Do you consider yourself a feminist?

Cavehill Red

Sharrow wrote: »

http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/1/post/2012/3/iwd-special-parental-leave-in-ireland-the-case-for-reform.html

1.

IFN blog link wrote:

The IFN Blog is for opinion pieces that do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the IFN.

2. That proposal benefits women as much if not more than men by building flexibility into a currently rigid system predicated on women staying at home rather than at work.
3. Not one woman deemed it worthy of comment on that blog.

This isn't an example of feminism prioritising equality over female rights and privileges. If anything, it illustrates the opposite: that the feminists of the IFN are disinterested in that whole issue of reforming parental leave, and also that those who are interested only are interested because they desire the greater flexibility it would give THEM.

Cavehill Red

flowerchild wrote: »

I don't agree with your take on feminism, but that is cool.

I do think that there is discrimination against men in getting access to leave from work or changed hours for the purposes of parenting, and that this discrimination is more tolerated that other areas of discrimination.

It's my experience rather than my 'take' on Irish feminism. The issue of reforming leave, as that IFN link highlights, benefits women as much if not more than men. What I'm curious to know is where is the feminist campaign in favour of automatic joint custody rights for unmarried couples from birth?

flowerchild

Cavehill Red wrote: »

flowerchild wrote: »

I don't agree with your take on feminism, but that is cool.

I do think that there is discrimination against men in getting access to leave from work or changed hours for the purposes of parenting, and that this discrimination is more tolerated that other areas of discrimination.

It's my experience rather than my 'take' on Irish feminism. The issue of reforming leave, as that IFN link highlights, benefits women as much if not more than men. What I'm curious to know is where is the feminist campaign in favour of automatic joint custody rights for unmarried couples from birth?

The change sounds like a good and fair one.

Where is the feminist campaign? Don't know. I am not part of an organised movement.

IrishAm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

It's my experience rather than my 'take' on Irish feminism. The issue of reforming leave, as that IFN link highlights, benefits women as much if not more than men. What I'm curious to know is where is the feminist campaign in favour of automatic joint custody rights for unmarried couples from birth?

You are kicking ass and taking names.

Two lads and lassies get caught in a car that is holding a key of white.

One, gets sent to the Joy and is forced to slop out.

The other, gets sent to a Gaol that resembles a decent three star hotel.

Both equally guilty. Guess the gender?

Next.

Lets take gender discrimination throughout divorce in Ireland............

Cavehill Red

IrishAm wrote: »

You are kicking ass and taking names.

Two lads and lassies get caught in a car that is holding a key of white.

One, gets sent to the Joy and is forced to slop out.

The other, gets sent to a Gaol that resembles a decent three star hotel.

Both equally guilty. Guess the gender?

Next.

Lets take gender discrimination throughout divorce in Ireland............

There's no end of examples. Sentencing too is another issue.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not anti-feminist. I'm just not feminist either, because I don't see feminism seeking equality in these areas where women benefit from positive discrimination. That's why I conclude feminism is an ideology of self-interest based on gender, and I support it's right to pursue that self-interest.
As a man, it's not my self-interest, and as someone interested and dedicated to the pursuit of general equality across the board, I cannot by definition be a feminist until feminism starts campaigning AGAINST examples of female positive discrimination in areas like child custody.

Wibbs

OK so we had a brief detour into the dynamics of mens rights and I would be in more agreement than not, however, as I said earlier in one of my posts on the matter "I'd add in stuff about how women's increasing choice has as a sideline impacted mens choice, but that's for another forum." So let's return to the ethos of this forum please. Cheers.

LittleBook

Daisy M wrote: »

now I believe a feminist is a woman who wants to be equal to men while embracing the differences between the two genders.

Is this correct or any where near?

You remind me of a post I read by an American blogger (I think it's important to note the nationality and put the views in context) years ago which went a long way for me to explaining the reasons for the varying perceptions of feminism.

Her issue was with how old school feminists ("archeofeminists") had a very simple agenda which has been twisted and mutated into the "neofeminist" agenda. She believed that the neofeminist agenda has polluted a simple idea (that women and men are different but should have equal social and economic rights) and has changed the perception of what feminism means for some people.

Archeofeminists believe that women are fine as we are; neofeminists believe that women must be forced to change to be more like men.

Archeofeminists recognize that gender differences arise from Nature; neofeminists imagine that gender differences are wholly artificial and are imposed by society.

Archeofeminists believe that men are fine as they are; neofeminists believe that men should be humbled and psychologically/emotionally castrated.

Archeofeminists believe that there are some times and places in which the sexes should be allowed to be separate; neofeminists believe that the sexes should always be equally represented in every group, club, facility, organization, etc EXCEPT those in which men might see women naked, from which men should be barred (but it's OK for women to see men naked).

Archeofeminists believe that men and women are as interdependent and inseperable as Earth and Sky; neofeminists believe in a gender version of Marxist class-warfare rhetoric.

Archeofeminists believe that sex is good, and that men and women have different sexual natures; neofeminists believe that men and women have EXACTLY THE SAME sexual nature (except that men want sex too much) and that sex is bad UNLESS women are completely in control of every single aspect of it, from courtship until the day the man dies.

