Feminists sabotage yet another talk on men's equality

harrietharmman

Toronto feminists have "protested" yet another academic talk on men's issues, this time one focusing on misandry (previous talks included The Boy Crisis and a critique of women's studies).

Feminist tactics including hurling abuse at those attending, brandishing weapons, shouting in attendees ears with megaphones and setting off the fire alarm thus forcing the evacuation of the building. There have been three such events at the university thus far, and the feminists have targeted all three.

Here's two videos from the most recent event:

Note how many of the mob cover their faces whilst chanting about being able to see through the "disguise" of men's rights activists, such incredible hypocrisy.

Some media coverage:
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/10/for-some-feminism-no-longer-about-equality
(sadly that's all there is, just imagine how much there would be if a women's rights event was targeted by masked thugs)

Anyway, feminists obviously don't want anyone to know about the work of Nathanson and Young so lets hope that backfires completely and their work reaches a wider audience thanks to the misandrists in the video.

If anyone knows who keeps pulling the fire alarms, then there's now a $1,000 reward on offer: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/toronto-offers-1000-reward-for-those-triggering-false-alarms/

iptba

Some "hilarious" feminist humour that was re-blogged a lot and got lots of likes (915 notes which appear to generally be in these two categories although I haven't read down that far):
http://angrygirlcomics.tumblr.com/post/44501675470

Fukuyama

Jesus your one with the red dye job is the most annoying thing I've heard 'speak' in a while.

I think everyone has been in a 'debate' like that. Having someone wave their hand in your face, repeatedly saying "shut the fcuk up" etc... makes it very hard to keep calm and not end up looking like the nut job yourself.

She has a very skewed idea of feminism.

Technically I'm a feminist because I believe both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society. Maternity leave for both, same entry requirements to all jobs, equal pay etc...

But I could never align myself with a group like that and I think most people, men and women feel the same. Extremists hate free speech of others and the shouting down of what seemed like a fairly level headed, softly spoken bloke who wanted to simply talk there typifies it.

The police should have just waded into them with batons.

DarkJager

Maybe they should just exclude females from entering the venue during these events? <snip>

Ziphius

iptba wrote: »

Some "hilarious" feminist humour that was re-blogged a lot and got lots of likes (915 notes which appear to generally be in these two categories although I haven't read down that far):
http://angrygirlcomics.tumblr.com/post/44501675470

From the Blog wrote:

This is a safe zone with a zero tolerance policy for racism, ableism, transphobia, misogyny, homophobia, or any of that other bull****

Christ.

Standman

I think the protest was organised by a communist/feminist group in the university. The same breed that I've seen here in Ireland and other countries that hi-jack every legitimate protest by causing trouble in order to promote their own agenda. These people have revolution on the brain.

Galwayguy35

That one with the dyed hair has a fair aul gob on her all right, there is no need to be going on like that.

Man bashing seems to be getting way too acceptable these days.

Bobby42

Yeah repeatedly screaming "shut the fcuk up" doesn't really open up the floor to reasonable debate.

And the moral high ground attitude is really grating.

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

iptba

Bobby42 wrote: »

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

It's interesting how the woman with the loud speaker in video two oscillates between the two:
"Feminism under attack, what do we do?"
"Women under attack, what do we do?"
"Feminism under attack, what do we do?"
"Women under attack, what do we do?"
as if they're one and the same.

I doubt she'd be happy with the equivalent with the genders reversed:
"Masculism under attack, what do we do?"
"Men under attack, what do we do?"
"Masculism under attack, what do we do?"
"Men under attack, what do we do?"

If one can conflate the two, one could say that what the protestors were doing was attacking men.

Three Seasons

Some of those women seem to think that if you want to investigate and highlight false rape claims you somehow are promoting rape. Idiots.

The woman with the red hair needs to see a counsellor.

Daveysil15

Bobby42 wrote: »

Criticising feminism is not necessarily anti women.

And that's the problem. That red-haired woman’s hostility is almost validated by an applauding misandrous culture. Imagine if it was the men that were swearing like that at the women. They’d be ridiculed.

the purple tin

That red headed woman is like a foul mouthed version of Kyle's Mom from southpark. Kept expecting her to scream 'What What Whaaat!!!'

They are doing themselves no favours at all by letting her be their spokesperson. Then again most protests will always have a pushy, attention seeking loudmouth who has to muscle their way into the limelight at all costs.

Randy Shafter

The red haird woman gave me a headache with all her shouting. I thought the points the guy was making and raising were valid enough. I still don't know why they tried to turn it into an issue of race towards the end.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Technically I'm a feminist because I believe both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society. Maternity leave for both, same entry requirements to all jobs, equal pay etc...

Can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

I'm a fan of peeling back the skin on issues like these.

It's 2013. People are educated and have the ability to spot large, well organised groups of idiots when they see one. This is one of those said groups.

I'm willing to bet that the average woman would not like to fall in line behind the woman in that video. She seems domineering and unable to listen to viewpoints which deviate from her own. Within her own group she undoubtedly faces disenfranchise among the 'rank and file'. History tells us that extremist leaders rarely last long and will more than likely cause their own demise.

The reason feminists like this don't campaign for mens' rights is because they're sexist and firmly believe women face the same discrimination they did 150 years ago. They're deluded and don't represent feminism.

Now, stepping outside of their own feminist group, lets look at the bigger picture with them in it.

A strict definition of feminism is that women should be treated equal to men, and visa versa. This does not mean that staffing levels will be exactly 50/50 in all sectors, political parties, military forces etc... It means that each gender will have the same opportunities. I make no apologies when I say certain roles are better suited to certain genders. Obviously this is far from a hard and fast rule - which is why female military personnel is rapidly increasing etc... and we're highly likely to see gender balances come into alignment in Ireland as our economy nears the point of being 70% service based.

