out from our sexist parental leave laws.

Sexist against women AND sexist against men.

Women get months of maternity leave, men get only 3 days. Therefore in situations where both person work it makes long term financial sense for men to stay at work and women to stay at home. This is ONLY because the law is biased this way. It should be left up to the couple as to who takes the leave (like Norway where the couple can split the X motnhs leave betweeen them however they wish) - not codified in our law.

I believe this is why we don't get women at the top echelons of business and government in this country. If men could be equally as likely to take parental leave as women then instantly the bias towards not promoting women due to fears they will take maternity leave would evaporate.

I should stress - I believe both men and women are screwed over by this. Oh and the kids too.

--Kaiser--

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Zohan is making a good point in a bad way, I think. It's the idea of "Pink 'n' Mix" equal rights, like "I want to be paid as much as a dude, I want to be able to work the same jobs as a dude, I want to do all the things a dude can do! Apart from being forced into the army, to pay alimony................."

or something.

There's a wonderful phrase for that - Lifeboat Feminism

As in "Equal rights for all but women and children first!"

pissblast

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Women can both run for office and have the right to vote

yeah but they Dail has been male orientated since its invention. sure women can run for office and many may choose not to do so because of the fact that 'it was a mans world'. brininging in such legislation only encourages/forces women to take a proper role in the decisios of the running of this country.

smash

pissblast wrote: »

Why outraged?? Women were excluded from such institutions for years if not centuries. if left unchecked the norm would be the same would it not?

Because the bottom line is that these jobs should be given to the most deserving based on merit and not on sex! To exclude a talented and competent person just to have someone of the opposite sex sitting there is very bloody wrong. This swings both ways, for both sexes.

Nothingbetter2d

Confab wrote: »

It's instinct and men agreeing with feminism goes against instinct. Men strong, women weak. We have testosterone sloshing through our bodies that cuts dead any fancy thinking about women. I do believe in equal rights for women btw, the above is not an excuse, but women do not understand men and think we're doing it to piss them off.

My ex used to think I got erections deliberately. That's what men are up against.

you taking viagra again?

Zulu

smash wrote: »

It also doesn't help that they're the most vocal and a liberal feminist wont turn around and tell a militant one to shut up for fear of being branded as not standing behind the cause.

This could well be it. Or perhaps when the liberal rows in behind the militant against a perceived greater wrong.

But I guess really don't comprehend the sanctity of the label. Why call yourself a feminist, if you really are an egalitarian? I suppose there's good reason not the let the loonytunes hijack all the previous good work done, but in that case take the label back from the loonytunes.

Bannasidhe

smash wrote: »

Same thing can be said about militant feminist views on advertising etc. But don't ever say to them that because you'll be branded a sexist or you'll be told that you're telling them what to think. :rolleyes:

As I have already said - if you think militant feminists are not challenged you are mistaken.

TBH - they are also a dying breed mostly now existing in the outer reaches of American academia.

There was a time when the extreme discrimination against women produced extreme militants. As the scales of equality have slowly become more balanced such extreme militancy, having been deprived of fuel, is dying out. The change began in the early 90s and apart from the likes of Camille Paglia making the odd voxpop designed to cause controversy, little is heard from militant feminism any more and hasn't been for a long time.

Remember, there was a time when those militant extremists everyone complains about were the likes of Marian Finucane, June Levine, Mary Robinson, Nuala O Faolain and Nell McCafferty. I seriously doubt anyone now would call any of those women extremists - but in 1971/2 there were thundering sermons issued from pulpits around the country on how they were destroying the very fabric of Irish society.

catthinkin

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Millicent wrote: »

But just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can acknowledge and condemn sexism against men. Why is it impossible for the other side to return the favour?

Give me examples of ways women are still discriminated against and ways that you propose to change it. I'm not just going to take you at your word. As I see it the pendulum has started swinging the other way, which is what I see as the main problem people have with feminism

pay woman in the same jobs are generally paid less than their male counterparts

glass ceiling less than 3% of all major coperations have a woman at the helm

Which ways are men specfically discrimnated against ?

I think most people who want to see that sexism exists will those who dont wont simple

foxyboxer

Take two timely examples.

One ad on the tv is for D&G The One - Sport. The ad features a buff and tanned male model in just his bermuda chinos, nonsensically doing stretches and running around ancient ruins.

Media reaction = tumbleweed.

Next ad, has a pretty model in a bikini for Ryanair with the blurb "Try our Red Hot fares".

Media Reaction = uproar and the banning of the ad.

pissblast

smash wrote: »

Because the bottom line is that these jobs should be given to the most deserving based on merit and not on sex! To exclude a talented and competent person just to have someone of the opposite sex sitting there is very bloody wrong. This swings both ways, for both sexes.

I except that but what say if a qualified women chose not to run for office because it is male orientated and chose to stay at home. Surely there have been cases of talent lost because of the outlook women have on certain jobs and how they are employed?