Archeofeminists believe that women should be free to choose our own paths through life; neofeminists believe that women should be forced to follow certain paths and barred from others.

Archeofeminists believe that women should be in harmony with our natures; neofeminists believe that women should be at war with our natures.

Archeofeminists believe that society is fine except for a few laws and practices that need to be changed; neofeminists believe that society needs to be completely remade from top to bottom.

Ickle Magoo

Post deleted as off-topic.

As per site rules, Cavehill Red. If you wish to discuss a moderator instruction please take it to PM.

If anyone is unaware of the rules, the purpose of this forum or it's ethos, please read the forum charter HERE

Cheers.

JamJamJamJam

Em... I think I'd consider myself a feminist. I mean, I agree with nearly all of the feminist arguments and ideas I've come across, and I would actively promote those ideas if somebody went against it. But I wouldn't consider myself a very good feminist.. There seems to be loads of feminist concerns I don't realise - like using the word "ladies" as pointed out at the start of this thread. Maybe because I'm a guy it's easier to take those things for granted. I try though :P

In fact, in a similar way, as a guy I prefer not to use the term 'feminist' because it discourages men from becoming involved. Gender egalitarianism can be preferable. But that's just terminology, so yeah I'd still say I am a feminist.

Morag

It always surprises me when people point at equality issues in this country and place all the responsibility on feminists to fix it and all the blame for it not being done already.
Feminism is a very broad movement and not everyone is an activist or a lobbyist esp in a professional capacity, it's not a union.

B0jangles

LittleBook wrote: »

You remind me of a post I read by an American blogger (I think it's important to note the nationality and put the views in context) years ago which went a long way for me to explaining the reasons for the varying perceptions of feminism.

Her issue was with how old school feminists ("archeofeminists") had a very simple agenda which has been twisted and mutated into the "neofeminist" agenda. She believed that the neofeminist agenda has polluted a simple idea (that women and men are different but should have equal social and economic rights) and has changed the perception of what feminism means for some people.

I've been reading up on current feminist thinking lately and not a single one of the attributes given there of "neofeminists" matches up with anything I've come across. Not a single one.

Edit: Oh, it's Maggie mcNeill, the person who claims to be a former prostitute who says prostitution is awesome and great for women and that the vast majority of prostitutes are happy in their work and any who come out and say they are unhappy or feel degraded or driven into sex work are either liars or deluded.

I don't think that this is a very good source to be honest.

LittleBook

B0jangles wrote: »

I've been reading up on current feminist thinking lately and not a single one of the attributes given there of "neofeminists" matches up with anything I've come across. Not a single one.

Good. As I said, it was years ago when I read it and it explained (for me) an inexplicable backlash against feminists that existed, and to a certain extent still does.

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh, it's Maggie mcNeill, the person who claims to be a former prostitute who says prostitution is awesome and great for women and that the vast majority of prostitutes are happy in their work and any who come out and say they are unhappy or feel degraded or driven into sex work are either liars or deluded.

I don't think that this is a very good source to be honest.

I have no idea who that is. I googled part of the text but using " " and couldn't find it (I'd copied and pasted it).

And I wouldn't call it a "source", it's not fact, rather an opinion that made some sense to me at the time.

Actually, I think read it in the context of an argument (between women) that women couldn't possibly be into BDSM, the 50 Shades stuff got me thinking about it too.

flowerchild

I am a feminist but I have become interested recently in arguments that you need to have polarity in relationships for there to be passion as opposed to love and affection. This argument says that when women take on 'masculine' styles in the way they engage with their partners that they leach passion from the relationship.

Any reaction to this, particularly whether it seems true or is an anti-feminist argument just bound up with ribbon to look pretty.

LittleBook wrote: »

Actually, I think read it in the context of an argument (between women) that women couldn't possibly be into BDSM, the 50 Shades stuff got me thinking about it too.

Not my cup of tea, but why wouldn't some women be into BDSM?

LittleBook

flowerchild wrote: »

Not my cup of tea, but why wouldn't some women be into BDSM?

No reason! But IIRC the argument being put forward at the time was that a liberated feminist couldn't possibly be the sub in a dom/sub relationship, the two were mutually exclusive.

flowerchild

LittleBook wrote: »

No reason! But IIRC the argument being put forward at the time was that a liberated feminist couldn't possibly be the sub in a dom/sub relationship, the two were mutually exclusive.

I don't agree. Feminism is a stance. It is not a requirement to adopt a certain role sexually. I could see a situation where a liberated person might find being submissive intriguing.

Madam_X

Yeh that neofeminism stuff seems like the creation of someone with an axe to grind - such people (I'm sure a small number exist) are just irrational hate-mongers that no reasonable feminist would wish to associate with.

Sharrow wrote: »

It always surprises me when people point at equality issues in this country and place all the responsibility on feminists to fix it and all the blame for it not being done already.

I agree when it comes to people complaining about feminists not tackling issues that solely affect men yet not bothering to set up or even become involved in men's rights movements, however when it comes to issues that affect both genders (if moreso women, granted) such as sexual assault, domestic violence, human rights abuses in patriarchal societies, I think it can be a fair way of assessing things.