However, some sectors will likely remain male dominated, others female dominated. The real issue is getting rid of attached stigmas so that both feel free to participate in a gender neutral environment. And it's happening without the assistance of the kind of people seen in those videos.

Feminisim is being undermined with stupid gender quotas in democratic countries. They're unessecary and a very dangerous toy to begin tinkering with.

Thatcher never hid her contempt for feminist militants, saying: "I owe nothing to women's lib."
And she once commented that "I hate those strident tones we hear from some women's libbers."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/04/10/15/47/i-owe-nothing-to-women-s-lib-thatcher

As much as I disagree with her policies, she was one hell of a leader.

I hate nothing more than someone who complains that the door is shut. This applies to all issues across all genders. I hate even more when collective groups are formed to complain their way to having someone else open the door for them. Anything that was ever achieved, for example the ending of REAL discrimination wasn't done by complaining. Eg. African American discrimination, South African apartheid, etc...

Just kick the f**king thing in.

The caliber of people in that video are extremists and represent their own twisted form of feminism which in itself is sexist. They will never have the capability to do anything more than be a bunch of complaining mouths that make little sense and only annoy normal, law abiding people of the free world.

Margret Thatcher agreed that the days of feminists having to march the streets are long over. Universities, politics, the vote, law enforcement are all wide open to women and men equally. In time a gender balance will be reached. There simply is no issue to be pushed anymore.

I'd much rather we tackle homophobia, racism and corruption.

The woman with the red hair did intrigue me though. How could someone be so insanely stupid and yet believe, so much to the point of being verbally abusive, in what she was saying.

It turns out that she's brainwashed herself on Internets for far too long. Scouring the world wide web for any advertisement where a woman shows cleavage, any newspaper article exploring MRA issues etc....

She writes a personal blog here which seems to mirror the personality of a typical feminazi, in all its sexist, vile glory.

She also seems to contribute to a site by the name of Jezebel. Comments, due to the lack of anything other than total agreement and slack-jawed awe in her brilliance, appear heavily moderated. Here is the article, written by herself, which contains the list she read on in the video.

Her little blog is about the sum of her power.

I think men and women can rest easy that THIS is all we have to contend with. :P

____________

From an operational standpoint the group seem rag-tag and steeped in a whole bunch of other issues with a mix od political ideologies. Their university roots suggest students. Everyone goes through a little extremest phase of rebelling against The Man (or Woman :P ). I imagine there's a core bunch who depend on a splintered rent-a-mob to conduct such stunts (eg. pulling fire alarms).

Generally, evil fails to prevail thanks to the actions of the overwhelming majority of good people, and the few who stand up to represent us. I'd personally love to see their websites, blogs and accounts all hacked, defaced, data deleted and destroyed right on the eve of another such stunt to throw their whole operation out of whack.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

lol, she writes on jezebel?

my god, the perfect storm of what the ****

http://jezebel.com/i-didnt-think-the-****-off-had-anything-to-do-with-he-472456214

Lindy WestUphantom lady1L
I didn't think the "**** off" had anything to do with her being fat. I just think it's rude, whether you're annoyed by people or not. I'm frequently annoyed by people, but I can control myself in public. Thursday 10:42am

The Corinthian

Dean0088, thank you for the reply with which I largely agree. Nonetheless, I asked a question which you failed to actually address; can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

When I say feminism, I don't simply mean the extremists, the femnazis, but the mainstream feminist movement; it actually has not campaigned for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society - more correctly it has only done so selectively, for women, which is not campaigning for equality.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dean0088, thank you for the reply with which I largely agree. Nonetheless, I asked a question which you failed to actually address; can you explain why feminism doesn't actually campaign for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society then?

When I say feminism, I don't simply mean the extremists, the femnazis, but the mainstream feminist movement; it actually has not campaigned for both sexes should be treated the same in both law and society - more correctly it has only done so selectively, for women, which is not campaigning for equality.

I did address it, but I don't think you can see the woods for the trees.

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

Feminists (true feminists) actually still exist. For example, if I ever find myself in a position of power either in a business or in politics I'll ensure no sexist policies or discrimination (even 'positive' discrimination) exist. If a subordinate makes a sexist suggestion, slur or otherwise displays himself or herself to be sexist then I'll fire that person. Or at least make it my business that they're cornered and nullified of their powers.

Feminism derives its name from the overwhelming female membership and the issues they were tackling which related mostly to females exclusively during the early to mid 20th century. It wound down when their objectives were achieved and other groups adopted the name in the 80s to further their own extremest views and inherit an undeserved sense of legitimacy.

This is not an alien tactic to extremest groups. *cough* IRA *cough*

Today's ACTUAL feminists are more along the lines of humanists. However they still refer to themselves as feminists due to an unfamiliarity with humanism themselves, or because others won't know what they're talking about. They're male and female and have probably never been on a protest in their lives. There is not much left to protest about.

Playboy

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

"Cock dodgers". What do you think they are? People who have a phobia of cockrels?

i actually loled at that!

D'Agger

Right.

I've gone and deleted a number of posts relating to Back seat moderation & personal abuse.

Keep it on topic going forwards please

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

Fair enough. However what you argue smacks of communist arguments, in particular in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, that it was not real communism, but state capitalism.

Perhaps philosophically it wasn't communism, but ultimately it was what 'true' communism had evolved into. Those who held onto the old principles were discarded by history and their version of communism recognised by few other than themselves. Feminism is essentially in the same quandary.

The definition of feminism has changed and as much as you would like to call yourself a 'true' feminist, you've basically lost the popular rights to do so.

One must also ask oneself if this 'evolution' of feminism from a movement for equality to a sexist one for the betterment of only one gender did not have its seeds in the original ideology. It may have been, in theory, about equality, but because this at the time meant only the betterment of only one, disadvantaged, gender likely made it inevitable that it would become what it has become; that the flaw was there from the beginning, all it took was time to expose it.

One analogy I've used in the past is this: Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

From the beginning, the movement for chimp equality was flawed, because the goals of chimp interests and equality were only aligned so long as the chimps were disadvantaged. However this flaw only became apparent when the chimps achieved their goals, even though it was there from the beginning.

Feminism, even 'true' feminism, suffers from this same flaw. As a result, it was inevitable that it would evolve into the form we have today.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

The days of feminism being a huge movement to right what were obvious wrong has long since passed. That much has been recognized by women at the top for a long time.

What pounds pavements now isn't feminism. It's sexism. They're sexist so naturally they won't be campaigning equally. Even non-extremist feminists who protest today are largely (in my experience) sexist and are in favour of short-term, short-sighted sexist laws to right perceived wrongs such as gender imbalances. However they, in fairness, are more open to debate and discussion than the kind seen in those clips. Nevertheless their views deviate wildly from what feminism actually is in the views of actual feminists such as Bell Hooks.

FWIW, the article linked to in the OP (I'm guessing a lot of people never followed the link) makes a similar type of distinction:

"For some, feminism no longer about equality"
http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/04/10/for-some-feminism-no-longer-about-equality

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough. However what you argue smacks of communist arguments, in particular in the wake of the collapse of the USSR, that it was not real communism, but state capitalism.

Perhaps philosophically it wasn't communism, but ultimately it was what 'true' communism had evolved into. Those who held onto the old principles were discarded by history and their version of communism recognised by few other than themselves. Feminism is essentially in the same quandary.

The definition of feminism has changed and as much as you would like to call yourself a 'true' feminist, you've basically lost the popular rights to do so.

One must also ask oneself if this 'evolution' of feminism from a movement for equality to a sexist one for the betterment of only one gender did not have its seeds in the original ideology. It may have been, in theory, about equality, but because this at the time meant only the betterment of only one, disadvantaged, gender likely made it inevitable that it would become what it has become; that the flaw was there from the beginning, all it took was time to expose it.

One analogy I've used in the past is this: Consider a society composed of chimps and gorillas. Gorillas each are allotted 2 bananas and 5 oranges. Chimps each are allotted 4 bananas and 1 orange. Both bananas and oranges are of equal value.

It is clear from this that chimps are unequal to gorillas as overall they have fewer fruit. So consider the chimps campaign to redress this imbalance and as a result both are ultimately allotted with 3 oranges.

Yet the chimps have not actually campaigned for equality in the long run, but for equality only where they were disadvantaged. In the short term their interests and the aim of equality coincided, but as time went on the two diverged. Had they sought equality in the long run they would have had to sacrifice their relative advantage in bananas, so that both they and the gorillas would have 3.

From the beginning, the movement for chimp equality was flawed, because the goals of chimp interests and equality were only aligned so long as the chimps were disadvantaged. However this flaw only became apparent when the chimps achieved their goals, even though it was there from the beginning.

Feminism, even 'true' feminism, suffers from this same flaw. As a result, it was inevitable that it would evolve into the form we have today.

But aren't they simply ignored as extremists? When we read about isolated cases like this (Toronto) it's easy to assume its the world over.

In that city, about as much as they can manage is anti social behavior at academic events and proposing laughable university policies which never make it through.

Outside of Toronto the ripples get a lot smaller.

I think if a crowd like that assembled in Dublin they'd be laughed at on social media and likely shamed personally.

These caliber of people are the same bunch who sit on the ground, refuse to move, waste hours of everyone's time and then cry for their rights at the first tap of a garda baton. :rolleyes:

It's easy to watch a video, see a dedicated, fanatical mob and fall for their posture of power. In reality, anyone with half a brain (ie. the kind of people who end up in trusted positions of REAL power) simply dismiss them for what they are - extremists.

EDIT: And I agree with what many of the comments on the article linked above said. It's an absolute disgrace that more women don't speak out against these fools. Standing on the sidelines of their movement, whilst agreeing with feminism yet failing to stamp out the extremists, is a dangerous kind of complacency.

I'd draw a parallel between that and a man who turns a blind eye to the sexist screening of candidates, or someone who was a member of the Nazi party for the sake of affiliation.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

It's easy to watch a video, see a dedicated, fanatical mob and fall for their posture of power. In reality, anyone with half a brain (ie. the kind of people who end up in trusted positions of REAL power) simply dismiss them for what they are - extremists.

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

Fukuyama

iptba wrote: »

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

I agree with the second part, but not the first part.

What exactly is there to challenge feminists on? There not actually pushing any issues that law makers could solve any more. If you mean directly challenge idiots like those in the OP's video then it's because nobody wants to debate with extremists. A better strategy is to stand up wind of them and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot with their big stupid mouths.

Issues like abortion which some think are feminist issues are not - with few feminist organisations touching it with a bargepole. Those that do are normally going against one another, some pro some anti.

I think the reason why mens rights are not pushed is because they largely mirror the kind of issues those idiots in the video are complaining about. Eg. portrayal in the media. There's nothing lawmakers can do about most issues without infringing on the constitutional rights of others. Anyways, they're mostly non-issues to begin with.

Where men are discriminated against - we're starting to see changes such as increased awareness for fathers rights and the fact that the 'Women in the home' part of the constitution will be up for referendum. This, in my opinion, was as sexist against men as it was women as it provided basis for men HAVING to support ex-wives, as opposed to just their children.

Anyways, I'm rambling off here.

My overall point is that sexism largely now exists in the informal societal fringes we only frequent every now and again. I'm not saying there's no such thing as discrimination in Ireland such as in employment etc. But it's largely over exaggerated with bigoted groups failing to interpret data correctly.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

But aren't they simply ignored as extremists? When we read about isolated cases like this (Toronto) it's easy to assume its the world over.

Are those feminists seeking to introduce "stupid gender quotas" (as you called them) extremists? They're very much the mainstream public face of feminism, from what we can all see, and are even politically recognised.

And as per my last post, this evolution was almost certainly inevitable. If you'd like to address that, I'm all ears.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Perhaps. But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

I agree with the second part, but not the first part.

What exactly is there to challenge feminists on? There not actually pushing any issues that law makers could solve any more. If you mean directly challenge idiots like those in the OP's video then it's because nobody wants to debate with extremists. A better strategy is to stand up wind of them and allow them to shoot themselves in the foot with their big stupid mouths

One example that comes to mind are gender quotas to help women.

Fukuyama

iptba wrote: »

One example that comes to mind are gender quotas to help women.

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

who_me

Perfect example of equality, if you ask me. It shows women can be just as aggressive, confrontational, illogical and self-serving as we men.

Equality 1 Progress 0

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/groups-welcome-passing-of-bill-on-gender-quotas-1.539585

Fukuyama

who_me wrote: »

Perfect example of equality, if you ask me. It shows women can be just as aggressive, confrontational, illogical and self-serving as we men.

Equality 1 Progress 0

Um, what?

I can't remember when I've ever gotten in somebody's face like that, screaming shut the fcuk up etc... in a debate. Try doing that in a professional environment and I imagine your ass will be on the curb, male or female.

There's a huge difference between arguing your point and being a cnut.

And if a man had spoken those words and acted like that I'm sure people would have the same opinions of him. A twat.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/groups-welcome-passing-of-bill-on-gender-quotas-1.539585

I'm assuming you haven't actually read the bill then.

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist? So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

There can also never be a gender quota on the Dáil btw. As it would violate UN democracy definitions,EU law and the Irish constitution.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

Can you point out an example of any sexist gender quotas in Ireland?

I gave gender quotas as an example of the following:

But many people with real power would be reluctant to challenge feminists on many issues and/or speak up for men's rights.

The most recent gender quotas were in politics. 30% of political candidates for the first few years, 40% after that. It seems to have got a lot of momentum from the report written/largely written by Ivana Bacik for the Oireachtas subcommittee. A lot of people in society don't seem to be happy with it, judging by internet discussion boards for example, but apart from Joanna Tuffy, few people spoke out about it.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist? So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

If short lists for primary school teaching posts had gender quotas (30% initially, 40% in a few years) with a few positions having to be filled at any one time, many might say that gives an unfair advantage to men. Some might call it sexist.

It's not a perfect example*, as candidates would still likely be selected on merit. With politics, a lot of voting is down to the party, so even relatively incompetent people can get elected once you are selected as a party's candidate.

However, as I said, my point related to challenging feminists.

*Another example on the same theme might be gender quotas for places on primary teaching courses.

eireannBEAR

the red haired yoke is in denial. women have the power where it matter ie. parenthood, in this and most countries an unmarried father has as much rights to his kid as a homeless bum on the street has. im sick of hearing about womens rights in the western world you have as much rights as men if not more. so shut the flup up please!!!!

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

It proposes 30% minimum female candidates AND 30% minimum male candidates. How is that sexist?

Proposing gender quotas of either gender is sexist by definition. That only quotas that promote increased involvement of women are actually passed into law or even being proposed is even more sexist.

But I take it when you were discussing extremists seeking to impose "stupid gender quotas", this isn't one of them?

So the best candidate still gets elected, and both males and females MUST be at least 30% of the candidate pool.

I don't think you understand how quotas work; the best candidate from the allowed short-list is elected. Not the best candidate.

So are you going to address the point in my earlier post on the flaw in feminism that would have made it ultimately gynocentric inevitable or would you prefer not to respond again?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Free speech apparently allows you to tell others to "shut the f**k up" a lot.

Oh the irony.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Proposing gender quotas of either gender is sexist by definition. That only quotas that promote increased involvement of women are actually passed into law or even being proposed is even more sexist.

But I take it when you were discussing extremists seeking to impose "stupid gender quotas", this isn't one of them?

I don't think you understand how quotas work; the best candidate from the allowed short-list is elected. Not the best candidate.

So are you going to address the point in my earlier post on the flaw in feminism that would have made it ultimately gynocentric inevitable or would you prefer not to respond again?

I agree with your point about how feminism has changed. But I think you're looking at the issues from a biased perspective.

You say the quota is sexist. It's not. It's just stupid, that's all. I don't agree with the quota because it may lead to a candidate being left out of the race. However, it's not sexist even he or she is excluded because of their sex, because both sexes were treated the same in the screening process. As wishy washy as it is to explain that, it's not sexism. Just stupidity.

On a practical level, we're not going to see the best candidate being left out anyways. There is no upward level to how many candidates can run.

The part of you post which I've highlighted misrepresents the situation. Either gender isn't being treated differently, both are being treated the same. Therefore, it's not sexist.

Again, I'll point out that quotas are a stupid idea and shortsighted. But thinking they're sexist is a clear misunderstanding of what we're dealing with here. Those women in the video misinform themselves and others, and twist simple logic to cry sexism, often leaving out full details (in this case, the obvious gender neutrality of the law, 30%, 30%) which is exactly what you're doing.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

I agree with your point about how feminism has changed. But I think you're looking at the issues from a biased perspective.

Is that supposed to be a response to my earlier post, as requested? Does this mean you concur that feminism was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and as the genders came closer to equality this flaw inevitably manifested itself? And if my view is from a biased perspective, why do you agree with it?

Or did you just avoid responding?

You say the quota is sexist. It's not. It's just stupid, that's all. I don't agree with the quota because it may lead to a candidate being left out of the race. However, it's not sexist even he or she is excluded because of their sex, because both sexes were treated the same in the screening process. As wishy washy as it is to explain that, it's not sexism. Just stupidity.

With respects, a policy may be de facto sexist, even if it is designed to be de jura not.

For example, you could introduce an entry requirement into the army officer school that all candidates must be at least 180cm tall, regardless of gender - technically that too is not sexist, but in practice it is. And any quota system that is clearly only going to benefit only one gender is also de facto sexist; were we to introduce gender quotas in primary schools, it won't benefit women at all - quite the opposite. Gender quotas in child custody would similarly only benefit men. It's all too easy to make something sound gender neutral, when in reality it is not.

And indeed, such quotas are only introduced where it benefits women nowadays. Quotas for primary school teachers or custodial parents are not only not being suggested, but would be met with hostility if they were, betraying the partisan and sexist agenda of such overarching policies.

So don't try to sell us the line that it's not sexist.

iptba

I just want to repeat that the gender quotas for political candidates are 40% gender quotas. It is only 30% for the first few years (seven, IIRC).

iptba

In this video, this guy challenges the claims of the red-haired woman in the OP that patriarchy is the reason mothers get custody, and some similar claims.

I'm afraid it's 15 minutes long and the points could be made in a shorter written piece.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

In this video, this guy challenges the claims of the red-haired woman in the OP that patriarchy is the reason mothers get custody, and some similar claims.

I wouldn't entirely agree with the argument made in the video.

The origins of the prejudice that the mother is the primary parent and the father is, at best, some form of support to the mother in parental duties, is almost certainly patriarchal. It conforms to traditional gender roles that have been not only present, but propagated throughout our history through religion, art, literature and even legend.

Nonetheless, if one is to claim that one may blame patriarchy for the lack of rights fathers enjoy today, he makes the valid point that fathers actually enjoyed more rights when society was more patriarchal - as recently as sixty years ago, a father was favoured for custody of the children in the event of a marital breakup - the decline in patriarchy that followed saw a loss of father's rights, and this fundamentally contradicts the claim that a lack of father's rights today is down to patriarchy; it can be demonstrated clearly that it wasn't.

The reality, I believe, is that as with many things today it's not as simple as blaming patriarchy or matriarchy or any other 'archy', but down to the way that patriarchy has been replaced by a system that is neither, but a deeply flawed and increasing biased hybrid of the two.

As I postulated earlier, 'reform' of gender rights has been selective. Feminism 'reformed' mothers' rights to custody of their children, yet ignored the patriarchal notion that the mother is the primary parent - indeed, outside of some minor lip service where you'll hear feminism argue that fathers should have 'more' rights (note that 'equal' is almost never suggested), it has never questioned this prejudice and instead only sought to alleviate the negative consequences of this role monopoly, without sacrificing it - what do you think gender quotas are about?

Men have allowed ourselves to let this happen; at first because it was just to support the reform of much of the prejudices against women, but increasingly because we are continually being bombarded with propaganda that seeks to convince us that there is no discrimination against men, that somehow we still live in a patriarchal society, akin to an episode of Mad Men, and because women are still downtrodden; victims of penis-wielding oppressors like us. How dare we complain?

I do believe this propaganda is breaking down because discrimination against men is becoming so blatant and difficult to ignore, that increasingly we've begun to say; "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining".

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is that supposed to be a response to my earlier post, as requested? Does this mean you concur that feminism was fundamentally flawed from the beginning and as the genders came closer to equality this flaw inevitably manifested itself? And if my view is from a biased perspective, why do you agree with it?

Or did you just avoid responding?

You're saying that feminism was flawed from the very beginning in that it was sexist, but appeared to be all about equality on the surface. I disagree.

Feminism, in the early 20th century campaigned for very basic democratic rights for women such as the right to vote, attend university etc... The opposition they met was stark. Look at some of the pictures of the first women students. They literally needed a heavy police presence just to cross the thresholds of colleges. And yet all the campaigned for, and all they got, was equality in the name of the law. Society followed a few decades later.

Feminism wanted laws altered to treat women the same as men. Ie. Any law that says 'no woman shall' should be altered or erased from the statute books. If it was flawed from the outset, surely the original campaigns would have campaigned for a reduction of the 'worth' of a mans vote or something similar.

As I already said, around the 80s and 90s things changed. Womens Lib in the UK got too powerful as a lobby group and began asking legislators to make society change their views, as opposed to just changing the law.

This is where our opinions converge in agreement in that feminism became sexist in that they wanted to achieve equality in society by punitive measures against men in law.

Obviously one generation will have their roots in the previous one. However, the ideology changed significantly and flaws were implanted rather than exposed.

With respects, a policy may be de facto sexist, even if it is designed to be de jura not.

For example, you could introduce an entry requirement into the army officer school that all candidates must be at least 180cm tall, regardless of gender - technically that too is not sexist, but in practice it is. And any quota system that is clearly only going to benefit only one gender is also de facto sexist; were we to introduce gender quotas in primary schools, it won't benefit women at all - quite the opposite. Gender quotas in child custody would similarly only benefit men. It's all too easy to make something sound gender neutral, when in reality it is not.

And indeed, such quotas are only introduced where it benefits women nowadays. Quotas for primary school teachers or custodial parents are not only not being suggested, but would be met with hostility if they were, betraying the partisan and sexist agenda of such overarching policies.

So don't try to sell us the line that it's not sexist.

You're seeing everything that might disqualify a portion of one gender as sexist without looking behind the reasons.

You mention the army where currently there are sexist entry requirements which favour women over men. A stuipd system as it not only disqualifies better able candidates but also puts those who do make it through under the reduced entry requirements behind the curve.

You mention height. That's not sexist - it's practical. Just because more men might become eligible for military service because of it is irrelevant. The reasons would be practical (ie. to operate equipment, complete physical assault courses, have suitable skeleton density etc...) and not based on gender.

To flip your example 180 - look at fighter pilots. Women have been proven to be, technically, better fighter pilots because they can multitask more efficiently. However, men are better able from around 1990 onwards having better spacial awareness and multitasking. Because of video games, funnily enough. No attention is paid to either gender based on these traits/acquired abilities as it ignores the abilities of the individual applicants, and rightly so.


But, hold on. There's a height MAXIMUM for fighter pilots. Surely, in your view, this discriminates against men? Because men are taller than women.

Of course not. There's just a height maximum for practical reasons within the cockpit.

As I said before, gender quotas are stupid. Their aim is to change the views of society by legislating for it. Obviously they're put in place to 'correct' the imbalance of genders in certain roles. But the quotas cannot themselves be accused of being sexist when it's in black and white that they're not.

You mention primary school teaching and the fact that there has been barely a whimper of similar quotas. A good thing too. I hate to see MRA reduced to pitiful, weak, attempts which feminism now attempts. I'd much rather, as a society, if we stopped looking twice at a male whose profession involves young children. This can be done via the media and conversation. There is no sexism there to fight against, merely a gender imbalance. So lets not cry wolf like feminists.

Like I said, I agree with you by-in-large about where feminism has gone and the kind of people now at the helm. But I think you're cursing the rain instead of the cloud.

If your asking me whether or not I think the current form of mainstream feminism supports sexist legislation and harbours many deluded sexists, then yes. Yes I do. Do I think real feminism is sexist? No.

You might have a point about me loosing the right to call myself a feminist however, due to the hijacking of the ideology.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Feminism, in the early 20th century campaigned for very basic democratic rights for women such as the right to vote, attend university etc... The opposition they met was stark. Look at some of the pictures of the first women students. They literally needed a heavy police presence just to cross the thresholds of colleges. And yet all the campaigned for, and all they got, was equality in the name of the law. Society followed a few decades later.

Feminism wanted laws altered to treat women the same as men. Ie. Any law that says 'no woman shall' should be altered or erased from the statute books. If it was flawed from the outset, surely the original campaigns would have campaigned for a reduction of the 'worth' of a mans vote or something similar.

As I already said, around the 80s and 90s things changed. Womens Lib in the UK got too powerful as a lobby group and began asking legislators to make society change their views, as opposed to just changing the law.

You may disagree with me, but ironically your response simply underlined my position. For example, I underlined two things that you claim early feminism worked towards; both of which were about improving the situation for women.

Equality never entered into the equation; you may argue that feminism only sought to improve the situation for women because men held all the cards at the time, but that would be a lie - women were not drafted to war, for example, yet the male-only draft was never actually seriously challenged (if at all) by early feminism.

I would agree that from around the 1970's onwards this partisanship became more apparent, as the gap between the genders began to close, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there already - something that you've not only managed to fail to dismiss, but in your own words actually added further demonstration of.

It's important to return to first principles when assessing feminism's relationship to equality and what we mean by equality; after all equality is not one group having their situation improved alone unless they were disadvantaged in everything - and women were not. Selective reform for equality is not actually reform for equality; it's just one group seeking advantage or improvement under the justification of equality.

This is why I have said that even with early or (as you called it) true feminism, the seeds of its eventual evolution were there from the beginning. This fundamental flaw didn't change, and so enabled feminism's transition from a movement for womens' equality to womens' choice in the last 40 years. It made it inevitable.

You mention height. That's not sexist - it's practical.

Just because something is practical, does not mean it's not sexist. Not employing women of child baring age is also practical, as statistically they're going to have babies and take time out (often never to return) while you spend time and money holding their job with a temp. Should we accept this practical measure too?

It's very easy to create a nominally gender neutral law that is in reality anything but - I suggested quotas favouring men to illustrate the point. However it is the fact that only quotas favouring women are actually proposed, let alone enacted, that effectively betrays the motivations of those pushing for them.

Ultimately any law that de facto overwhelmingly benefits one gender over another is sexist, regardless of whether it nominally is gender neutral - it's designed to be and that's why 'modern' feminism pushes such laws.

You mention primary school teaching and the fact that there has been barely a whimper of similar quotas. A good thing too. I hate to see MRA reduced to pitiful, weak, attempts which feminism now attempts. I'd much rather, as a society, if we stopped looking twice at a male whose profession involves young children. This can be done via the media and conversation

What media and conversation? Tell me; for all of masculim's and the men's rights movement's bumbling campaigning, it's not been any round table group seeking compromise that has highlighted and informed people of discrimination against men that we even denied existed ten years ago.

Personally, I'd agree with you that we'd all be better off if we could all just sit down and work a compromise, but that's not going to happen as things stand any more than women would have been given the vote without agitation a century ago. It's a necessary and, hopefully, temporary evil which one day may be dispensed with as both feminism and masculim are consigned to ideological graveyards.

There is no sexism there to fight against, merely a gender imbalance.

Where do these 'gender imbalances' come from though? Prejudices that women are the primary child carer and men at best some form of parental support, it would seem - it is sexism that creates them, and one would have to be deluded not to admit this.

If your asking me whether or not I think the current form of mainstream feminism supports sexist legislation and harbours many deluded sexists, then yes. Yes I do. Do I think real feminism is sexist? No.

The evidence doesn't correlate, unfortunately. Feminism was needed at the start to get the ball rolling on addressing rights imbalances that disadvantaged women, without which nothing would have likely changed.

As I said, it was a necessary evil, but as those rights imbalances that disadvantaged women were closed off it just continued, when it would have been better for us all that it would have closed shop.

You might have a point about me loosing the right to call myself a feminist however, due to the hijacking of the ideology.

I think you have a very romantic view of historical feminism.

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

I underlined two things that you claim early feminism worked towards; both of which were about improving the situation for women.

Equality never entered into the equation; you may argue that feminism only sought to improve the situation for women because men held all the cards at the time, but that would be a lie - women were not drafted to war, for example, yet the male-only draft was never actually seriously challenged (if at all) by early feminism.

Actually, requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is pretty much the definition of equality.

I see you've used the pittiful argument of military conscription. At the time, and now, there are two school of thoughts on this. The first is that involuntarily becoming a trained killer, forced to run into hails of bullets in trench warfare at the age of 18 for the cause of fat old men who've already lived their lives, is a good thing. A right of passage or something. OR, that it's a barbaric thing to force civilians to become combatants. I'd agree with the latter.

All logic should be able to be applied laterally. So, by your logic, the Jews should have campaigned for the Nurmberg laws to be applied to all Germans, black South Africans should have called for equal discrimination against whites and turkies should call for Christmas.

Cop on man. Look at what you're saying here. All in the face of the fact that women simply didn't even have a meaningful voice at the time.

You're also ignoring the fact that women universally not serving in militaries was something that the 'civilized world' made up and enforced. Sun Tzu references female battalions in his anecdotes, Celtic warriors had female fighters along with a host of other cultures from Asia.

It's important to return to first principles when assessing feminism's relationship to equality and what we mean by equality; after all equality is not one group having their situation improved alone unless they were disadvantaged in everything - and women were not. Selective reform for equality is not actually reform for equality; it's just one group seeking advantage or improvement under the justification of equality.

I'm aware of the importance of returing to principles. And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

I see feminism now as being sexist. they cut their nose off to spite their face. However, you're saying that women on the whole requesting fundamental equality is sexist. It's not. It's their short-term tactics and ignoring equal and opposite men's issues that's sexist. Original feminists did not do this with the issues they campaigned for as they campaigned for huge issues where men were dominant.

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

Just because something is practical, does not mean it's not sexist. Not employing women of child baring age is also practical, as statistically they're going to have babies and take time out (often never to return) while you spend time and money holding their job with a temp. Should we accept this practical measure too?

You know what I mean by practical. Hiring a disabled person should be based on their ability to do the job. Not based on any arrangements you'll have to make to accommodate them. You're intentionally blurring the lines here to argue a defunct point.

[/QUOTE]

Again, you keep providing us with the injustices of men. Women obtain *stupid quotas. If there was to be a real push the same could be achieved by men. You say it's sexist that women do not achieve quotas for men - they do. the quotas are for men and women. They may 'correct' issues faced by women but they are not sexist.

If men wanted to, quotas could be imposed to favour men. I hope they don't. But men dominate the political stage at the minute and a lobby could push it through.

I know the principles are not often adhered too. But it's not sexism. It's human nature.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

Actually, requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is pretty much the definition of equality.

Nope. Requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is seeking equal rights in one area - indeed one that benefits you. Equality is requesting that you are treated equally in all areas - not only those which may benefit you.

I see you've used the pittiful argument of military conscription.

I see that the old tactic of ridiculing and dismissing an opposing argument has finally reared its ugly head.

At the time, and now, there are two school of thoughts on this. The first is that involuntarily becoming a trained killer, forced to run into hails of bullets in trench warfare at the age of 18 for the cause of fat old men who've already lived their lives, is a good thing. A right of passage or something. OR, that it's a barbaric thing to force civilians to become combatants. I'd agree with the latter.

All logic should be able to be applied laterally. So, by your logic, the Jews should have campaigned for the Nurmberg laws to be applied to all Germans, black South Africans should have called for equal discrimination against whites and turkies should call for Christmas.

Logical fallacy on your part, I'm afraid. Equality in this area would have been to campaign that no one should be drafted or both genders would, according to your 'two schools of thought'.

Cop on man. Look at what you're saying here. All in the face of the fact that women simply didn't even have a meaningful voice at the time.

Meaningful enough to get the vote.

I'm aware of the importance of returing to principles. And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

I said first principles; "This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution?" - Marcus Aurelius

If you do that you'd see how such legislation can still be sexist when it references both genders equally.

However, you're saying that women on the whole requesting fundamental equality is sexist.

Again no, I am not saying that - if the early feminists did that you'd be correct. However, almost exclusively (there were some exceptions) they requested equality only in those areas where they were disadvantaged, not where men were disadvantaged (which while fewer in number did exist).

That is ultimately sexist, but back then because the gap was so large, because so many rights were denied of women, it was easy to not notice and for the cause of equality and of partisanship to be aligned. It was only when this gap narrowed that this flaw became visible, but ultimately it was always there.

I've explained this twice or three times at this stage, so I'd appreciate it if you don't come back and claim I said something else again.

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

Wasn't the disenfranchisement of women and logic behind that disenfranchisement not an "outdated practice?

If those "outdated practices" were sexist, I would have thought it the responsibility of feminists, if they are really about equality, to campaign for their abolition.

Or are you saying that feminists are only responsible to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices, when it negatively affects women? If so, that's not actually equality by any definition and I rest my case.

You know what I mean by practical. Hiring a disabled person should be based on their ability to do the job. Not based on any arrangements you'll have to make to accommodate them. You're intentionally blurring the lines here to argue a defunct point.

Fair enough.

If men wanted to, quotas could be imposed to favour men. I hope they don't. But men dominate the political stage at the minute and a lobby could push it through.

We both know that simply because the majority of politicians are male does not actually mean that the interests of men dominate politics. If you were to tell me what political lobby groups are strongest and most influential - those that push for the interests of men as a gender and those that push for the interests of women as a gender - who would you honestly say is the stronger?

Fukuyama

The Corinthian wrote: »

Nope. Requesting that you be allowed vote, alongside your fellow human, equally, is seeking equal rights in one area - indeed one that benefits you. Equality is requesting that you are treated equally in all areas - not only those which may benefit you.

I see that the old tactic of ridiculing and dismissing an opposing argument has finally reared its ugly head.

Logical fallacy on your part, I'm afraid. Equality in this area would have been to campaign that no one should be drafted or both genders would, according to your 'two schools of thought'.

I'll admit to my ignorance concerning feminism and conscription. However, my ignorance of their opposition to it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I came, I saw, I googled. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm

Women opposed conscription not on the basis of their gender but on the existing patriarchy within the armed forces.

Meaningful enough to get the vote.

Not quite. It was male academics who gave feminism the voice they needed.

Again no, I am not saying that - if the early feminists did that you'd be correct. However, almost exclusively (there were some exceptions) they requested equality only in those areas where they were disadvantaged, not where men were disadvantaged (which while fewer in number did exist).

You're ignoring the human side to their campaign. They're not robots. Feminist campaigned for equality on women's issues. Perhaps in a perfect world they would have campaigned at centrally aligned humanists but society and practicality dictated otherwise. Suffragettes would still be spinning their wheels in the muddy trap that is your argument.

I've explained this twice or three times at this stage, so I'd appreciate it if you don't come back and claim I said something else again.

I'm not. I'm saying your applying fundamentals to an ideology that is so humane you cant expect that kind of robotic operation. There's a difference between being guilty of negligence and outwardly sexist and punitive. The latter, is only occurring in TODAY'S movement.

We both know that simply because the majority of politicians are male does not actually mean that the interests of men dominate politics. If you were to tell me what political lobby groups are strongest and most influential - those that push for the interests of men as a gender and those that push for the interests of women as a gender - who would you honestly say is the stronger?

Women. Nobody is trying to argue against that.

A politicians first job upon election is to make sure he or she gets re-elected. If there was a substantial need for change in this country in relation to male rights it'd be a political issue. It isn't.

Father's rights are about the only main issue and it is being questioned and talked about. Even by the most radical of feminists these days (who I'd rather steered clear of the debate altogether).

Any other issues are up to society to hash out ourselves. If a male, 17 y/o gets enough points in the Leaving Cert he will face no barriers to becoming a primary school teacher.

The Corinthian

Dean0088 wrote: »

I'll admit to my ignorance concerning feminism and conscription. However, my ignorance of their opposition to it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

I came, I saw, I googled. http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/peace/DG051-099/dg068.wcoc/dg068.wcochistory.htm

Women opposed conscription not on the basis of their gender but on the existing patriarchy within the armed forces.

Glad to see they were thinking of equality and the men dying on their behalf.

Not quite. It was male academics who gave feminism the voice they needed.

So feminism achieved nothing then?

You're ignoring the human side to their campaign.

I'm not, I'm highlighting it. The whole point is that it was, from the start a movement by women for women. Self-interest and there's nothing wrong with that, but neither can you claim that self-interest breeds egalitarianism or unbiased equality.

I am in complete agreement with you on post-1960's feminism and what it has become today. I completely concur with you on policies such as quotas. However, what I do not share is your rather romantic belief that feminism was a movement for equality that somehow got hijacked and turned into something completely different. The seeds for that sexism were always present in feminism. Individuals in feminism may have been egalitarian and also sought to address men's rights, but this was always a rare exception and nowadays it's basically unheard of (beyond lip service).

Father's rights are about the only main issue and it is being questioned and talked about. Even by the most radical of feminists these days (who I'd rather steered clear of the debate altogether).

Increasingly there are others that are and should be discussed. Father's rights is most discussed, in many respects, because the level of discrimination has become so shamefully extreme.

And as the subject of this thread demonstrates, some radical feminists are more than happy to let us all know their views on this subject, BTW.

Any other issues are up to society to hash out ourselves. If a male, 17 y/o gets enough points in the Leaving Cert he will face no barriers to becoming a primary school teacher.

I suggest you read a few of the threads on boards by male primary teachers and the sort of prejudice and legal nightmares they have to deal with on a daily basis - prompting some to give up.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

And if you did that you'd see how legislation cannot be sexist when it references both genders equally.

If there was legislation that Irish sports teams had to be at least 40% male and 40% female, by your argument that wouldn't be a sexist change/rule. I disagree. If something can give somebody an unfair advantage because of their sex, they can be sexist.

iptba

Dean0088 wrote: »

The other issues, such as conscription, were by-in-large societal barriers which legislation would not have alone changed. You also seem to think it's the responsibility of women to campaign for the abolition of outdated practices.

However, feminism is supposed to embrace men and women in terms of people who can support it.

I can't see why it couldn't/can't argue for conscription and military service for both, if it is involved in pushing to break down other societal barriers to equality.

iptba

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

lol, she writes on jezebel?

Just saw this re: Jezebel:

ETA: Actually, decided to give this a bit less publicity - you'll have to click the link to find it:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/767cf71e6f2fb764daf11836b7968a8b/tumblr_mqdvor3m8k1r7pphso1_1280.jpg